Design Paper: WiMAX Coexistence Issues

WiMAX Coexistence Issues

Several rules and constraints apply to the spectrum usage. One of the key considerations is the needs to ensure co-existence between the various networks deployed in a same area. To achieve this objective, two major sources of constraints exist: the regulation rules applicable by default and the interference analysis done specifically for the collocated networks. As they are numerous frequency bands, regulation rules and co-located networks, coexistence analysis must be performed following the most generic parameters and rules

1. 1.1

COEXISTENCE CONSTRAINTS WITH OTHER NETWORKS Scenarios

The main drivers of the spectrum use are the available bandwidth and the cohabitation/collocation constraints. The most critical interferences between networks in adjacent bands occur between two unsynchronized TDD networks, or between TDD and FDD networks. The following interference scenarios are considered: BS to BS (based on deterministic, worst case calculations),
TDD f FDD
TDD specific Downlink TDD or FDD Downlink TDD or FDD Downlink TDD specific Downlink

BS to TS (based on Monte Carlo simulations), TS to BS (based on Monte Carlo simulations), TS to TS (based on deterministic calculations simulations). and Monte Carlo

Downlink

Uplink

Downlink

Uplink

Downlink

Uplink

Downlink

Uplink

BS to BS FDD TDD

BS to TS

TS to BS

TS to TS

Uplink

Uplink

Uplink

Uplink

Downlink

Uplink

Downlink

Uplink

Downlink

Uplink

Downlink

Uplink

For the above scenarios, both, BS collocation and non-collocation are taken into consideration.

Both BS and terminals are to be considered for coexistence study. Interferences created from and to Alcatel-Lucent WiMAX solution are analysed.

Alcatel-Lucent File Reference

3DC 21151 4016 TQZZA

Date
07/2008

Edition
Ed 03

Page
1

All rights reserved. Passing on and copying of this document, use and communication of its contents not permitted without written authorisation.

Design Paper: WiMAX Coexistence Issues

1.2

Interference mechanisms considered

Four main characteristics intervene in coexistence mechanisms: The interfering transmitter unwanted
Transmitter Receiver

emission into the victim channel; the emission mask of the equipment gives this. This is the power from the interferer that leaks into the victim Rx bandwidth. It can also be considered by the ACLR parameter frequency bands. The receiver filtering imperfection; the receiver mask of the equipment gives this. This is the power picked up from the interferer by the overlap of the victim receiver filter with the interfering Tx bandwidth. It can also be considered by the ACS parameter (Adjacent Channel Selectivity). This is critical for coexistence with networks in adjacent frequency bands. The blocking level that represents the maximum tolerable power at RF connectors of the equipment, coming from other networks. If the equipment receives a too strong interferer, even if this is not in its receiver bandwidth, this may overload the first amplifier stage. The blocking level depends on the frequency band of the interferer. This is critical for coexistence with co-located networks, not necessarily limited to adjacent frequency bands. The spurious: unwanted emissions of an interferer far from its frequency band. These emissions increase the interference level of the victim network when they are in its receiver bandwidth. This criterion is critical for coexistence between co-located but non-adjacent networks.
Filter imperfections Unwanted emission

(Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio). This is critical for coexistence with networks in adjacent

1.3

Criteria for coexistence

The interference assessment criterion is a maximum I/N, the threshold is put at -10dB. This produces a 0.4dB receiver desensitisation caused by the noise rise.

2.

MASKS AND REGULATION

There are mainly two regulations encountered, here are given the masks applying to BS: ECC o EN 302 326-2 gives essential requirements of equipment. The WiMAX ETSI mask refers to EqC-PET=O (EMO 6) case. However, this document is bound to cell-by-cell coordinated deployment. o Independent guidelines report on technology independent and uncoordinated deployment of systems in 3.5GHz band has been issued in ECC report 33. BEM (Block Edge Mask) recommendation is available within ECC/REC 04-05. This recommendation is now the

Alcatel-Lucent File Reference

3DC 21151 4016 TQZZA

Date
07/2008

Edition
Ed 03

Page
2

All rights reserved. Passing on and copying of this document, use and communication of its contents not permitted without written authorisation.

Design Paper: WiMAX Coexistence Issues

basics of a decision from European Commission: C(2008) 1873 of 21.5.2008. It will be applicable by default unless adjacent operators agree on less stringent mask. o Alcatel-Lucent BS complies with EN 302 326-2 mask. Additional filtering is required for compliance against ECC/REC 04-05 mask. FCC o The applicable requirement is FCC 04-135. It defines two masks: one for general use and one more stringent following a compliant of an adjacent operator. The stringent mask is never used in practice, common agreement is the preferred solution. o Alcatel-Lucent introduces a software improvement (Digital Pre-Distortion) to comply with FCC 04-135 general mask without needs of additional filtering.

Depending on the country there are two main types of regulation, ECC based or FCC.

3. 3.1

COEXISTENCE STUDY BETWEEN NETWORKS IN ADJACENT BANDS BS to BS

Maximum I/N = -10dB applies in this study; it leads to maximum 0.4dB desensitisation. Here below is given a typical range of decoupling as it is function of several parameters (transmit power, interferer and victim bandwidths). 3.1.1 Coexistence between two synchronized WiMAX networks

When two WiMAX networks are GPS synchronized, the frames are aligned (5ms frames are synchronous with 1pps reference clock). To avoid any interference issue between the two WiMAX networks, the case where one network in transmitting when the other is receiving must be avoided (ensure that there is no overlap between DL and UL parts of the frame). This is done by setting the same frame configuration (number of UL, DL, TTG symbols) or by increasing the TTG areas to avoid any overlap.

No guardband is required between two synchronized WiMAX networks.

3.1.2

Collocation

Considering FCC rules, with no guard band and basic mask, between 95dB and 100dB decoupling are needed on site. If stringent rules are applied and with >3MHz guard band then there is no need for additional attenuation. Considering ECC BEM rules, guardband usage is currently highly recommended at least to comply with BEM mask (out of block transmission). The required decoupling for BS to BS coexistence is: ECC BEM On site decoupling 2.5MHz Guard band 75 to 80 dB 3MHz guard band 70 to 75 dB

Alcatel-Lucent File Reference

3DC 21151 4016 TQZZA

Date
07/2008

Edition
Ed 03

Page
3

All rights reserved. Passing on and copying of this document, use and communication of its contents not permitted without written authorisation.

Design Paper: WiMAX Coexistence Issues

For decoupling analysis with respect to blocking level criteria, the required isolation is between 90 and 100 dB. 3.1.3 No Collocation
Antennas gains, reducing the attenuation Propagation losses Cables/filters losses Required attenuation

The same decoupling attenuation between BS is required. The main difference compared to the collocation case comes from gains and losses between BS. In no collocation case, the attenuation comes from losses (cables, filter, propagation) but the gains of antennas are decreasing the attenuation. In consequence, when antennas are facing each other, high distances are required to achieve the decoupling.

For the ECC BEM it is recommended to implement at least 2.5 MHz guard band. In no collocation case, the co-ordination between azimuths of antennas is critical.

3.2

BS to TS

This interference scenario is common to TDD or FDD. For mobile environment, constraint of 2% terminals above I/N threshold is applied. Considering FCC rules, with the basic mask and no guard band, the 2% I/N criterion is validated for QPSK modulation but not for 64QAM (up to 8%). With the stringent mask and >3MHz guard band, the number of mobiles above I/N limit is below 0.05% for every modulation and distance between sites. Considering ECC BEM rules with 3MHz guard band, the number of mobiles above I/N limit is below 0.05% for every modulation and distance between sites. With the FCC stringent mask or BEM with guard bands, conditions are better than for UMTS (relaxed BS mask for 3G).

From BS to TS interference study, FCC mask or ECC BEM without guard bands guarantee than less that 2% of the terminals experience I/N above threshold.

3.3

TS to BS

To guarantee optimum performance level of the BS in the busy hour, a maximum I/N=10dB is allowed in 2% of the cases (Monte Carlo simulation). Considering indoor terminals, each one contributes to an aggregate interference at the BS. ECC BEM proposes a maximum OOB EIRP of 45dBW/MHz (48dB ACLR for RG), it results in less than 1% I/N>10dB. FCC mask is roughly equivalent to this recommendation. The worst case is with a large population of omnidirectionnal outdoor terminals. There is no indoor-tooutdoor mitigation and the household density does not limit the concentration of terminals. In that case, the needed ACLR for the terminal, 15dB tighter (55dB ACLR for PCMCIA card) than regular ECC/FCC rules, is recommended in ECC report 33 on coexistence. With terminals following ETSI recommendations (34dB ACLR 1st adjacent channel, 48dB 2nd channel), 5% throughput loss is expected. In this case conditions are similar to UMTS (same terminal constraints).

Alcatel-Lucent File Reference

3DC 21151 4016 TQZZA

Date
07/2008

Edition
Ed 03

Page
4

All rights reserved. Passing on and copying of this document, use and communication of its contents not permitted without written authorisation.

Design Paper: WiMAX Coexistence Issues

ETSI recommendation has similar performances than 3G. ECC/FCC recommendations guarantee low level of interferences from terminals to BS in case of indoor deployment or outdoor deployment with directive antennas. Some more stringent emission mask for terminals may be needed in case of dense population of outdoor mobile terminals.

3.4

TS to TS

Situation is more critical for mobile systems, concentration of terminals not limited, no indoor to outdoor attenuation and omni antennas.

Results are still in preliminary phase; several scenarios are under study before drawing conclusions.

4.

SPECTRUM USE

Considering the typical spectrum allocation and both FCC and ECC regulations, the following generic rules can be derived: 2.5MHz to 3MHz block size guard band for REC 04-05 BEM. This guard band is required not only for interferences mitigation but also for ensuring smooth edges of the filters allowing REC 0405 BEM compliance. 3MHz guard band for FCC.
Channels WiMAX 14 MHz 2x5 15 MHz 2x5 20 MHz 2x7/3x5 21 MHz 2x7/3x5 25 MHz 28 MHz 30 MHz 35 MHz 2x10/4x5 2x10/3x7 2x10/3x7 2x10/3x7 40 MHz 3x10

5.

SITE SHARING WITH GSM/UMTS

The acquisition of new sites can take considerable periods of time. In order to reduce the rollout time and costs, site sharing (co-sitting) between both, technologies and/or operators, can be a viable alternative.

5.1

Parameters
Spurious Standard -50dBm/MHz -30dBm/3MHz -30dBm/3MHz -30dBm/3MHz Blocking Standard -25dBm 8dBm 0dBm -15dBm

Baseline parameters WiMAX GSM 900 GSM 1800 UMTS

From
Reference CEPT/ERC 74-01 EN 300 910 V8.5.1 EN 300 910 V8.5.1 TS 25.104

the

different

minimum

standard requirements, the following parameters are considered for the systems.

Alcatel-Lucent File Reference

3DC 21151 4016 TQZZA

Date
07/2008

Edition
Ed 03

Page
5

All rights reserved. Passing on and copying of this document, use and communication of its contents not permitted without written authorisation.

Design Paper: WiMAX Coexistence Issues

5.2

Isolation constraints
spurious and blocking
Victim=> GSM UMTS WiMAX 66dB spurious 41dB blocking 66dB spurious 66dB blocking GSM UMTS WiMAX 80dB 71.7dB spurious blocking 80dB 68dB spurious blocking

Considering

constraints, the needed isolations are the following. These values, based on minimum standard requirements are conservatives compare to actual typical performances of the products.

Site sharing constraints require around 70dB isolation.

6.

TYPICAL CO-SITTING ISOLATION

Co-located antenna systems can be composed of separate single-band antennas. The visual impact, however, in the majority of cases results in a real site engineering challenge. The use of multi-band antennas offers a good solution. With multi-band antennas (dual-band or triple-band), the necessary amount of antennas per site is minimized. A key consideration when co-sitting is to ensure that the antenna solution respects the required inter-system isolation. Dual-band sites can be set up with single-band antennas or dual band antennas. A) Single Band Antennas (air decoupling) An air decoupling configuration with single band antennas. Separate feeder cables connect the antennas to the base station equipment. Isolation is achieved through either vertical or horizontal antenna separation on the mast. B) Broadband Antenna (diplexer decoupling) A diplexer decoupling configuration with a broadband antenna. A shared feeder cable connects the antenna to the diplexer adjacent to the base station equipment (providing 60-70dB isolation). C) Dual Band Antennas with/without feeder sharing (diplexer/filter decoupling) two dual band antenna solutions, one that utilises dual diplexers (providing 60-70dB isolation) to facilitate feeder sharing and the other with separates feeders but with optional additional filtering to ensure sufficient isolation (required if the isolation requirement exceeds the ~30dB provided by dual band antenna).

7.

CONCLUSION

The proposed ECC/REC 04-05 recommendations and FCC rules allow uncoordinated coexistence between different systems (FDD or TDD) with a little guard band and guaranteed performances. Main constraints come from BS to BS interferences, recommended guard band are between 2.5MHz and 3MHz unless there is a less stringent agreement between operators. In case of coordinated WiMAX deployments (same TDD ratio and frame characteristics), no guard bands are needed. Site sharing constraints are similar to those of GSM and UMTS. End of DOCUMENT

Alcatel-Lucent File Reference

3DC 21151 4016 TQZZA

Date
07/2008

Edition
Ed 03

Page
6

All rights reserved. Passing on and copying of this document, use and communication of its contents not permitted without written authorisation.