1/25

Nokia Siemens Networks Mobile WiMAX coexistence

When WiMAX is deployed in spectrum adjacent to other technologies
Leonid Bogod 30.07.2008

Technical White paper

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

2/25

Mobile WiMAX coexistence

1. Executive summary
Mobile WiMAX operates at frequencies higher than 2GHz as a Time Division Duplex (TDD) system. In most cases, Mobile WiMAX deployment occurs with Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) systems in the adjacent bands, for example, with Long Term Evolution (LTE) or Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA) systems in the 2.5GHz band and with Fixed WiMAX in the 3.5GHz band. Simultaneous operation of transmitters and receivers from unsynchronized systems may cause interference and degrade receiver sensitivity. It is very important to know in advance the mutual effect of interference between systems and how to minimize it. For the purpose of increasing frequency utilization, local regulators want to minimize the guard band between TDD and FDD systems. The regulator can specify a block-edge mask and an external guard band. However, an operator may introduce an internal guard band based on product parameters and on allowed receiver desensitization. On one hand, the internal guard band helps the operator meet the block-edge mask for the transmitter and reduce the requirements for a receiver filter. On the other hand, the internal guard band wastes spectrum. To find the optimum internal guard band value is one of the goals of this study (3.5GHz case). Another aim of the study is to provide information on the required coupling loss between TDD and FDD base stations. To minimize capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operational expenditures (OPEX), operators quite often want to share the same sites, a deployment called co-siting. In this case, antenna placement needs to be done very carefully to achieve maximum decoupling. In addition, the decoupling value cannot be arbitrarily large for the separated sides. To maximize revenue, the operators would like serve the same areas with high population, which means the distance between different network sites cannot be more than a half of cell radius on average, i.e., around 0.5km, and antenna placement should support maximum antenna pointing loss. Coexistence of two TDD networks is achievable without any additional coupling loss if both uplink and downlink are synchronized, i.e., transmitted and received time frames are the same as well as the starting points. If some of these conditions are not valid, then the two TDD base stations impact each other. In the case of two unsynchronized TDD systems, the requirements for coexistence are quite similar to those for TDD/FDD systems. This paper analyzes Mobile WiMAX coexistence allocation in the 3.5GHz and 2.5GHz bands in the presence of FDD systems in the adjacent channels. Coexistence conditions have been calculated assuming that the network product parameters are in compliance with the most relevant coexistence standards and regulator recommendations.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

3/25

1.1

List of abbreviations
3GPP ACLR ACS BS BW CAPEX CEPT DL ECC ESD EGB EIRP ETSI FDD FSL GB IMP IGB IRC ITU LOS LTE MRC NF OPEX Rx SEM SINR TDD Tx UL WCDMA WiMAX 3rd Generation Partnership Project Adjacent Channel Leakage power Ratio Adjacent Channel Selectivity Base Station Bandwidth Capital Expenditure Conference of European Postal & Telecommunications Downlink Electronic Communication Committee Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation External Guard Band Emission Isotropic Radiated Power European Telecommunications Standards Institute Frequency Division Duplex Free Space Loss Guard Band Intermodulation Product Internal Guard Band Interference Rejection Combining International Telecommunication Union Line-of-Sight Long Term Evolution Maximum Ratio Combining Receiver Noise Figure Operational Expenditure Receiver Spectrum Emission Mask Signal to Interference-plus-Noise Ratio Time Division Duplex Transmitter Uplink Wideband Code Division Multiple Access Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

4/25

2. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to specify minimum requirements to support coexisting deployment of Mobile WiMAX Networks with other unsynchronized systems. These recommendations are based on the latest available standards and regulations. The WiMAX Forum, ITU, ECC and regulators have actively studied the same topic. However, those studies are based on theoretical base station (BS) parameters and they do not correspond necessarily to real situations. Additionally, the studies include an abstract mathematical analysis that makes them difficult to use in practice. Most cellular networks today use the FDD method, while Mobile WiMAX is a TDD system. Synchronization is typically not assumed for FDD systems; here we assume the same for co-existence with Mobile WiMAX No timing synchronization. To increase revenue from a spectrum auction, local frequency regulators are selling frequency blocks without any guard bands. However, operators need to introduce an internal guard band to full fill out-off-band emission requirements and to protect own receiver from an intolerable desensitization value How much an internal guard band is needed? All operators try to cover areas with the highest population density to increase revenue. This means unsynchronized (TDD and FDD) networks will likely be built in the same geographical area What is the minimum geographical separation needed among the sites? Alternatively, to save capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operating expenditure (OPEX), operators always try to re-use existing sites. For example, Mobile WiMAX BSs could be placed at the same site with FDD BSs How to place antennas to achieve secure decoupling loss?

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

5/25

3. Technical background
The BS transmitter (aggressor) from one network may impact the BS receiver from another network when these networks cover the same geographical area. In this case several deployment scenarios are possible: a) Two unsynchronized BSs are placed at separate sites (separated case) b) Co-sited deployment refers to transmitting facilities that operate at the same site using a common tower or mast . Depending on the deployment case, interference will decrease by propagation loss or by antenna coupling loss for separated and co-sited case, respectively. The mutual interference is caused by non-idealities of the transmitter (aggressor) and the victim receiver. These effects can be analyzed depending on the frequency separation of the systems: 1. Aggressor transmitter and victim receiver are in adjacent channels. The mutual effects can be calculated by Adjacent Channel power Leakage Ratio (ACLR) of the transmitter and Adjacent Channel Selectivity (ACS) of the receiver. 2. Aggressor transmitter and victim receiver channels are separated by at least two times the channel bandwidths. In this case, the spurious emissions of the transmitter and the blocking characteristics of the receiver must be considered when allocating bandwidth. Within this White paper, we consider only the first case, which corresponds to a worst-case situation. Additionally, it is important to carefully calculate the effect of the intermodulation distortion product, which is caused by receiver non-linearity. This calculation should be based on the receiver parameters and frequency plan.

3.1

Interference sources

Radio signals are difficult to restrain both in space and in frequency, especially for wideband transmission. As shown in Figure 1, there are three main sources of co-channel interference (blocking effect is not shown): Out-of-band interference (interference 1), resulting from the modulation process and nonlinearity in the transmitter and represented by ACLR. Interference 1 is calculated as a subtraction (in dB) of output power and ACLR value. Interference caused by non-ideality of a receiver filter (Interference 2). This measurement shows how much unwanted power leaks to the receiver against the ideal receiver filter (shaded blue area), or how well the receiver filter can reject the dominant signal from an adjacent channel, i.e., Adjacent Channel Selectivity (ACS). Interference 2 is calculated as a subtraction (in dB) of output power and ACS value.
2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

6/25

Victim Rx

Tx Pout (aggressor)

Tx SEM Rx filter Interfererence1 Interfererence2

ACLR ACS

In-band

Adjacent band

Figure 1: Interference sources (blocking effect is not shown).

3.2

Interference mitigation techniques

Several interference mitigation methods are used for deployments where WiMAX needs to coexist with other systems without inter-operator synchronization.

3.2.1

External filter

An external filter can improve the transmitter emission mask and the receiver filter selectivity. Unfortunately, the external filter may be bulky and expensive. Additionally, the external filter has approximately 1.5dB insertion loss that will have an effect on transmission power and receiver sensitivity.

3.2.2

Frequency planning

A frequency plan can mitigate interference avoiding the use of adjacent frequency channels by an unsynchronized transmission system. The simulation results presented in Sections 4.4 and 5.3 show that it is not possible to achieve a technology-neutral deployment for two networks operated in the same geographical area without a frequency guard band. Guard bands are needed to facilitate external filtering by providing a transition band for filter roll-off.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

7/25

3.2.3

Antenna pointing loss

Deployment of two BSs with three-sector antennas is presented in Figure 2. 3dB pointing loss can be achieved easily with the 65 half-power, beam-width antenna pattern. Additional isolation may be available from the vertical down tilt of the antennas, however, this is not considered further in the following worst-case analysis.

gain 17dBi

gain 17dB

gain <14dBi

gain <14dBi Antenna pointing loss (3+3) dB

gain 17dBi

gain 17dBi

gain 17dBi

gain 17dBi

Figure 2: Base station deployment and pointing loss.

3.2.4

Antenna decoupling

To save CAPEX and OPEX, network operators try to reuse existing sites, for example, by co-siting WiMAX BS antennas with other antennas. These antennas can be placed on the same mast (vertical separation) or on the same level (horizontal separation). The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards usually assume a 30dB coupling loss between unsynchronized TDD base stations for a co-siting deployment (Reference 4). However, according to measurements described in Reference 1 and information provided by the antenna manufacturer Kathrein, a decoupling value of 56dB (vertical separation) and 50dB (horizontal separation) can be achieved with reasonable 1-2m separation and careful antenna installation.

3.2.5

Baseband methods

Receiver diversity channels in a combined implementation in the base station can give several dB gain in the link budget. The combining solutions can be Maximum Ratio Combining (MRC) or Interference Rejection Combining (IRC). MRC is the optimal solution when the interference is mainly white Gaussian noise, while IRC provides additional Signal to Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) gain in the case of dominant interferers.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

8/25

4. Analysis approach
4.1 Equivalent sensitivity degradation
An operator will see an impact of the interference as a reduction of the cell coverage and throughput capacity. From a technical point of view, the interference increases the noise floor that causes BS receiver degradation. Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation (ESD) is the subtraction between the receiver sensitivity without and with interference. ESD is described in Reference 1 and can be calculated as Equation 1:
Cint N floor ESD [dB ] = 10 Log 10 1 + 10 10

(Equation 1)

Where: Cint: Interferer contribution into receiver [dBm] Nfloor: Noise floor of receiver [dBm] Cint is the sum of the interference that falls within the receiver filter. Nfloor at room temperature is calculated as Equation 2:

N flloor [dB ] = 174 + 10 Log 10 ( BW ) + NF

Where: BW: Operating bandwidth in MHz NF: Receiver noise figure in dB

(Equation 2)

These calculations show that ESD does not depend on the network service type and it can be applied to any network. It shall be noted that no intra-system interference (e.g. due to emissions from co-channel mobiles) was assumed in the definition of the ESD. Hence, the ESD, as defined here, corresponds to the thermal noise limited case i.e. worst case conditions as far as the relative impact due to adjacent channel interference is concerned.

4.2

Interference source contribution

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

9/25

As shown in Section 2.1, there are several interference sources. The interferer contribution can be calculated as the linear sum (in mW) of the various interference sources as descried in 3.1
f3 f2 Interference1 _ mW ( f )df + Interfernce2 _ mW ( f )df f1 f2 Interfer _ total (dBm / MHz) = BW 1

Equation 3 _ dB

Where: BW1= f2-f1 assigned channel; (f3-f2) = bandwidth determinable by an actual RX filter across the adjacent channel _mW =dB conversion to mW; _dB = mW conversion to dB

Equation 3 can be rewritten in a more common manner (Equation 4):

Interfer _ total(dBm) = ( Pout _ mW * (

(Equation 4) Where:

1 1 1 1 + + + )) _ dB ACLR1 _ mW ACLR2 _ mW ACS1 _ mW ACS 2 _ mW

Pout: Aggressor output power in mW; ACLR1_mW and ACLR2_mW: Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio for 1st and 2nd adjacent channels, respectively, in linear form ACS1_mW and ACS2_mW: Adjacent Channel receiver Selectivity for 1st and 2nd adjacent channels, respectively, in linear form An interference level on the receiver is a subtraction from the transmitter interference level and losses that depend on the deployment scenario (Section 2.2). To calculate the interference level at the receiver, several parameters need to be taken into account (Equation 5):

Interfer _ Rx(dB) = Interfer _ total (FSL Gant + APL + FL + OTH )

(Equation 5)

Where: Gant: total antenna gain of aggressor and victim combined FSL: Free Space Loss APL: Antenna pointing loss FL: Fading loss OTH: Others

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

10/25

4.3

Propagation model

In this paper, the propagation loss is calculated by the most commonly used Free Space Propagation Loss model (Reference 2) that gives minimum attenuation for Line-of-Sight propagation (Equation 6):

FSL = 32.44 + 20 Log 10 ( F ) + 20 Log 10 ( D )

Where: F is the operating frequency (in GHz) D is the distance (in meters)

(Equation 6)

The operator can modify the results to add fading loss, rain effect, reflection and other factors according to real allocation conditions.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

11/25

5. Mobile WiMAX deployment at 3.5GHz

For Mobile WiMAX operation, the most commonly available frequency bands in many European countries are 3400-3600 MHz and 3600-3800 MHz. Previously, licenses for those bands were issued for Fixed WiMAX. The Fixed WiMAX is a FDD system while the Mobile WiMAX is a TDD system. It means that to Mobile WiMAX (TDD) BS needs to coexist with Fixed WiMAX (FDD) BS in this band. In other words, the Mobile WiMAX deployment should support a technology-neutral allocation.

5.1

Frequency licenses

In the 3.5GHz band, frequency licenses are often given for Broadband Wireless Access without specifically mentioning the access method. This licensing has been the case in Germany and Italy among other countries. Figure 3 shows the frequency license band allocations that were issued in Italy. In certain geographical areas, each block (two times 21MHz) A, B or C was given to only one operator. For example, block A consists of 3437-3458MHz and 3537-3558MHz. The operator can use these bands for a FDD system with 100MHz downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) separation, or for TDD systems as two separate carriers.

Figure 3: Frequency band allocation (3.5GHz) for Broadband Wireless Access in Italy. To harmonize FDD and TDD deployment in the same geographical area, local regulators in most European countries require that a base stations block-edge-spectrum-emission masks are in compliance with ECC RECOMMENDATION (04)05 (Reference 3).

5.2

Block-edge-spectrum-emission mask

The ECC Recommendation (04)05 specifies the maximum in-band Emission Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) and out-of-band or block-edge mask. The recommendation includes some assumptions about the internal and external guard bands, but exact values for these bands depend on operator requirements, the deployment scenario and network equipment specifications.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

12/25

According to ECC Recommendation (04)05, the transmitter Block-Edge-Spectrum-Emission Mask (SEM) should be above the red line (block-edge mask) as shown in Figure 4. Those requirements are not possible to be achieved without an external filter and a guard band towards the aggressor. It is clear that in the case of a more linear transmitter and a stronger filter, a Tx guard band could be smaller. On the other hand, a block-edge mask determines how much interference falls into the victim receiver. With a decrease in the internal guard band, the victim receiver will move to the aggressor band and total interference will increase. To achieve minimum receiver degradation, the Rx guard band should be as big as 35% of the aggressor assigned block. Figure 4 shows the following case, which is also discussed as case 1 in Section 4.3: Assigned block is 21MHz Internal and external guard band is 3.5MHz Occupied band is 2x7MHz

Figure 4: The base stations block-edge-spectral-density mask defined in ECC Recommendation (04)05. (assigned block is 21MHz)

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

13/25

5.3

Channel allocation

Assuming the operator can use the 21MHz band, many different channel allocation scenarios can be considered. The following cases are the most relevant: 1. Unsynchronized aggressor system on both sides of the assigned band: a. Occupied band: 14MHz, Internal Guard Band (IGB): 3.5MHz, External Guard Band (EGB): 3.5MHz
Operator A (victim)
7MHz 21MHz 7MHz

IGB EGB

Operator B (Aggressor)
7MHz 7MHz 21MHz

b. Occupied band: 15MHz, IGB: 3.0MHz, EGB: 3.0MHz

Operator A (victim)
5MHz 5MHz 21MHz 5MHz IGB EGB

Operator B (Aggressor)
5MHz 5MHz 21MHz 5MHz

2. Unsynchronized aggressor system on one side of the assigned band: a. Occupied band: 15MHz, IGB: 6.0MHz, EGB: 3.0MHz
IGB 6.0MHzEGB 3.0MHz Operator B (Aggressor)

Operator A (victim) 5MHz 5MHz 21MHz

5MHz

5MHz

5MHz 21MHz

5MHz

b. Occupied band: 17MHz, IGB: 4.0MHz, EGB: 3.0MHz

Operator A (victim) 5MHz 7MHz 21MHz 5MHz EGB IGB 4MHz 3.0MHz 5MHz Operator B (Aggressor) 5MHz 21MHz 5MHz

c. Occupied band: 19MHz, IGB: 2.0MHz, EGB: 2.0MHz

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

14/25

Operator A (victim)
7MHz 5MHz

IGB EGB 2MHz 2MHz 5MHz

Operator B (Aggressor)

7MHz

7MHz 21MHz

7MHz

21MHz

The cases 2b and 2c have unequal channels inside the occupied band. In those cases, the channel with the minimum bandwidth should be allocated on the border with the most sensitive alien systems in order to decrease out-of-band emission.

5.4

Simulation results

The simulation results represent a deterministic approach. i.e., without any probability distribution of the base stations. As shown in Section 3: Total interference is the integral of all interferers which fall into the receiver filter band Total interference depends on an internal guard band and receiver bandwidth and selectivity Receiver selectivity is the aggregation of internal receiver parameters and external filter response

The simulation calculations used Equations 2-5, with the block-edge-spectral-density mask defined in Reference 3 and receiver typical values defined in Table 1. According to explanatory notes from Australias regulator (Reference 7), a co-located deployment (BSs) consists of a co-sited deployment and it refers to transmitting facilities that provide a service to the same geographical area but may use multiple towers and masts on one or more sites. In this paper, a co-located deployment is divided into two cases: a) Two unsynchronized BSs in the same geographical area (separated sites) b) Co-sited deployment refers to transmitting facilities that operate at the same site using a common tower or mast Common parameters used in the calculation of receiver sensitivity degradation are shown in Table 1. Table 1: Parameters for calculating receiver sensitivity degradation. Parameter Spectrum Emission Mask Output power NF ACS External filter frequency response Value According to ECC(04)05 10 W 6 dB Depends on IGB, min. 40 dB To fulfill Spectrum Emission Mask

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

15/25

External filter insertion loss Antenna gain Antenna pointing loss

1.5 dB 17 dB 3 dB

5.4.1

Separated sites

In the case where two BSs are located on separated sites, the interference will be increased by the antenna gain and attenuated by the antenna pointing loss and propagation loss. Figure 5 shows that BS receiver degradation depends on coupling loss between two unsynchronized BSs for the cases described in Section 4.3. For demonstration purposes, the coupling loss is converted to the separation distance between BSs by using Equation 6 and a total 6dB antenna pointing loss. One can see from Equation 6 that the Free Space propagation Loss (FSL) for certain operating frequencies depends only on the separation distance.

Receiver Sensitivity degradation

18.0 15.0 S degradation, dB 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 BS separation distance, m
BW=14MHz,IGB=3.5MHz,EGB=3.5MHz BW=15MHz,IGB=3MHz,EGB=3MHz BW=15MHz,IGB=6MHz,EGB=3MHz BW=17MHz,IGB=4 EGB=3MHz BW=19MHz,IGB=2MHz,EGB=2MHz

Figure 5: WiMAX BS receiver degradation in the presence of an unsynchronized BS in the same geographical area (excluding external filter loss of approximately 1.5dB). Based on knowledge of the distance between a site and an aggressor BS, as well as band plans and an acceptable receiver degradation value, the operator can determine the internal guard-band value needed (Figure 5). For example, if:

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

16/25

The aggressor is 200m from the BS site being studied And the aggressor is neighboring on one side of a block (case 2 in Section 4.3) The acceptable receiver degradation is 3dB

Then, in accordance with Figure 5, the operator can use a 17MHz operating band and leave 4MHz as the internal guard band.

5.4.2

Co-siting deployment

Co-siting deployment, the case where two or more BSs share the same site, is preferred by operators to save CAPEX and OPEX. In the co-siting case, the total interference at the receiver will be decreased only by coupling loss. The simulation results for the cases described in Section 4.3 are shown in Figure 6.

Receiver Sensitivity degradation

39.0 36.0 33.0 30.0 27.0 24.0 21.0 18.0 15.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

BW=14MHz,IGB=3.5,EGB=3.5MHz BW=15MHz,IGB=3MHz,EGB=3MHz BW=15MHz,IGB=6MHz,EGB=3MHz BW=17MHz,IGB=4MHz,EGB=3MHz BW=19MHz,IGB=2MHz,EGB=2MHz

S degradation, dB

65

70

75

80

85

90

95 100

BS isolation, dB

Figure 6: WiMAX BS receiver desensitization for co-siting deployment with an unsynchronized BS (excluding external filter loss of approximately 1.5dB). When calculating limiting requirements (e.g., spurious emissions, ACLR), the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) standards usually assume a 30dB coupling loss between unsynchronized TDD base stations for a co-siting deployment (Reference 4).

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

17/25

However, according to measurements shown in Reference 1 and information from the antenna manufacturer Kathrein, a decoupling value of 56dB (vertical separation) and 50dB (horizontal separation) can be achieved with reasonable 1-2m distance. A comparison of these values with Figure 6 shows the operator should use a minimum internal guard band of 4MHz to achieve less than 3dB receiver desensitization. A co-siting deployment for uncoordinated BSs with less than 3MHz internal guard band is possible if: 1. The operator accepts more than 4dB desensitization or 2. An interference mitigation technique is used (see Section 2.2) or 3. Antennas are placed on different floors The situation will be different if the assigned block has another size, e.g., 14 MHz in Hungary and 15 MHz in France. The smaller block size will require a stronger blockedge mask that will cause less interference from the aggressor transmitter and less ESD of the victim receiver. For example, achieving 3dB ESD with 3.5GHz IGB can be done for a 14MHz block with 52dB antenna coupling loss and for a 21MHz block with 58dB antenna coupling loss. Of course, the useful frequency band for the 14MHz block is almost two times less.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

18/25

6. Mobile WiMAX deployment in 2.5GHz

The 2.5GHz band is expected to be the most popular frequency band for Mobile WiMAX deployment in European countries. Mobile WiMAX may be deployed within the frequency gap between the FDD downlink and uplink.

6.1

Frequency channeling arrangement

In the CEPT (Conference of European Postal & Telecommunications) band plan proposed by the ECC (04)05 decision, the channeling arrangement shown in Figure 7 is allowed for Mobile WiMAX deployment in the 2.5GHz band. TDD systems such as Mobile WiMAX or LTE-TDD could be allocated within the gap between the FDD downlink and uplink.
2500 MHz FDD- UL 2570 MHz WiMAX TDD 2620 MHz FDD- DL 2690 MHz

FDD BS

TDD BS

TDD BS

FDD BS

Figure 7: CEPT band plan proposed by ECC Decision (05)05. In many European countries, only 40MHz will be available for the TDD (WiMAX or LTE) allocation and a total of 10MHz (i.e. 5 MHz at each FDD/TDD transition frequency) will be used as guard bands to mitigate the interference effect of aggressor transmitters on a victim receiver (Figure 7). However, in some countries such as the UK and Norway, the local regulator is proposing a flexible FDD/TDD transition frequency. This proposal is in line with a new regulation for the 2.6 GHz frequency band, published by the European Commission in July, 2008 (Reference 9). When the TDD system (WiMAX) resides within the gap between the FDD downlink and uplink, there are mutual effects on both systems: WiMAX (TDD) is affected by transmissions from the unsynchronized FDD BS (i.e., WCDMA or LTE) and WiMAX (TDD) could cause interference problems for the FDD receiver. Most likely the TDD band will be shared among several operators. To avoid interference, the networks operated in the geographical area should be synchronized. Otherwise, mutual interference between them will be similar to TDD-FDD interference.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

19/25

6.2

Regulations

As of mid-2008, two documents regulate coexisting deployments in the 2.5GHz band in EU countries: ETSI EN 302 544-1 (Reference 5) and CEPT Report 019 (Reference 6) (based on the ECC SE42 Recommendation). In the EU, a network product must comply with ETSI EN 301 544-1 (Reference 5) in order to be placed on the market. However, a preliminary analysis shows that even if WiMAX BSs are in compliance with the specification in Reference 5, some coexistence issues remain as the spurious emission level of -45dBm/MHz applies only for a frequency gap of more than two time the channel bandwidths between the unsynchronized systems. The local regulator could therefore require a more restrictive Block edge mask (BEM) limit for network deployment, such as the EIRP limit specified in ECC SE42 Recommendation (as e.g. is the case in Sweden). Figure 8 shows an example of a TDD EIRP BEM for a 20MHz TDD license block that is adjacent to a FDD uplink (UL) spectrum block.

60

FDD-UL
40 20 0 20 40 2500 2520 2540 2560 2580 2600 2620 2640

FDD-DL
4 dBm/MHz

-45 dBm/MHz

2660

2680

Figure 8: TDD BEM for a 20MHz TDD license adjacent to FDD uplink (UL) spectrum block (Reference 6). 5MHz guard band is applied on both TDD/FDD transition frequencies: the 2570-2575MHz guard band protects the FDD uplink from TDD emissions and the 2615-2620MHz guard band facilitates the stringent TX filtering requirements for the FDD BS. Both guard bands are taken from the TDD region. At frequencies below those guard bands, a -45dBm/MHz EIRP value must be fulfilled by any aggressor transmitter. All following calculations are made according to the CEPT 019 Report (ECC SE42 Recommendation).

6.3

Simulation results

Figure 9 helps operators understand and calculate the interference that falls into the receiver bands in the case where WiMAX (TDD) and LTE (FDD) co-exist on adjacent frequencies.
2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

20/25

FDD(LTE)-UL
FDD Rx External filter 36dBm/MHz FDD Rx channel filter -13dBm/MHz

WiMAX TDD
TDD External filter

FDD(LTE)-DL

TDD Rx channel filter

Figure 9: Interference levels (according to SE42) and filters related to co-existing FDD/TDD (10MHz BW), Antenna Gain with cable loss is 17dB) Table 2 shows common parameters of WiMAX (typical values) and LTE (according to 3GPP TS 36.104v8) that are used for determining selectivity degradation on the victim receiver. Table 2: Parameters for the coexistence calculation. LTE Channel bandwidth (for both, WiMAX and LTE) Output Power spectral density, dBm/MHz Rx bandwidth, MHz External Filter (Rx) attenuation from the channel edge, dB ACS1, dB ACS2, dB Noise floor, dBm Antenna gain Pointing loss, dB 5MHz 36 4.8 50 at 5MHz 42 67 -102 17 3 WiMAX 10MHz 33 9.6 60 at 10MHz 42 67 -99 17 3 WiMAX 5MHz 36 4.5 50 at 5MHz 45.7 54.7 -102.5 17 3 LTE 10MHz 33 9.0 60 at 10MHz 45.7 54.7 -99.5 17 3 Pout=20W Comments

Power density at antenna

-62dBm/MHz

To reject blocking

NF=5dB

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

21/25

Interference of a WiMAX transmitter to a LTE receiver and interference of a LTE transmitter to a WiMAX receiver have been calculated by using Equation 4. The calculations show if WiMAX and LTE are occupied on adjacent channels with 5MHz guard band, 3dB receiver sensitivity degradation can be achieved only with significant external filtration on the receiver side. For WiMAX, the same filter can be also used for Spectral Emission Mask (SEM) shaping, but for LTE-FDD system it requires an additional RX filter. Filter requirements can be relaxed if: aggressor emission to in guard band is less Guard band is more than 5MHz, e.g. if the systems are not adjacent Actual implemented ACS value of the BS is larger More than 3dB receiver sensitivity degradation is allowed or allowance for intra-system interference is made

Two coexisting deployment scenarios are considered in the following calculations (the scenarios are described in Section 4.4): a) Separated sites and b) Co-sited sites

6.3.1

Separated sites

In the case of two BSs that are located at separated sites, the interference will be increased by antenna gain and attenuated by antenna pointing loss and propagation loss. Figures 10 a) and b) show the effect of BS Tx LTE on the BS WiMAX receiver and BS Tx WiMAX on the BS LTE receiver, respectively. The effect depends on coupling loss. For demonstration purposes, the coupling loss is converted to the separation distance between the BSs by using Equation 6 and the total 6dB antenna pointing loss is taken into account.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

22/25

20W LTE Tx in adjacent channel

20W WiMAX Tx in adjacent channel

WiMAX Receiver ESD, dB

21.0 18.0 15.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0 100 200 300 400 500
BS to BS Separation, m

21.0

5MHz BW 10MHz BW

LTE Receiver ESD, dB

18.0 15.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 0 100 200

5MHz BW 10MHz BW

300

400

500

BS to BS Separation, m

a)

b)

Figure 10: Receiver Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation (ESD) depends on relative BS separation. a) LTE Tx to WIMAX Rx. b) WiMAX Tx to LTE Rx. According to the simulation results (Figure 10), the interference effects of LTE Tx to WiMAX Rx and WiMAX Tx on LTE Rx quite similar for the 5MHz and 10MHz bandwidth. The separation distance between LTE and WiMAX base station should be between 140 and 160 m, to achieve 3dB Rx sensitivity desensitization when taken into account nonideality of the victim receiver. The separation distance can be decreased approximately on 50m if ACS1 and ACS2 are 50dB and 70dB, respectively. Of course results will vary depending on: Tx output power Antenna gain and pointing loss Actual ACS and external filter values

6.3.2

Co-siting case

In the co-siting case, total interference at the receiver will decrease only with antenna coupling loss. The simulation results are shown in Figure 11.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

23/25

20W LTE Tx in adjacent channel

WiMAX Receiver ESD, dB

20W WiMAX Tx in adjacent channel

18.0 15.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80

15.0 12.0 9.0 6.0 3.0 0.0

5MHz BW 10MHz BW

LTE Receiver ESD, dB

18.0

5MHz BW 10MHz BW

30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
BS to BS decoupling, dB

BS to BS decoupling, dB

a)

b)

Figure 11: Receiver Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation (ESD) depends on antenna decoupling at the BSs a) LTE Tx to WIMAX Rx b) WiMAX Tx to LTE Rx. One can see that in order to achieve 3dB receiver sensitivity degradation will require 51-52dB antenna decoupling. According to experimental results such decoupling values can be achieved with careful antenna installation.

7. Conclusions
This paper has analyzed the coexistence of Mobile WiMAX with FDD systems in the most popular allocation bands (3.5GHz and 2.5GHz). Unsynchronized WIMAX was assumed as an alien system in the 3.5GHz case and LTE in the 2.5GHz case. These two cases were handled in a slightly different way. For the 3.5GHz case, an assigned block of 21MHz is assumed and a transmitter block-edgeemission mask in compliance with Reference 3. The required internal guard band (IGB) and maximum operated band have been calculated based on several factors: 1. 2. 3. 4. An alien system on one or both sides of the assigned block Allowable WiMAX victim receiver desensitization Co-sited or separate sites Coupling loss between base stations

Table 5 shows the summary of the simulations that allowed 3dB receiver desensitization.

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

24/25

Table 5: Calculated required BS separation and antenna decoupling for different deployments (3.5GHz band). Required BS Required antenna to BS decoupling, dB separation*), m (co-siting) *) 2x7MHz 3.5 (+3.5) MHz 140 57 3x5MHz 3.0 (+3.0) MHz 230 63 3x5MHz 6.0 (+3.0) MHz <100 50 5+7+5 MHz 4.0 (+3.0) MHz 105 56 5+7+7 MHz 2.0 (+2.0) MHz 670 72 *) 3dB Rx desensitization allowed, filter IL is not included Operating Bandwidth Internal GB (+External GB) Aggressor on both sides both sides one side one side one side

1 2 3 4 5

If the occupied band consists of unequal channels, then the channel with minimum bandwidth should be allocated on the border with the most sensitive alien systems to decrease out-of-band emission. Coexistence with the 2.0 MHz internal guard band (case #5 in Table 5), is impossible to achieve without inter-operator cooperation for more restricted block edge masks, more antenna coupling or pointing loss, etc. Of course, if the operator allows more than 3dB receiver desensitization, the antenna coupling values could be less (see Figure 5 and Figure 6). Mobile WiMAX and LTE coexistence has been analyzed in the 2.5GHz band because most probably LTE will be deployed in paired blocks (see Figure 7) in many countries. In order to achieve coexistence in the 2.5GHz band, the network equipment should be in compliance with the Block edge masks of the ECC SE42 Recommendation (Reference 6). This compliance means that at least 5MHz guard bands between FDD and TDD systems are applied (from both sides of the centre TDDallocation) and the BEM is implemented as shown in Figure 8. In the presence of interferers in an adjacent channel (Figure 9), Equivalent Sensitivity Degradation (ESD) was calculated for LTE and Mobile WiMAX receiver (Figure 10 and Figure 11) under near worst case conditions. The simulation results are show that 3dB receiver sensitivity degradation will require 51-52dB antenna decoupling or 150m separation for co-site and separation case, respectively. The separation distance can be decreased approximately on 50m by improving ideality of victim receiver (i.e. ACS).

Finally, this study shows that coexistence of TDD (Mobile WiMAX) and FDD systems operated in adjacent channels can be achieved with 3dB (or lower) receiver ESD when appropriate guard bands and coupling losses are provided. Practical issues of network planning are described in the Nokia Siemens Networks paper Mobile WiMAX Radio Network Planning and Dimensioning Guide.
2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.

25/25

8. References:
1. GSM900, GSM1800 and UMTS FDD cositing analysis, COST 273TD(03)121, D.Bouguet, May, 2003 2. IEEE L802.16-07/070r1, R. Arefi, 15.11.2007 (propagation) 3. ECC RECOMMENDATION (04)05 4. 3GPP TS 25.105v7.7.0 (2007-10) p.32 5. ETSI EN 302 544-1 v1.1.0, 2008-5 6. CEPT Report 019 (Draft), December 2007 7. http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/1001/pc=PC_91856 8. ETSI TS 36.104v8, 2007-12 9. http://www.bbwexchange.com/pubs/2008/07/09/page1423-2862561.asp

2008 Nokia Siemens Networks. All rights reserved.