Simulation Model for Compatibility between LTE-Advanced and Digital Broadcasting in the Digital Dividend Band

8/12/2019 Simulation Model for Compatibility between LTE-Advanced and Digital Broadcasting in the Digital Dividend Band

1/14


2/14

Hassan et al.: Simulation Model for Compatibility between LTE-Advanced and Digital Broadcasting310

Introduction

he introduction of digital broadcasting (DB) with high spectral efficiency for television has forced the phasing out

of analog broadcasting. With advanced technologies such as coding and compression, DB can efficiently use the

ultra high frequency (UHF) spectrum. In other words, while analog broadcasting needs 8 MHz of bandwidth per channel,DB can serve up to 14 channels with the same 8 MHz bandwidth. As shown in Figure 1, this efficient spectrum usage has

freed up a spectrum in the UHF band called the digital dividend (DD) band. As a result, the world has begun to witness

more free spectrum in the UHF band, which seemed almost impossible before. Since the Stockholm plan in 1961, the lower

UHF band (470862 MHz) was reserved for analog broadcasting [1, 2]. At the last Regional Radiocommunication

Conference in 2006 (RRC-06), all participating countries were mandated to migrate from analog to DB, and they assigned

the year 2015 for the analog switch-off. The year 2015 was also assigned to countries that were not present at RRC-06 [3].

Analog Broadcasting

Analog BroadcastingDigital Broadcasting

Digital DividedDigital Broadcasting

470MHz 862MHz

The spectrum before 2006,occupied by analog broadcasting

The spectrum in the transitionalperiod, where analog and DB operatessimultaneously (2007-2015/2020)

After phasing out analog broadcasting,the remaining unused spectrum is the

digital dividend (2015/2020)

Figure 1.Origin of the digital dividend band

Frequency Plans for Terrestrial DB and Mobile TelecommunicationServices in the 790862 MHz Band

At RRC-06, the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) set the deployment requirements for digital video

broadcasting-terrestrial (DVB-T) service in Band V (582862 MHz) [3]. The World Radio Conference in 2007 (WRC-07)

allocated new bands for the next generation of mobile telephony technology, called International Mobile

Telecommunications-Advanced (IMT-A) [4]. Moreover, resolution 794 of WRC-07 allocated the 470806/862 MHz bandto both mobile and broadcasting services on a co-primary basis in the year 2015; additionally, the resolution requires

sharing studies between the two services [5].

In 2008, the European Commission mandated the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications

Administrations (CEPT) to set the requirements for harmonized spectrum allocation across European Union (EU) countries,

including technical conditions for the 790862 MHz band. A detailed study was conducted for this task [6], identifying the

frequency channel arrangements for the 790862 MHz band to be used by mobile services. The study was adopted in 2009

by the EU and was considered a response to the sharing study between the mobile and broadcasting services requested by

the ITU at WRC-07 [7].

CEPT Report 30 [6] proposed two types of channel frequency assignments: preferred assignments based on the

frequency division duplex (FDD) mode, and an alternative based on the time division duplex mode. In our study, we

employ the FDD channel assignment, where the downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) consists of six channels with bandwidths

of 5 MHz each, as shown in Figure 2. The spectrum assignment can accommodate scalable bandwidths of 1.4, 3, 5, 10, 15,

and 20 MHz for mobile operation.

T


3/14

Smart Computing Review, vol. 3, no. 5, October 2013 311

Figure 2.Preferred channel arrangement [6]

Since the ITU assigned the 470862 MHz band to terrestrial DB, and IMT-A will operate in the 791862 MHz band

[8], it is evident that the two services must share a spectrum, which could lead to performance degradation. The objective of

this paper is to quantify the possibility for compatibility between the two services and propose a practical guideline for

efficient spectrum usage and reliable services based on a proposed simulation model.

Related Work

Recent compatibility results for the two services have been presented [9-13]. ECC148 [9] measured the DVB-T receiver

performance in terms of the protection ratio (PR) and the receiver overloading threshold from long-term evolution-

advanced (LTE-A) user equipment (UE). The study was conducted to protect broadcasting services in the 470790 MHzband from the LTE-A system that will operate in the adjacent band (791862 MHz). Wang and colleagues [10] investigated

radio interference from LTE-A base stations (BSs) and UE affecting DVB-T receivers, but reverse interference was not

investigated. Zaid and colleagues [11] analyzed the co-existence of IMT-A and DVB-T BSs in the 790862 MHz band by

investigating the sensitive and non-sensitive spectrum emission mask (SEM) of a DVB-T transmitter. Moreover, Shamsan

and Rahman [12] investigated interference from a DVB-T BS on an IMT-A BS using the minimum coupling loss

methodology for three scenarios: co-channel, adjacent channels, and zero guard bands. However, neither of these studies

[11, 12] considered the receiver blocking response as part of the interference effect. Moreover, other interference scenariossuch as DVB-T BS to IMT-A UE and IMT-A UE to a DVB-T subscriber station (SS) have not been investigated. Setiawan

and colleagues [13] evaluated the required guard band and the separation distance between Evolved UMTS Terrestrial

Radio Access (E-UTRA) and DB services in co-channel and adjacent-channel interference. However, more exact results

are required since Setiawan and colleagues did not use the SEM given in the E-UTRA specifications [14]. Additionally,

they did not provide any system specifications, which makes testing (or implementation) of these results impossible.

Contributions

Clearly, for reliable co-existence and compatibility results, a more general and exact approach is desirable. It shouldinclude the transmitter interference leakage, receiver imperfections, exact system specifications, and all potential

interference scenarios. In particular, the possibility for compatibility should be investigated for various interference

scenarios in rural and urban environments, such as (i) DB-BS to IMT-A BS and UE, (ii) IMT-A BS to DB-SS, and (iii)

IMT-A UE to DB-SS. Additionally, the Monte Carlo method will afford more realistic compatibility results, since it

randomly distributes users within the service coverage area. In order to obtain realistic and practical results, we employ

feasible spectrum plans for IMT-A and DB services: the CEPT spectrum policy and the ITU digital plan, which was not

fully investigated in previous studies. Adopting this approach, we evaluate the minimum separation distance and the

required frequency separation to achieve compatibility between IMT-A and DB in the co-channel and adjacent channel co-

existence scenarios. On the basis of our proposed model, we list the benefits and limitations of the current spectrum plan

established by the CEPT and ITU, as well as the resulting design guidelines, which are the main contributions of this paper.

Our co-existence results are useful for mobile operators who need more spectrums to accommodate the rapidly growingnumber of subscribers when adequate distance or a guard band is provided.

Simulation and System Parameters

Long-Term Evolution- Advanced

No IMT-A system is expected to be commercially released before 2015 [15]. Although LTE release 8 fulfills some of the

IMT-A requirements, LTE-A is expected to exceed the International Telecommunication Union-Radiocommunication

Sector (ITU-R) time plane [2]. The LTE-A specification is thus used to represent IMT-A in our study, since it is one of thecandidate technologies for the IMT-A system [8]. LTE-A will reuse the conventional LTE specification for low cost and


4/14


fast development. Table 1 contains the LTE-A system parameters [14, 16] of the simulation for rural and urban

environments.

Table 1.LTE-A parameters in rural and urban area deployment

LTE-A (BS) LTE-A (UE)

Parameter Rural Urban Rural Urban

Pt (dBm) 48 24 23

Operating Frequency (MHz) 791-862

BW (MHz) 5, 20

Height (m) 30 23.5 1.5

Gain (dBi) 15 0

Noise Figure (dB) 5 9

Coverage (Km) 4.3 0.5 ----

AntennaTri-Sector Ref TR 36.942v10

Omni

ACS (dB) 45 32

Thermal Noise (dBm)-102 (5MHz)-95.98 (20MHz)

-98 (5MHz)-91.98 (20MHz)

Interference Threshold (dBm)-108 (5MHz)-101.98 (20MHz)

-104 (5MHz)-97.98 (20MHz)

Sensitivity (dBm)-97 (5MHz)-90.98 (20 MHz)

93 (5MHz)-86.98 (20 MHz)

Propagation Model Extended Hata

Cell LayoutWrap around 57 tri-sectorcells, uncoordinated

----

Number of Users ---- 20 50

Spectrum Emission Mask

TS 36.101 v10

(when Tx)

TS 36.104 v10

(when Tx)

Receiver Blocking Attenuation Mode Sensitivity mode

Digital Broadcasting

In our study, DVB-T represents the DB system. All the broadcasting deployment requirements, specifications, andprotections from the same and other services are addressed in RRC-06 [3].

The plan proposed three types of reference networks (RN) for DB deployment in different areas. In our study, the

parameters are based on RN1 and RN3 for rural and urban deployment. The reference plane configurations (RPCs) are the

DB parameters and criteria for the receiver reception. RPC-1 was chosen in our study for the fixed reception mode of DVB-

T as shown in Table 2.

Interference Criteria

The interference criterion is required to ensure co-existence between two systems in the same or the adjacent band without

harmful interference. In our study, each system had its own interference criterion for the victim receiver to operate without

interference. When the level of the interference (I) is below the noise with a certain margin, the receiver operates normally.

However, if the level of interference rises, the thermal noise will rise, too, leading to an increase in the level of the noise

floor (N) to (N+I) and an decrease in the level of the carrier-to-noise floor (C/N) to (C/N+I). If the protection criterion is

considered based on an I/N value of -6 dB (as a protection requirement for mobile service), this raises the noise-plus-

interference level (N+I) with respect to noise by 1 dB (i.e., (N+I)/N = 1 dB). Other victim receiver parameters can be

calculated based on the value of I/N and by knowing the system carrier-to-noise ratio (C/N), as follows:

N I N I I

dB dB dB

I N N

(1)

2


5/14


C C N I

dB dB dBN I N N

(2)

C C N I

dB dB dBI N I I

(3)

Table 2.DVB-T parameters in rural and urban area Deployment

DB (BS) DB (SS)

Parameter Rural Urban Rural Urban

Pt (dBm) 74.6 63.6 ----

Operating Frequency (MHz) 782-862

BW (MHz) 8

Height (m) 150 10

Gain (dBi) 0 14.15

Noise Figure (dB) ---- 7

Coverage Radius (Km) 51.76 17 ----

Antenna Omni ITU-R BT.419-3

Thermal Noise (dBm) ---- -98

Sensitivity (dBm) ---- -78 -82

Propagation Model Extended Hata Model

Network Type RN1 RN3 ----

C/N (dB) 21 17 ----

C/I (dB) 27 -30 23 -30

Reception Configuration ---- RPC 1

Spectrum Emission Mask GE06 ----

Receiver Blocking Attenuation Mode ---- PR

Allowed Maximum Interfering Signal (dBm) ---- -104

For an IMT-A system, the PR is based on ITU-R recommendations M.2039 [17] where the interference criterion

between the two systems is a tolerable I/N value for the victim receiver in co- and adjacent-channel interference. Based onITU-R M.2039-2 [17], the I/N for the victim receiver should be -6 dB (i.e., I-N=-6 dB). This means that the level of the

noise should be 6 dB below the thermal noise to achieve receiver protection. For DB, however, we employ different

protection criteria of DVB-T depending on the type of receiver and deployment according to RRC-06 [3]. Table 2 shows

the protection criteria of a DB receiver in terms C/I values for rural and urban environments.

Coexistence Model

Figure 3shows a flowchart of the simulation model used here for evaluating the minimum distance for each frequencyseparation for each snapshot. In the initial stage, the two systems are assumed to be co-channel (i.e., fv = fit) and co-

allocated (i.e., d = 0). For the second stage, the frequency of the device that suffers from interference is shifted by a certain

frequency separation offset (FOS) determined by the frequency channel assignment for mobile telephony and DB. For a

particular frequency separation, the probability of interference is calculated. If interference occurs, the distance between the

interferer and the transmitter is increased until the interference is mitigated for that particular FOS. Then, the values of the

distance and FOS necessary for co-existence are stored, the distance is reset to the initial stage (i.e., d = 0), and the

frequencies are set to calculate the next FOS. The simulation ends when the frequency separation is at maximum between

the interfering transmitter and the victim receiver. In the following sections, the methodology to calculate the interference is

presented.


6/14


Start

fv== f_max?End

fv = fit, d= 0

fv =fv + FOS

P(I) = 0 %d = d +0.1

Store d and fv

d = 0

No

Yes

No

Yes

Figure 3.Simulation model flowchart to determine the minimum separation distance.

Monte Carlo Methodology

The Monte Carlo method is an approach that can handle analysis of complex statistical problems. The method is based on

taking samples of a random process from the defined probability density function (PDF). For this reason, the Monte Carlo

method is considered useful in simulating a random process such as finance, telecommunications, etc. [18]. In the area of

wireless communications, the methodology is usually used to determine the compatibility between multiple systemsoperating in the adjacent or the same band. The results of the method have been agreed to by the ITU-R and are described

in ITU-R report SM. 2028 [18]. Furthermore, the method is used in many studies carried out by ITU study groups, CEPT

in Europe, the Office of Communications in the UK, and the WINNER study group to assist the compatibility between

different wireless communication systems that are sharing the spectrum [18].

In the Monte Carlo methodology, each trial is made up using the different variables input by the user, and the protection

criterion such as C/I or I/N is calculated in each trial.

After a sufficient number of trials (i.e., 10,000 snapshots), the probability of interference,Pint,can be calculated as:

_1 E

int non int

E

D CP P

I I

(4)

where Pnon_int is the probability of non-interference of the victim receiver, DE is the desired signal power, and IE is the

interference power.

In each trial (or snapshot) the victim receiver receives the desiredDE (dBm) and the interferenceIE(dBm) signals, which

are given as:

E wt wt vrD P G G Lp (5)

E it it vrI P G G Lp (6)wherePwt is the power of the wanted transmitter (dBm), Gwt is the gain of the wanted transmitter antenna (dBi), Gvris the

gain of the victim receiver (dBi), Lp is the path loss (dB),Pitis the power of the interfere (dBm), and Git is the gain of the

interfere antenna (dBi).

IEis composed of two different sources, the unwanted emission (IE_unwanted) and the receiver imperfection (IE _blocking) as

follows:

_ _E E unwanted E BlockingI I I

(7)


7/14


The Interferers Unwanted Emission

In each trial of the Monte-Carlo method the IE_unwantedis calculated at the victim receiver. The resulting interference power

in the victim receiver after nnumber of trails is given as [19]:

_ _

10

1( ) 10 10( ) 10

E unwanted i

uE n

In

iwamtedI dBm log

(8)

For a single i-thtrial, the unwantedIE_unwantedis given as:

_ _ ,E unwanted i emission it vr it vrI iT f f G G Lp (9)

whereiT emission(fit, fvr)is the emission leakage from the interfering transmitter operating at a frequency offset of fitinto the

victim receiver operating atfvr.

iT_emission (fit, fvr) is a function of the operating frequency offset (MHz), the unwanted emission (dBm), and the

reference bandwidth (MHz) as follows:

, ?emission it vr it unwanted it vr iT f f P emission f f (10)

10, 1b

unwanted it vr unwanted

a

emission f f P f d f

(11)

where f =fit fvr is the difference between the frequency offsets of the interferer and the transmitter, emissionunwanted

(fit,fv)is the unwanted emissions that fall into the victim receiver filter, andPunwanted (dBm) is the unwanted power related to

emissionunwanted (fit,fv) which had boundaries between a = fvr-fit-(bvr/2) and b= fvr+fit-(bvr/2). Finally, bvr is the victim

receiver bandwidth.

Victim Receiver Blocking

For each nnumber of trials, the interference due to victim receiver blocking is expressed as:

_ _

10

_ 101

( ) 10 log 10E Blocking iIn

E BlockingiI dBm

(12)

For a single i-thtrial, the interference blocking is a function of frequency and is defined as:

_ _E Blocking i it it vrI P G G Lp avr f (13)where avr(f) is the blocking attenuation of the victim receiver.

The blocking attenuation can be calculated using two modes: the sensitivity or the PR mode [19]. Based on the receivertype, one of these modes is chosen to calculate the receiver blocking attenuation. In our simulation, the PR mode is chosen

for the broadcasting receiver, whereas the sensitivity mode is chosen to calculate the receiver blocking attenuation for the

mobile receiver as shown in Table 1and Table 2. For the sensitivity mode, the block attenuation is given as [19] :

? ) max vr C

avr f I Sen

N I

(14)

whereImax(dBm) is the maximum allowed interference and Senvr(dBm) is the sensitivity level of the victim receiver. In PR

mode, we employ:

( )avr f I N (15)whereI (dBm) is the level of the interference and N (dBm) is the noise floor level of the receiver. Both are functions of

frequency difference f.

Sharing Scenarios

LTE-A (BS and UE) interference with DB-SS


8/14


The sharing scenario comprises an LTE-A and DB system deployed in rural and urban areas. Two different aspects are

considered in our study: (i)determining the effects on DB-SSs of interference from the random distribution of LTE-A (BSor UE) with different channel bandwidths of 5 and 20 MHz and (ii)investigating the effect of DB-BSs on LTE-A (BS or

UE; 5 or 20 MHz) operation.

LTE-A (BS and UE) interference with DB-SS

This sharing scenario is divided into two parts. The first sharing scenario is to investigate the interference from LTE-A BSs(5 and 20 MHz), and the second is to investigate the interference from LTE-A UEs (5 and 20 MHz). Each scenario assumes

both rural and urban environments.

DB-BS interference with LTE-A (BS and UE)

The second set of sharing scenarios investigates the effects of interference from DB-BSs on LTE-A (BS and UE; 5 and 20MHz). Both scenarios are assumed in rural and urban areas.

IMT-A and DB frequency channel assignment

In the mentioned sharing scenarios, the frequency channel assignment of both LTE-A and DB are considered. Figures 4and 5show the compatible frequency sharing scenarios between the DB and LTE-A, taking into account the two channel

bandwidths of LTE-A (5 and 20 MHz), which are narrower and wider, respectively, compared with DB 8 MHz channels. In

addition, the figures illustrate the UL and DL communication of the LTE-A system. These figures show the future situation

in all administrations that signed Geneva Agreement 2006 (GE-06) and will use LTE-A as the IMT-A system. The figures

assume that country B is using band 790862 MHz for DB services, and country A is deploying IMT-A services in the

same band.

Figure 4shows LTE-A with a 5 MHz channel bandwidth. It can be seen that the 790862 MHz band can support 10channels split into UL and DL portions, with a duplex gap of 10 MHz in between. The LTE-A channels cause/receive co-

channel interference to/from DB channels 6064 and 6669.

Figure 4. Sharing of 790822 MHz band between LTE-A (DL) and DVB-T

In DL communication, the LTE-A device is transmitting/receiving at a frequency offset of 793.5 MHz. The LTE-A

system causes/receives interference to/from DB channels 60, 61, and 62, which have frequency offsets of 786, 794, and 802

MHz, respectively. The FOS between the LTE-A and DB offsets is 0.5, 7.5, and 8.5 MHz.

In UL communication, the LTE-A device is transmitting/receiving at a frequency offset of 834.5 MHz and can

cause/receive interference to/from channels 65, 66, and 67, which operate at 826, 834, and 842 MHz, respectively. This

shows that the FOS is 0.5, 7.5, and 8.5 MHz.


9/14


Figure 5shows the spectrum sharing scenario when the LTE-A system has a 20 MHz channel bandwidth. In Figure 5,the DB channels 61, 62, and 63 completely or partially overlap the LTE-A DL channel (790812 MHz). This leads to co-

channel interference. Similarly, in UL communication, the DB channels 66, 67, and 68 completely or partially overlap the

LTE-A UL channels and cause/receive co-channel interference.

Figure 5. Sharing of 790822 MHz band between LTE-A (DL) and DVB-T

In DL communication, an LTE-A device with an operating frequency of 801 MHz can cause/receive interference

to/from DB channels 6064, which have frequency offsets of 786, 794, 802, 810, and 818 MHz, respectively. The FOS

between the LTE-A BS and DB-SS is 1, 7, 9, 15, and 17 MHz.

Finally, in UL communication, the LTE-A device receives/transmits at a frequency offset of 842 MHz and, at the same

time, causes/receives interference to/from DB channels 6569. These channels operate at frequency offsets of 826, 834,

842, 850, and 858 MHz, respectively. Therefore, the FOS between the two systems is 0, 8, and 16 MHz.

Coexistence Model

In the following subsections, the results are split according to the co-existence scenario. The following figures show the

required co-existence separation distances for a given frequency separation when achieving an acceptable interferenceprobability,Pint,of 0%. In Figures 611, the horizontal axis represents the frequency separation between the interferer and

the victim, whereas the vertical axis represents the required separation distance for that particular frequency separation.

LTE-A interference with DB-SS

LTE-A BS as an interferer

The interference from an LTE-A BS for a DB-SS was investigated by taking into account different LTE-A channelbandwidths. Figure 6 shows the required separation distance and the frequency separation to avoid interference from an

LTE-A BS with a 5 MHz bandwidth for a DB-SS deployed in rural and urban areas.


10/14


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Fequency Separation (MHz)

SeparationDistance(km)

Rural

Urban

Figure 6. Interference from 5 MHz LTE-A for 8 MHz DB-SS in rural and urban areas

In the above figure, a frequency separation of 0.5 MHz requires a very high separation distance of 150 km in rural areas.

Co-existence can be achieved with a frequency separation of 8.5 MHz (i.e., a guard band of 2 MHz) in rural areas. In urban

areas, a smaller separation distance is required (37 km for 0.5 MHz separation), owing to higher clutter loss. Co-existence

can be achieved with a frequency offset of 7.5 MHz (i.e., a guard band of 1 MHz) in urban areas.

Figure 7 illustrates the interference scenario when considering a higher interferer bandwidth (i.e., 20 MHz LTE-A BS).

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

50

100

150

200



Rural

Urban

Figure 7. Interference from 20 MHz LTE-A for 8 MHz DB-SS in rural and urban areas

In rural areas, the interference is intense, with a frequency separation of 1 MHz, since it requires a separation distance

of 220 km. Coexistence can only be achieved with a frequency separation of 15 MHz (i.e., a 1 MHz guard band) and above.In an urban area, the required separation distance is 40 km for a frequency separation of 1 MHz. In addition, co-existence

can be achieved with a frequency separation of 15 MHz or above.On the basis of the above results, it can be concluded that the deployment of LTE-A in urban areas is more feasible than

in rural areas. Moreover, the higher interferer channel bandwidth (20 MHz LTE-A) caused more interference. This is

attributed to the fact that an interferer with a lower bandwidth requires a larger separation distance and higher frequency

separation. It can be seen that coexistence can be achieved in all sharing scenarios, with a minimum guard band of 2 MHz

in rural and urban areas.

LTE-A UE as an interferer


11/14


When considering an LTE-A UE as an interferer (i.e., UL), the simulation results show that co-existence is achieved in all

sharing scenarios in rural and urban areas. This is attributed to the fact that the LTE-A UE height is 1.5 m, which isconsidered low relative to a DB-SS (10 m height). This height difference can mitigate interference resulting from an LTE-A

UE.

DB-BS interference with LTE-A

LTE-A BS as a victim

The results of co-existence between a DB-BS and LTE-A BS (5 and 20 MHz) in UL communication are shown in Figure 8

and 9.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0

50

100

150

200

250



Rural

Urban

Figure 8. Interference from DB-BS for 5 MHz LTE-A in rural and urban areas

In rural areas, the LTE-A BS needs to be 150 km away from the DB-BS for a frequency separation of 0.5 MHz. Co-

existence is achieved with a frequency separation of 7.5 MHz (i.e., a guard band of 1 MHz) or above.

However, in urban areas, a frequency separation of 0.5 MHz requires a 37 km separation between the DB-BS and LTE-A

BS. Similarly, co-existence can be achieved with a frequency separation of 7.5 MHz (i.e., a guard band of 1 MHz) or above.

Figure 9 shows that in order to avoid co-channel interference between the systems, a separation of 200 and 100 km isrequired in rural and urban areas, respectively. Co-existence can be achieved with a frequency separation of 16 MHz (i.e., a

2 MHz guard band) in both areas.

LTE-A UE as a victim receiver

Figures 10 and 11 show the co-existence requirements for a DB-BS and LTE-A UE (5 and 20 MHz). In the above figure, a

frequency offset of 0.5 MHz requires a separation of 60 km and 30 km to protect the LTE-A UE (5 MHz) in rural and urbanareas, respectively. In this sharing scenario, co-existence cannot be achieved even with a frequency separation of 8.5 MHz.

However, when the LTE-A UE has a higher bandwidth (i.e., 20 MHz), co-existence can be achieved in rural and urban

areas with a frequency separation of 15 MHz (i.e., a 1 MHz guard band), as shown in Figure. 11.

Generally, from the above results, it can be concluded that the required separation distance is less in urban areas.

Moreover, the higher the victim channel bandwidth (20 MHz LTE-A), the lesser the separation distance required. Finally,

co-existence can be ensured in all sharing scenarios with a guard band of 2 MHz or above in rural and urban areas, except

in the case of interference from a DB-BS affecting an LTE-A UE (5 MHz) in a rural area.


12/14


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200



Rural

Urban


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Rural

Urban


2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



Rural

Urban



13/14


Conclusion

This paper described the compatibility between IMT-A (represented by LTE-A) and terrestrial DB (represented by DVB-T)

when they share the same or adjacent frequency channels. We introduced a simulation model that utilizes the spectrum

allocation policies proposed by CEPT, and the digital plan assigned by the ITU for DB frequency allocation and

deployment. The simulation results mainly show that co-existence of the two services is impossible in the co-channel

scenario and, in some situations, in adjacent channels. These results differ from previous studies [9-13] that found that thetwo systems can coexist in all adjacent channel-sharing scenarios. The channel frequency assignment for both mobile and

broadcasting services must be considered in any sharing study between the two services for more realistic results. Our

model can be adopted to set spectrum sharing guidelines and recommendations for deploying IMT-A and terrestrial DB in

the DD band based on adequate frequency and distances between devices utilizing the two different technologies. Finally,

the results motivate the shared usage of the 790862 MHz band for IMT-A and DB services in cases where the two services

are operating simultaneously in neighboring countries.

References

[1] B. Modlic, G. Sisul, M. Cvitkovic, Digital dividend - Opportunities for new mobile services, in Proc. of 51stInternational Symposium ELMAR-2009, Sept. 2009.

[2] V. P. Kalogirou, E. D. Nanou, N. C. Capsalis, T.-H. N. Velivasaki, Compatibility of DVB-T services and IMT-2000compliant mobile telecommunications in the UHF band of 470862 MHz,in Proc. of 9th International Conference

on Telecommunication in Modern Satellite, Cable, and Broadcasting Services , pp. 247-254, Oct. 2009. Article(CrossRef Link)

[3] RRC-06, Final Acts of the Regional Radiocommunication Conference for Planning of the Digital TerrestrialBroadcasting Service in Parts of Regions 1 and 3, in the Frequency Bands 174-230 MHz and 470-862 MHz (RRC-

06),ITU, Geneva, July 2006.

[4] WRC-07, Final acts WRC-07,Geneva, ITU, 2007.[5] Resolution 794 (WRC-07), Studies on the use of the band 790-862 MHz by mobile applications and by other

services,ITU, 2007.

[6] CEPT Report 30, The identification of common and minimal (least restrictive) technical conditions for 790-862 MHzfor the digital dividend in the European Union,European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications (CEPT),

2009.[7] H. R. F. Karimi, Lapierre G., Fournier E., European Harmonized Technical Conditions and Band Plans for

Broadband Wireless Access in the 790-862 MHz Digital Dividend Spectrum,in Proc. of 2010 IEEE Symposium on

New Frontiers in Dynamic Spectrum, Apr. 2010.Article (CrossRef Link)

[8] D. Parkvall, LTE-Advanced - Evolving LTE towards IMT-Advanced, in Proc. of the 68th IEEE VehicularTechnology Conference, Sep. 2008.Article (CrossRef Link)

[9] Erodocdb, ECC148 Measurements on the performance of the DVB-T receivers in the presence of the interferencefrom the mobile service (especially from LTE),Marseille, E.a. CEPT, 2010.

[10] W. Weidong, et al., Analysis of interference from digital Terrestrial Television Broadcast to LTE TDD in DigitalDividend Spectrum,inProc. of 2nd IEEE International Conference on Network Infrastructure and Digital Content,

Sep. 2010.Article (CrossRef Link)

[11] Z. A. Shamsan, T. Abd. Rahman, M. R. Kamarudin, Coexistence and Sharing between IMT-Advanced and DVB-TServices at 790-862 MHz, in Proc. of the 9th WSEAS international conference on Telecommunications and

informatics, 2010.[12] Z. A. Shamsan, T. A. Rahman, T-DVB Services Coexistence with IMT-advanced Service, inProc. of Progress in

Electromagnetics Research Symposium, 2009.

[13] D. Setiawan, D. Gunawan, D. Sirat, Interference Analysis of Guard Band and Geographical Separation betweenDVB-T and E-UTRA in Digital Dividend UHF Band.Icici-Bme, in Proc. of 2009 International Conference on

Instrumentation, Communication, Information Technology, and Biomedical Engineering, pp. 254-259, 2009.Article(CrossRef Link)

[14] 3GPP TS 36.101 v9.2.0, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Base Station (BS) radio transmissionand reception (Release 9),3GPP, 2009.

[15] Z. A. Shamsan, T. B. A. Rahman, A. M. Al-Hetar, Point-Point Fixed Wireless and Broadcasting ServicesCoexistence with IMT-Advanced System, Progress in Electromagnetics Research, vol. 122, pp. 537-555, 2012.

Article (CrossRef Link)[16] 3GPP TS 36.104 v9.2.0, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;User Equipment (UE) radio

transmission and reception (Release 9),3GPP, 2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TELSKS.2009.5339539http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TELSKS.2009.5339539http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TELSKS.2009.5339539http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DYSPAN.2010.5457848http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DYSPAN.2010.5457848http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DYSPAN.2010.5457848http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VETECF.2008.313http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VETECF.2008.313http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VETECF.2008.313http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNIDC.2010.5657872http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNIDC.2010.5657872http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNIDC.2010.5657872http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICICI-BME.2009.5417258http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICICI-BME.2009.5417258http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICICI-BME.2009.5417258http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICICI-BME.2009.5417258http://dx.doi.org/10.2528/PIER11090305http://dx.doi.org/10.2528/PIER11090305http://dx.doi.org/10.2528/PIER11090305http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICICI-BME.2009.5417258http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICICI-BME.2009.5417258http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ICNIDC.2010.5657872http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VETECF.2008.313http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/DYSPAN.2010.5457848http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TELSKS.2009.5339539http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TELSKS.2009.5339539


14/14


[17] ITU-R M.2039-2, Characteristics of terrestrial IMT-2000 systems for frequency sharing/ interference analyses,ITU,2010.

[18] SEAMCAT handbook, European Communication office (ECO), 2010.[19] ERC 68, Monte-Carlo Simulation methodology for the use in the sharing and compatibility studies between different

radio service or systems,2002.

Dr. Walid A Hassan (Iraqi) is a Post Doctoral Research Fellow, Wireless Communication

Centre (WCC), Faculty of Electrical Engineering (FKE), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM).

He obtained his PhD from University Technology Malaysia in 2012. He earned his masters

degree from the faculty of engineering, University Technology Malaysia. He obtained his BScfrom Garyounis University in the faculty of electrical and electronic engineering

(telecommunications major), Benghazi, Libya. His research interests include spectrum sharing,

wireless communications co-existence and compatibility, as well as cognitive radio spectrum-

sharing methods.

Dr. Han-Shin Jo is an Assistant Professor with the Department of Electronics and ControlEngineering, Hanbat National University, Korea. He was a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the

Wireless Networking and Communications Group, in the Department of Electrical and Computer

Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, from 2009-11. Dr. Jo developed LTE systems for

Samsung Electronics in 2011-12. He received his BS, MS, and PhD degrees in Electrical and

Electronics Engineering from Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, in 2001, 2004, and 2009,

respectively, and he received the 2011 ETRI Journal Award. His research interests include smallcells, heterogeneous networks, wireless ad-hoc networks, stochastic geometry, and wireless

broadband transmission.

Dr.Tharek Abd Rahmanis a Professor in the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Universiti

Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). He obtained his BSc in Electrical & Electronic Engineering

from the University of Strathclyde, UK, in 1979, his MSc in Communication Engineering

from UMIST Manchester, UK, and his PhD in Mobile Radio Communication Engineering

from the University of Bristol, UK. He is the Director of the Wireless Communication

Centre (WCC), UTM. His research interests are radio propagation, antenna and RF design,

and indoor and outdoor wireless communications. He has also conducted various short

courses related to mobile and satellite communications for the Telecommunication Industry

and Government body since 1990. He has teaching experience in the area of mobile radio,

wireless communications systems, and satellite communications. He has published more

than 120 papers related to wireless communications in national/international journals and

conferences.

Copyrights 2013 KAIS

Documents

Simulation Model for Compatibility between LTE-Advanced and Digital Broadcasting in the Digital Dividend Band