Adjacent Band Compatibility of 400 MHZ Tetra and Analogue FM PMR

ERC REPORT 104
European Radiocommunications Committee (ERC)

within the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT)
ADJACENT BAND COMPATIBILITY OF 400 MHZ TETRA AND ANALOGUE FM PMR

AN ANALYSIS COMPLETED USING A MONTE CARLO BASED SIMULATION TOOL
Vilnius, June 2000
ERC REPORT 104
Copyright 2001 the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT)
ERC REPORT 104
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The digital Terrestrial Enhanced Trunked Radio (TETRA) standard for second generation PMR / PAMR radio systems has
been developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). A large number of the frequency bands
proposed for TETRA are adjacent to bands currently used by FM systems. This study provides an analysis of TETRA and
FM compatibility. All interference scenarios between TETRA and FM are identified and simulated and the required
minimum frequency separations determined. The simulation tool used is one based upon the statistical Monte Carlo
methodology developed within CEPT.
The scenarios identified include those belonging to non co-sited TETRA and FM systems, co-sited TETRA and FM
systems and TETRA direct mode. In each case various investigations are made into the effect of interferer density,
minimum frequency separation, band allocation size and where appropriate power control.
The following conclusions are drawn from the study :
under normal operating conditions TETRA and FM bands are able to coexist without guard bands in the same way
that two FM operators are able to coexist without guard bands.
in special circumstances where there is a very high density of active users e.g. security at a large sports event, then
care must be taken to minimize levels of interference. Frequency coordination between TETRA and FM operators
at special events could help relieve any problems. Additional filtering in base station transmitters and receivers is
also an effective method for controlling levels of interference.
co-siting TETRA and FM base stations reduces levels of interference in all scenarios except mobile to mobile and
of course base to base. Frequency coordination between TETRA and FM operators will make co-siting easier.
TETRA direct mode does not cause high levels of interference to the general FM user. Levels of interference are
greater for an FM user who is involved in the direct mode group e.g. at the scene of an accident where the police
and fire services are using TETRA but the ambulance service is using FM. The introduction of power control in
TETRA direct mode would alleviate any interference problems but simulations have not been completed to
illustrate this.
Where coordination is required as systems are rolled out across Europe, it should be done on a case by case basis using siteengineering practices.
This study provides simulation results for general 400 MHz TETRA and FM compatibility. Further work would be required
to model specific scenarios within CEPT member states.
ERC REPORT 104
INDEX TABLE
1
SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................................................ 1
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................................... 1
2.1
2.2
BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................................................... 1
OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................................................. 1
STUDY ............................................................................................................................................................................ 2
NON CO-SITED TETRA AND FM SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... 3

4.1
THE EFFECT OF TETRA UPON FM............................................................................................................................ 3
4.1.1
TETRA MS interfering with an FM MS............................................................................................................ 3
4.1.1.1
4.1.1.2
4.1.1.3
4.1.1.4
4.1.2
4.1.2.1
4.1.2.2
4.1.2.3
4.1.2.4
4.1.3
4.1.3.1
4.1.3.2
4.1.3.3
4.1.4
4.1.4.1
4.1.4.2
4.1.4.3
The Effect of Active Interferer Density.......................................................................................................................... 3

The Effect of Minimum Carrier Separation ................................................................................................................... 4
The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations .............................................................................................................. 6
The Effect of not using Power Control for the TETRA MS........................................................................................... 6
TETRA MS Interfering with an FM BS ............................................................................................................ 7

The Effect of Minimum Carrier Separation ................................................................................................................... 8
The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations .............................................................................................................. 9
The Effect of not using Power Control for the TETRA MS........................................................................................... 9
TETRA BS interfering with an FM MS............................................................................................................. 9

The Effect of Minimum Carrier Separation ................................................................................................................. 10
The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations ............................................................................................................ 11
TETRA BS Interfering with an FM BS ........................................................................................................... 12

The Effect of Active Interferer Density........................................................................................................................ 12
4.2
THE EFFECT OF FM UPON TETRA.......................................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1
FM MS Interfering with a TETRA MS............................................................................................................ 15
4.2.1.1
4.2.1.2
4.2.1.3
4.2.2
4.2.2.1
4.2.2.2
4.2.2.3
4.2.3
4.2.3.1
4.2.3.2
4.2.3.3
4.2.4
4.2.4.1
4.2.4.2
4.2.4.3

FM MS Interfering with an TETRA BS .......................................................................................................... 18

FM BS Interfering with an TETRA MS .......................................................................................................... 19

FM BS Interfering with an TETRA BS ........................................................................................................... 21

CO-SITED SYSTEMS................................................................................................................................................. 22
5.1
THE EFFECT OF TETRA UPON FM.......................................................................................................................... 23
5.1.1
TETRA MS interfering with an FM MS.......................................................................................................... 23
5.1.1.1
5.1.1.2
5.1.1.3
5.1.1.4
5.1.2
5.1.2.1
5.1.2.2
5.1.2.3
5.1.2.4
5.1.3
5.1.3.1
5.1.3.2

The Effect of not using Power Control......................................................................................................................... 26
TETRA MS Interfering with an FM BS .......................................................................................................... 26

The Effect of not using Power Control......................................................................................................................... 28
TETRA BS interfering with an FM MS........................................................................................................... 28

5.1.3.3
The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations............................................................................................................. 30
5.1.4
TETRA BS Interfering with an FM BS ............................................................................................................30
5.2
THE EFFECT OF FM UPON TETRA ..........................................................................................................................31
5.2.1
FM MS Interfering with an TETRA MS ..........................................................................................................31
5.2.2
FM MS Interfering with an TETRA BS ...........................................................................................................31
5.2.3
FM BS Interfering with an TETRA MS ...........................................................................................................31
5.2.3.1
5.2.3.2
5.2.3.3
5.2.4
6
The Effect of Active Interferer Density ........................................................................................................................ 31

The Effect of Minimum Carrier Separation.................................................................................................................. 32
The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations............................................................................................................. 33
FM BS Interfering with an TETRA BS ............................................................................................................34
TETRA DIRECT MODE.............................................................................................................................................34

6.1
TETRA DMO MS INTERFERING WITH AN FM MS.................................................................................................35
6.1.1
FM MS is within the area of the DMO call.....................................................................................................35
6.1.2
FM MS is inside or outside the area of the DMO call ....................................................................................36
6.2
TETRA DMO MS INTERFERING WITH AN FM BS..................................................................................................37
6.2.1
FM BS is inside or outside the area of the DMO call .....................................................................................37
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS.............................................................................................................................37

7.1
7.2
7.3
NON CO-SITED TETRA AND FM SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................37

CO-SITED TETRA AND FM SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................................39
TETRA DIRECT MODE............................................................................................................................................40
CONCLUSIONS ...........................................................................................................................................................40
APPENDIX A : THE MONTE CARLO SIMULATION TOOL .......................................................................................................... 41

APPENDIX B : PARAMETERS USED FOR SIMULATION.............................................................................................................. 45
APPENDIX C : ABBREVIATIONS........................................................................................................................................................ 49
ERC REPORT 104

Page 1
SCOPE
This report provides a guide to allocating TETRA channels adjacent to existing analogue FM channels. The study considers
all interference scenarios between the two systems and identifies those, which are most critical. Various user densities are
chosen to model different geographic areas. The minimum frequency separation for an acceptable level of interference is
determined. The study concentrates upon frequency allocations in the 400 MHz band.
2.1
INTRODUCTION
Background
The digital Terrestrial Enhanced Trunked Radio (TETRA) standard for second generation PMR / PAMR radio systems has
been developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), ETS 300394 and its derivatives. TETRA
equipment is now available from various manufacturers and demand is growing. Before TETRA radio systems can be
deployed, regulators must allocate sets of channels, which can be used by the TETRA system. These channels will occupy
spectrum adjacent to existing systems, which should not be affected by the introduction of TETRA and conversely should
not affect TETRA. In many cases the adjacent systems will be first generation analogue FM systems. This study
investigates adjacent band compatibility issues between TETRA and analogue FM.
2.2
Objectives
The objectives of this study are to :
Identify all interference scenarios between TETRA and analogue FM.
Determine the critical scenarios.
Determine minimum frequency separation requirements for acceptable levels of interference.
Levels of interference are quantified using a statistical Monte Carlo simulation tool. The tool used is based upon that
specified by CEPT WG SE 1 (SEAMCAT), and has been used previously by CEPT PT SE7 in its studies on adjacent
band compatibility issues. A brief description of the tool is given in Appendix A.
A copy of the latest version of the SEAMCAT ,tool is available at the ERO website at http://www.ero.dk/
CEPT ERC Report 68, Monte Carlo Radio Simulation Methodology,

http://www.ero.dk/eroweb/seamcat/seamcat.html
ERC REPORT 104

Page 2
STUDY
The first step of analyzing adjacent band compatibility between two systems is identifying all of the interference scenarios.
Consider the example TETRA channel allocation illustrated in Figure 1.
TETRA
MS TX
410
FM MS /
BS TX
412
414
TETRA
BS TX
420
FM MS /
BS TX
422
424
430 MHz
Figure 1 : An example TETRA channel allocation adjacent to FM

A mixture of FM systems are assumed to exist such that all possible combinations of radio system compatibility scenarios
are considered i.e. it is assumed that FM mobile stations can both transmit and receive in both bands, as can FM base
stations. This assumption allows for the consideration of all possible scenarios. In practice some of the scenarios will not
occur and thus need not be taken into account. The following eight interference scenarios can be identified :
TETRA MS interfering with FM MS

TETRA MS interfering with FM BS
TETRA BS interfering with FM MS
TETRA BS interfering with FM BS
FM MS interfering with TETRA MS
FM MS interfering with TETRA BS
FM BS interfering with TETRA MS
FM BS interfering with TETRA BS
For each of these it must be considered that the FM system could be either 25 kHz, 20 kHz or 12.5 kHz. Additionally the
TETRA and FM systems could be either co-sited or non co-sited. Finally TETRA direct mode (mobile to mobile) operation
needs to be considered. For TETRA direct mode it is possible that there will be high user densities and currently no power
control is specified.
This leads to the following report format :
4. Non Co-sited Systems
4.1 The Effect of TETRA upon FM
4.2 The Effect of FM upon TETRA
5. Co-sited Systems
6. TETRA Direct Mode
Additional sub-sections are included to investigate the effect of specific simulation parameters.
The simulations completed include the effects of interferer unwanted emissions and victim receiver blocking.
Intermodulation is a third type of interference mechanism but is not included as it is believed to have less effect when
considering TETRA and FM compatibility.
In some cases of unwanted emissions and receiver blocking the characteristics specified by the relevant standards have
been used. This leads to a worst case result, which assumes that the transmitters and receivers have a performance equal to
the specification. These and other assumed parameters are provided in Appendix B.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 3
NON CO-SITED TETRA AND FM SYSTEMS
Systems, which are non co-sited use, separate masts for their base station antennas. This leads to one of the cell structures
being geographically offset from the other. An illustration of this is provided in Figure 2.
Victim System
Interferer System
Figure 2 : A pair of non co-sited systems

Simulations have been completed to investigate the effect of active user density, minimum frequency separation, band
allocation size and power control. The effect of TETRA upon FM will be investigated first followed by the effect of FM
upon TETRA.
4.1
The Effect of TETRA upon FM
Four interference scenarios can be identified :
TETRA MS interfering with an FM MS

TETRA MS interfering with an FM BS
TETRA BS interfering with an FM MS
TETRA BS interfering with an FM BS.
It is assumed that the FM system is either 25 kHz, 20 kHz or 12.5 kHz. Parameters for each system are specified in
Appendix B. Simulations have been completed for 25 kHz and 12.5 kHz systems. The only difference between the
parameters for a 25 kHz system and a 20 kHz system is the receiver bandwidth. For a 25 kHz system the receiver
bandwidth is 15 kHz whereas for a 20 kHz system it is 12 kHz. This means that levels of interference for a 20 kHz system
will be slightly lower than for 25 kHz. Providing levels are acceptable for 25 kHz they will also be acceptable for 20 kHz.
TETRA mobiles are assumed to be 1 Watt. Only an urban area has been considered in this report.
4.1.1
For this scenario it is possible for the interferer and victim to be very close. However transmit powers and antenna gains are
lower than those belonging to a base and the wanted signal strength will be greater than that received by a base - due to
uplink and downlink power budgets. In all of the simulations in this section the victim FM system is assumed to have a 7.8
km cell radius which provides a 90 % area availability.
4.1.1.1 The Effect of Active Interferer Density
The density of active interferers will be dependent upon the area being considered i.e. a sub-urban area is likely to have a
lower density than an urban area. Correspondingly the level of interference in an urban area would be expected to be
greater.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 4
Figure 3 illustrates the band plan assumed for this investigation. 2 MHz of spectrum has been allocated to the uplink of
TETRA and directly adjacent to this, 2 MHz has been allocated to FM.
TETRA
MS TX
410
FM MS
RX
412
414 MHz
Figure 3 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of increasing the active interferer density
Table 1 provides the levels of interference for a range of interferer densities and cell sizes. The cell sizes are based upon the
density and carriers per cell assumed and are representative of those used in practice.
Active
Interferer
Density
0.5 / km2
1 / km2
1 / km2
2 / km2
2 / km2
4 / km2
5 / km2
10 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
4.79 km
3.39 km
3.91 km
2.39 km
2.75 km
1.95 km
1.75 km
1.24 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.04 %
0.08 %
0.08 %
0.15 %
0.15 %
0.26 %
0.31 %
0.50 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.04 %
0.08 %
0.09 %
0.15 %
0.16 %
0.28 %
0.33 %
0.52 %
Table 1 : The probability of interference for an FM mobile amongst a population of

TETRA mobiles for a range of active interferer densities
The level of interference increases as the density of active interferers increases. When the interferer density is fixed but the
number of carriers per cell is increased - allowing the TETRA cell size to increase, then the level of interference increases
slightly due to power control being used to a lesser extent.
4.1.1.2 The Effect of Minimum Carrier Separation
For this investigation the same size bands as in the previous section are allocated but in this case the minimum carrier
separation between the TETRA and FM bands is varied. This is illustrated in Figure 4.
FM MS
RX
TETRA
MS TX
410
412
+x
414 + x
MHz
Figure 4 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of increasing

the minimum frequency separation
ERC REPORT 104

Page 5
Table 2 provides the levels of interference for a range of minimum carrier separations. The TETRA active user density is
fixed at 4 / km2 and the TETRA cell radius at 1.95 km.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Active
Interf.
Density
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.26 %
0.26 %
0.26 %
0.26 %
0.26 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.28 %
0.28 %
0.28 %
0.28 %
0.28 %

TETRA mobiles for a range of minimum carrier separations
The probabilities of interference remain constant as the minimum carrier separation is increased. This is because the
TETRA out-of-band emissions characteristic is flat for frequency offsets above 250 kHz.
The probabilities of interference calculated above are for an FM mobile victim who is able to use any channel across the
FM band. It is also of interest to repeat the previous investigation for an FM victim who is restricted to using the FM
channel closest to the TETRA band. This is illustrated in Figure 5.
TETRA
MS TX
410
Single FM
Channel
412 MHz
Figure 5 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of increasing the minimum carrier separation
when the victim has only a single channel
fixed at 4 / km2 and the TETRA cell radius at 1.95 km.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Active
Interf.
Density
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.28 %
0.28 %
0.27 %
0.26 %
0.26 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.30 %
0.29 %
0.28 %
0.28 %
0.28 %
Table 3 : The probability of interference for an FM mobile amongst a population of TETRA mobiles for a range of
minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
The levels of interference are slightly greater than for the case when the FM system had 2 MHz of channels allocated. This
is due to the higher probability of smaller frequency offsets. There is a small decrease in the level of interference as the
minimum carrier separation is increased.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 6
4.1.1.3 The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations

For this investigation the minimum carrier separation is maintained at its minimum and the band allocations increased. This
is illustrated in Figure 6 for the case of 5 MHz band allocations.
TETRA
MS TX
410
FM MS
RX
420 MHz
415
Figure 6 : One of the band allocations used to investigate the effect of increasing the band allocation size
Table 4 provides the levels of interference for a range of band allocation sizes. The TETRA active user density is fixed at
4 / km2 and the TETRA cell size at 1.95 km.
Band
Allocation
Size
2 MHz
3 MHz
4 MHz
5 MHz
Active
Interf.
Density
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.26 %
0.26 %
0.26 %
0.26 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.28 %
0.28 %
0.27 %
0.27 %

TETRA mobiles for a range of band allocation sizes
The probability of interference does not change as the band allocation is increased. This is due to the TETRA mobile
station out-of-band emissions characteristic being flat above 250 kHz.
4.1.1.4 The Effect of not using Power Control for the TETRA MS
Using power control can decrease levels of interference significantly for high active user densities. This is because cell
sizes are reduced and mobiles do not need to transmit at full power. This investigation determines how much the level of
interference increases when power control is not used. It should be noted that in practice power control would be used
otherwise cell sizes would have to be greater to constrain inter-cell co-channel interference and the corresponding system
capacity would be reduced. These results are presented for information only to indicate the magnitude of the effect of
power control on inter-system interference. The same simulations are completed as for the investigation into active user
density in Section 4.1.1.1. Figure 7 illustrates the TETRA and FM band allocations.
TETRA
MS TX
410
412
FM MS
RX
414 MHz
Figure 7 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of power control
ERC REPORT 104

Page 7
Table 5 provides the levels of interference for a range of interferer densities.

Active
Interferer
Density
0.5 / km2
1 / km2
1 / km2
2 / km2
2 / km2
4 / km2
5 / km2
10 / km2
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.05 %
0.09 %
0.09 %
0.18 %
0.18 %
0.36 %
0.44 %
0.86 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.05 %
0.10 %
0.10 %
0.19 %
0.19 %
0.37 %
0.46 %
0.89 %

TETRA mobiles for a range of active interferer densities when power control is not used
These figures can be compared to those in Table 1. The first row of Table 1 has figures of 0.04 % and 0.04 %. The use of
power control reduces the level of interference by 20 %. This is for a relatively low density of interferer. The last row of
Table 1 has figures of 0.50 % and 0.52 %. In this case the use of power control reduces the level of interference by more
than 40 %. This illustrates the fact that power control has a greater effect upon levels of interference for high interferer
densities when the cell sizes are relatively small and mobile transmit power can be kept to a minimum.
4.1.2
TETRA MS Interfering with an FM BS
This scenario involves a population of TETRA mobile stations interfering with a victim FM base station. The interferer to
victim link now includes the antenna gain of a base leading to potentially increased levels of interference. In addition the
wanted signal strength arriving at the base will be less than that arriving at a mobile due to the uplink and downlink power
budgets. In all of the simulations in this section the victim FM system is assumed to have a 7.8 km cell radius which
provides a 90 % area availability.
TETRA
MS TX
410
412
FM BS
RX
414 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 8
Table 6 provides the levels of interference for a range of interferer densities and cell sizes. The cell sizes are based upon the
density and carriers per cell assumed and are representative of those used in practice.
Active
Interferer
Density
0.5 / km2
1 / km2
1 / km2
2 / km2
2 / km2
4 / km2
5 / km2
10 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
4.79 km
3.39 km
3.91 km
2.39 km
2.75 km
1.95 km
1.75 km
1.24 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM BS
0.51 %
0.96 %
0.98 %
1.65 %
1.74 %
2.88 %
3.28 %
4.74 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.58 %
1.10 %
1.13 %
1.89 %
2.00 %
3.28 %
3.77 %
5.41 %
Table 6 : The probability of interference for an FM base station amongst a population of

The level of interference increases as the density of active interferers increases. When the interferer density is fixed but the
number of carriers per cell is increased - allowing the TETRA cell size to increase, then the level of interference increases
slightly due to power control being used to a lesser extent.
Section 4.1.1.2 showed that the level of interference does not change as the minimum carrier separation between the 2 MHz
band allocations is increased. If however the FM victim is restricted to using the FM channel closest to the TETRA band
then there is a reduction in the level of interference as the carrier separation is increased. This scenario is illustrated in
Figure 9.
TETRA
MS TX
410
Single FM
Channel
412 MHz
fixed at 4 / km2 and the TETRA cell size at 1.95 km.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Active
Interf.
Density
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM BS
3.12 %
3.06 %
2.97 %
2.86 %
2.86 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
3.55 %
3.48 %
3.38 %
3.27 %
3.27 %

TETRA mobiles for a range of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
is due to the higher probability of smaller frequency offsets. There is a decrease in the level of interference as the minimum
carrier separation is increased.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 9

Section 4.1.1.3 showed that the level of interference did not change as the allocated bands were increased from
2 MHz to 5 MHz.
4.1.2.4 The Effect of not using Power Control for the TETRA MS
Using power control can decrease levels of interference significantly for high active user densities. This is because cell
sizes are reduced and mobiles do not need to transmit at full power. This investigation determines how much the level of
interference increases when power control is not used. It should be noted that in practice power control would be used
otherwise cell sizes would have to be greater to constrain inter-cell co-channel interference and the corresponding system
capacity would be reduced. These results are presented for information only to indicate the magnitude of the effect of
power control on inter-system interference. The same simulations are completed as for the investigation into active user
density in Section 4.1.2.1. Figure 10 illustrates the TETRA and FM band allocations.
TETRA
MS TX
410
412
FM BS
RX
414 MHz
Figure 10 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of power control
Active
Interferer
Density
0.5 / km2
1 / km2
1 / km2
2 / km2
2 / km2
4 / km2
5 / km2
10 / km2
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM BS
0.54 %
1.09 %
1.09 %
2.11 %
2.12 %
3.98 %
4.91 %
8.71 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.63 %
1.24 %
1.26 %
2.39 %
2.40 %
4.55 %
5.51 %
9.73 %
Table 8 : The Probability of Interference for an FM base station amongst a Population of

TETRA Mobiles for a Range of Active Interferer Densities when Power Control is not used
These figures can be compared to those in Table 6. The first row of Table 6 has figures of 0.51 % and 0.58 %. The use of
power control reduces the level of interference by 5 %. This is for a relatively low density of interferer. The last row of
Table 6 has figures of 4.74 % and 5.41 %. In this case the use of power control reduces the level of interference by more
than 40 %. This illustrates the fact that power control has a greater effect upon levels of interference for high interferer
densities when the cell sizes are relatively small and mobile transmit power can be kept to a minimum.
4.1.3
For this scenario the density of interferers is relatively low. However, the transmit power is greater and no power control is
used. The victim is receiving from a base station and will benefit from the downlink power budget. In all of the simulations
in this section the victim FM system is assumed to have a 7.8 km cell radius which provides 90 % area availability.
greater.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 10
Figure 11 illustrates the band plan assumed for this investigation. 2 MHz of spectrum has been allocated to the downlink of
TETRA
BS TX
420
FM MS
RX
422
424 MHz
Table 9 provides the levels of interference for a range of interferer densities. The cell radius figures shown are derived
directly from the interferer densities but are not directly used in the simulation.
Active
Interferer
Density
0.01 / km2
0.02 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.10 / km2
0.20 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
5.64 km
3.99 km
2.52 km
1.78 km
1.26 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.02 %
0.04 %
0.10 %
0.21 %
0.41 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.02 %
0.05 %
0.11 %
0.22 %
0.44 %

TETRA base stations for a range of active interferer densities
The level of interference increases as the density of active interferers increases. The percentage increase is greater than
when the interferers were mobile stations because TETRA base stations use no power control.
For this investigation the same size bands as in the previous section are allocated but in this case the minimum frequency
FM MS
RX
TETRA
BS TX
420
422
+x
424 + x
MHz
Table 10 provides the levels of interference for a range of minimum carrier separations. The TETRA base station density is
fixed at 0.05 / km2. The cell radius figures shown are derived directly from the interferer densities but are not directly used
in the simulation.
Minimum
Active
TETRA
Probability of
Probability of
Carrier
Interf.
Cell
Interference for Interference for
Separation
Density
Radius
25 kHz FM MS
12.5 kHz FM
MS
25 kHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
50 kHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
100 kHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
250 kHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
500 kHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
TETRA base stations for a range of minimum carrier separations
ERC REPORT 104

Page 11
The probabilities of interference remain constant as the minimum carrier separation is increased. These probabilities are for
an FM victim who is able to use any channel across the FM band. It is also of interest to repeat the investigation for an FM
victim who is restricted to using the FM channel closest to the TETRA band. This is illustrated in Figure 13.
TETRA
BS TX
420
Single FM
Channel
422 MHz
Figure 13 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of increasing the minimum carrier separation when
the victim has only a single channel
Table 11 provides the levels of interference for a range of minimum frequency separations. The TETRA base station
density is fixed at 0.05 / km2. The cell radius figures shown are derived directly from the interferer densities but are not
directly used in the simulation.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Active
Interf.
Density
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
TETRA
Cell Radius
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.15 %
0.13 %
0.12 %
0.10 %
0.10 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.16 %
0.14 %
0.13 %
0.11 %
0.11 %
Table 11 : The probability of interference for an FM Mobile amongst a population of TETRA base stations
for a range of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
The level of interference is greater than for the case when the FM system had 2 MHz of channels allocated. This is due to
the higher probability of smaller frequency offsets. There is a decrease in the level of interference as the minimum carrier
separation is increased. At minimum carrier separations of 250 kHz and 500 kHz the levels of interference are reduced back
to those in Table 10.
TETRA
BS TX
420
FM MS
RX
425
430 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 12
Table 12 provides the levels of interference for a range of band allocation sizes. The TETRA base station density is fixed at
0.05 / km2. The cell radius figures shown are derived directly from the interferer densities but are not directly used in the
simulation.
Band
Active
TETRA
Probability of
Probability of
Allocation
Interf.
Cell
Interference for
Interference for
Size
Density
Radius
25 kHz FM MS
12.5 kHz FM MS
2 MHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
3 MHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
2
4 MHz
0.05 / km
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
5 MHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.10 %
0.11 %
Table 12 : The probability of interference for FM mobiles amongst a population of TETRA base stations
for a Range of Band Allocation Sizes
The probability of interference does not change as the band allocation is increased.
4.1.4
TETRA BS Interfering with an FM BS
used. In addition the interferer to victim path includes two high gain antennas and the victim is receiving from a mobile. In
all of the simulations in this section the victim FM system is assumed to have a 7.8 km cell radius which provides 90 %
area availability.
TETRA
BS TX
420
422
FM BS
RX
424 MHz
Active
Interferer
Density
0.01 / km2
0.02 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.10 / km2
0.20 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
5.64 km
3.99 km
2.52 km
1.78 km
1.26 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM BS
1.71 %
3.29 %
7.31 %
12.55 %
20.09 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
2.09 %
4.00 %
8.69 %
14.64 %
22.93 %
Table 13 : The probability of interference, for an FM base station, amongst a population of

TETRA base stations, for a range of active interferer densities
The level of interference increases significantly as the density of active interferers increases. The percentage increase is
greater than when the interferers were mobile stations because TETRA base stations use no power control and the antenna
gain is greater. It should be noted that the higher densities of TETRA base stations represent hot spots. A typical urban
TETRA cell will have a radius of approximately 4 km corresponding to a density of 0.02 %. Using additional filtering in
the transmitting or receiving base can reduce the levels of interference in hot spots. Cavity resonators can be used in the
transmitting base to reduce levels of unwanted emissions. A typical cavity resonator in the 400 MHz band can provide an
attenuation of 10 dB at a frequency offset of 400 kHz. The effect of such a cavity resonator upon the levels of interference
for a 25 kHz FM base station is shown in Table 14. The cell radius figures shown are derived directly from the interferer
densities but are not directly used in the simulation.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 13
Active
Interferer
Density
TETRA
Cell
Radius
0.01 / km2
0.02 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.10 / km2
0.20 / km2
5.64 km
3.99 km
2.52 km
1.78 km
1.26 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM BS
without Cavity
resonator
1.71 %
3.29 %
7.31 %
12.55 %
20.09 %
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM BS
with Cavity
Resonator
0.40 %
0.75 %
1.78 %
3.31 %
5.93 %

TETRA base stations, for a range of active interferer densities
The levels of interference are reduced significantly by the additional filtering in the transmitting base station.
FM BS
RX
TETRA
BS TX
420
422
+x
424 + x
MHz
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
Active
Interf.
Density
TETRA
Cell
Radius
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference
for 25 kHz FM
BS
7.31 %
7.27 %
7.18 %
7.09 %
7.05 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
8.69 %
8.65 %
8.55 %
8.46 %
8.40 %

TETRA base stations, for a range of minimum carrier separations
ERC REPORT 104

Page 14
The probabilities of interference calculated above are for an FM victim who is able to use any channel across the FM band.
It is also of interest to repeat the previous investigation for an FM victim who is restricted to using the FM channel closest
to the TETRA band. This is illustrated in Figure 17.
TETRA
BS TX
420
Single FM
Channel
422 MHz
Minimum
Frequency
Separation
Active
Interf.
Density
TETRA
Cell
Radius
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference
for 25 kHz FM
BS
10.04 %
9.52 %
8.65 %
7.71 %
7.06 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
11.66 %
11.11 %
10.16 %
9.13 %
8.42 %

TETRA base stations for a range of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
The level of interference decreases as the minimum frequency separation is increased.
For this investigation the minimum frequency separation is maintained at its minimum and the band allocations increased.
This is illustrated in Figure 18 for the case of 5 MHz band allocations.
TETRA
BS TX
420
FM BS
RX
425
430 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 15
simulation.
Band
Allocation
Size
Active
Interf.
Density
TETRA
Cell
Radius
2 MHz
3 MHz
4 MHz
5 MHz
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference
for 25 kHz FM
BS
7.31 %
7.16 %
7.10 %
7.07 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
8.69 %
8.53 %
8.47 %
8.44 %
Table 17 : The probability of interference for an FM base station, amongst a population of

TETRA base stations, for a range of band allocation sizes
The level of interference decreases slightly as the band allocation is increased.
4.2
The Effect of FM upon TETRA
FM MS interfering with an TETRA MS

FM MS interfering with an TETRA BS
FM BS interfering with an TETRA MS
FM BS interfering with an TETRA BS
Simulations have been completed for 25 kHz and 12.5 kHz FM systems. TETRA mobile stations are assumed to be 1 Watt.
Only an urban area has been considered in this report.
4.2.1
FM MS Interfering with a TETRA MS
For this scenario it is possible for the interferer and victim to be very close to one another. However transmit powers and
antenna gains are lower than those belonging to a base and the wanted signal strength will be greater than that received by a
base - due to uplink and downlink power budgets. In all of the simulations in this section the victim TETRA system is
assumed to have a 4 km cell radius providing a 90 % area availability.
greater.
TETRA
MS RX
420
422
FM MS
TX
424 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 16
Table 18 provides the levels of interference for a range of interferer densities. When TETRA mobiles were the interferers
then the TETRA cell size was important because of the power control algorithm. FM mobiles do not use power control and
so knowledge of the FM cell size is not required.
Active
Interferer
Density
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM MS
0.5 / km2
1 / km2
2 / km2
4 / km2
5 / km2
10 / km2
0.06 %
0.12 %
0.20 %
0.45 %
0.56 %
1.10 %
Probability of
Interference due
to 12.5 kHz FM
MS
0.06 %
0.12 %
0.22 %
0.46 %
0.57 %
1.12 %
Table 18 : The probability of interference for TETRA mobiles amongst a population of

FM mobiles for a range of active interferer densities
The level of interference increases as the density of active interferers increases.
For this investigation the same size bands as in the previous section are allocated but in this case the minimum frequency
FM MS
TX
TETRA
MS RX
420
422
+x
424 + x
MHz
Table 19 provides the levels of interference for a range of minimum carrier separations. The FM active user density is fixed
at 4 / km2.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM MS
0.45 %
0.45 %
0.44 %
0.43 %
0.43 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.46 %
0.45 %
0.44 %
0.43 %
0.43 %
Table 19 : The Probability of Interference for TETRA mobiles amongst a population of

FM mobiles for a range of minimum carrier separations
The level of interference remains virtually constant as the minimum carrier separation is increased.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 17
The probabilities of interference calculated above are for a TETRA victim who is able to use any channel across the
TETRA band. It is also of interest to repeat the previous investigation for a TETRA victim who is restricted to using the
TETRA channel closest to the FM band. This is illustrated in Figure 21.
Single
TETRA
Channel
FM MS
TX
422
424 MHz
Figure 21 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of increasing the minimum carrier
separation when the victim has only a single channel
at 4 / km2.
Minimum
Probability of
Probability of
Carrier
Interference due
Interference due to
Separation
to 25 kHz FM MS
12.5 kHz FM MS
25 kHz
0.65 %
0.78 %
100 kHz
0.54 %
0.58 %
250 kHz
0.48 %
0.48 %
500 kHz
0.44 %
0.44 %
1 MHz
0.43 %
0.43 %
Table 20 : The probability of interference for TETRA mobiles amongst a population of FM mobiles for a
range of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
The levels of interference are slightly greater than for the case when the TETRA system had 2 MHz of channels allocated.
This is due to the higher probability of smaller frequency offsets. There is a decrease in the level of interference as the
For this investigation the minimum frequency separation is maintained at its minimum and the band allocations increased.
TETRA
MS RX
420
FM MS
TX
425
430 MHz
Table 21 provides the levels of interference for a range of band allocation sizes. The FM active user density is fixed at
4 / km2.
Band
Probability of
Probability of
Allocation
Interference due
Interference due to
Size
to 25 kHz FM MS
12.5 kHz FM MS
2 MHz
0.45 %
0.46 %
3 MHz
0.44 %
0.44 %
4 MHz
0.43 %
0.43 %
5 MHz
0.43 %
0.43 %
Table 21 : The Probability of Interference for TETRA mobiles amongst a population of
FM Mobiles for a range of band allocation sizes
The probability of interference does not change significantly as the band allocation is increased.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 18
4.2.2
FM MS Interfering with an TETRA BS
This scenario involves a population of FM mobiles interfering with a victim TETRA base station. The interferer / victim
link now includes the antenna gain of a base leading to increased levels of interference. The mean wanted signal strength
arriving at the base will be less than that arriving at a mobile due to the uplink and downlink power budgets. In all of the
simulations in this section the victim TETRA system is assumed to have a 4 km cell radius providing a 90 % area
availability.
TETRA and directly adjacent to this 2 MHz has been allocated to FM.
TETRA
BS RX
410
FM MS
TX
412
414 MHz
Active
Interferer
Density
0.5 / km2
1 / km2
2 / km2
4 / km2
5 / km2
10 / km2
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM MS
0.62 %
1.21 %
2.32 %
4.28 %
5.20 %
9.18 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.63 %
1.22 %
2.34 %
4.30 %
5.22 %
9.21 %
Table 22 : The probability of interference for a TETRA base station amongst a population of FM mobiles
for a range of active interferer densities
Section 4.2.1.2 showed that the level of interference does not change significantly as the minimum carrier separation
between the 2 MHz band allocations is increased. If however the TETRA victim is restricted to using the TETRA channel
closest to the FM band then there is a reduction in the level of interference as the carrier separation is increased. This
scenario is illustrated in Figure 24.
Single
TETRA
Channel
FM MS
TX
412
414 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 19
at 4 / km2.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
1 MHz
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM BS
6.16 %
5.25 %
4.67 %
4.19 %
4.07 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM BS
6.17 %
5.26 %
4.68 %
4.20 %
4.08 %
Table 23 : The probability of interference for a TETRA base station amongst a population of FM mobiles for a
range of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
Below 250 kHz minimum carrier separation, the levels of interference are slightly greater than for the case when the
TETRA system had 2 MHz of channels allocated. This is due to the higher probability of smaller frequency offsets. There
is a decrease in the level of interference as the minimum carrier separation is increased.
Section 4.2.1.3 showed that the level of interference does not change significantly as the band allocations are increased
beyond 2 MHz.
4.2.3
FM BS Interfering with an TETRA MS
For this scenario the density of interferers is relatively low. However, the transmit power is greater. The victim is receiving
from a base station and will benefit from the downlink power budget. In all of the simulations in this section the victim
TETRA system is assumed to have a 4 km cell radius which provides 90 % area availability.
TETRA
MS RX
420
422
FM BS
TX
424 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 20
Active
Interferer
Density
0.01 / km2
0.02 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.10 / km2
0.20 / km2
FM Cell Radius
5.64 km
3.99 km
2.52 km
1.78 km
1.26 km
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM BS
0.01 %
0.02 %
0.04 %
0.08 %
0.15 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.01 %
0.02 %
0.04 %
0.08 %
0.17 %

FM base stations for a range of base station densities
Single
TETRA
Channel
FM BS
TX
422
424 MHz
at 0.05 / km2. The cell radius figures shown are derived directly from the interferer densities but are not directly used in the
simulation.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
1 MHz
Active
Interferer
Density
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
FM Cell
Radius
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM BS
0.08 %
0.06 %
0.05 %
0.04 %
0.04 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.15 %
0.07 %
0.05 %
0.04 %
0.04 %
Table 25 : The probability of interference for TETRA mobiles amongst a population of FM base stations for a range
of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
beyond 2 MHz.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 21
4.2.4
FM BS Interfering with an TETRA BS
For this scenario the density of interferers is relatively low. However, the transmit power is greater. In addition the
interferer to victim path includes two high gain antennas and the victim is receiving from a mobile. In all of the simulations
in this section the victim TETRA system is assumed to have a 4 km cell radius which provides 90 % area availability.
TETRA and directly adjacent to this 2 MHz has been allocated to FM.
TETRA
BS RX
410
FM BS
TX
412
414 MHz
Active
Interferer
Density
0.01 / km2
0.02 /km2
0.05 / km2
0.10 / km2
0.20 / km2
FM Cell Radius
5.64 km
3.99 km
2.52 km
1.78 km
1.26 km
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM BS
0.50 %
1.01 %
2.41 %
4.58 %
8.12 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.63 %
1.21 %
2.79 %
5.14 %
8.98 %
Table 26 : The Probability of Interference for a TETRA base station amongst a population of
FM base stations for a range of active FM base station densities
The level of interference increases as the density of active interferers increases. It should be noted that the higher densities
of FM base stations represent hot spots. A typical urban FM cell has a radius of approximately 7.8 km corresponding to a
density of 0.01 km2. Using additional filtering in the transmitting or receiving base can reduce the levels of interference in
hot spots. Cavity resonators can be used in the transmitting base to reduce levels of unwanted emissions. A typical cavity
resonator in the 400 MHz band can provide an attenuation of 10 dB at a frequency offset of 400 kHz. The effect of such a
cavity resonator upon the levels of interference for a 25 kHz FM base station is shown in Table 27. The cell radius figures
shown are derived directly from the interferer densities but are not directly used in the simulation.
Active
Interferer
Density
FM Cell
Radius
0.01 / km2
0.02 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.10 / km2
0.20 / km2
5.64 km
3.99 km
2.52 km
1.78 km
1.26 km
Prob. of Interf.
due to 25 kHz
FM BS without
a Cavity
Resonator
0.50 %
1.01 %
2.41 %
4.58 %
8.12 %
Prob. of Interf.
due to 25 kHz
FM BS with a
Cavity
0.45 %
0.90 %
2.14 %
4.05 %
7.32 %
Table 27 : The probability of interference for a TETRA base station, amongst a population of
FM base stations, for a range of active interferer densities
The levels of interference are reduced (somewhat), by the additional filtering in the transmitting base station but not
significantly. This indicates that receiver blocking is having a significant effect and additional filtering in the receiving base
station would be required to reduce levels of interference significantly.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 22

Single
TETRA
Channel
FM BS
TX
412
414 MHz
Table 28 provides the levels of interference for a range of minimum frequency separations. The FM active user density is
in the simulation.
Minimum
Frequency
Separation
25 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
1 MHz
Active
Interferer
Density
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
FM Cell
Radius
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM BS
7.22 %
4.97 %
3.15 %
2.62 %
2.41 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM BS
7.25 %
4.99 %
3.16 %
2.63 %
2.42 %
Table 28 : The probability of interference for a TETRA base station amongst a population of FM base
stations for a range of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
beyond 2 MHz.
CO-SITED SYSTEMS
Systems, which are co-sited, use the same mast for their base station antennas. This is difficult to achieve over an entire
system as both systems would require identical cell sizes. However it is likely to occur at some base stations where there
are not many suitable antenna sites. An illustration of a co-sited cell is provided in Figure 29.
Victim and
Interferer
Systems
Figure 29 : A pair of co-sited cell
ERC REPORT 104

Page 23
The hypothesis concerning propagation model, power control, cell sizes and number of transmitters and receivers per base
station are the same as in Chapter 4.
Simulations have been completed to investigate the effect of active user density, minimum frequency separation, band
allocation size and power control. The effect of TETRA upon FM will be investigated first followed by the effect of FM
upon TETRA.
5.1
The Effect of TETRA upon FM

TETRA MS interfering with an FM BS
TETRA BS interfering with an FM BS
TETRA mobiles are assumed to be 1 Watt. Only an urban area has been considered in this report.
5.1.1
For this scenario it is possible for the interferer and victim to be very close. However transmit powers and antenna gains are
lower than those belonging to a base and the wanted signal strength will be greater than that received by a base - due to
uplink and downlink power budgets. In all of the simulations in this section the victim FM system is assumed to have a 7.8
km cell radius which provides a 90 % availability.
greater.
TETRA
MS TX
410
412
FM MS
RX
414 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 24
Table 29 provides the levels of interference for a range of interferer densities and cell sizes. The cell sizes are based upon
the density and carriers per cell assumed and are representative of those used in practice.
Active
Interferer
Density
0.5 / km2
1 / km2
1 / km2
2 / km2
2 / km2
4 / km2
5 / km2
10 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
4.79 km
3.39 km
3.91 km
2.39 km
2.75 km
1.95 km
1.75 km
1.24 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.04 %
0.09 %
0.09 %
0.19 %
0.19 %
0.36 %
0.44 %
0.84 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.04 %
0.09 %
0.09 %
0.19 %
0.19 %
0.37 %
0.47 %
0.88 %

The level of interference increases as the density of active interferers increases. The levels of interference are greater than
those for a non-cosited pair of TETRA and FM systems. This is because when the victim is far from its wanted signal
transmitter i.e. is at the cell edge, then the closest interferer is also far from its intended receiver - the wanted signal
transmitter and the interferons intended receiver are co-located base stations. This means that when the victim has a
relatively low wanted signal strength then the nearest interferer is almost always transmitting at a high power level i.e. the
near far effect. When the base stations are not co-sited this scenario does not occur so frequently and so the probability of
interference is lower.
FM MS
RX
TETRA
MS TX
410
412
+x
414 + x
MHz
Figure 31 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of increasing the minimum frequency separation
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Active
Interf.
Density
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.36 %
0.36 %
0.36 %
0.36 %
0.36 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.37 %
0.37 %
0.37 %
0.37 %
0.37 %

TETRA mobiles for a range of minimum carrier separations
The probabilities of interference remain constant as the minimum carrier separation is increased. This is because
the TETRA out-of-band emissions characteristic is flat for frequency offsets above 250 kHz. The absolute levels
of interference are greater than for the non-cosited case for the same reason described in section 5.1.1.1.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 25
The probabilities of interference calculated above are for an FM mobile victim who is able to use any channel across the
FM band. It is also of interest to repeat the previous investigation for an FM victim who is restricted to using the FM
channel closest to the TETRA band. This is illustrated in Figure 32.
TETRA
MS TX
420
Single FM
Channel
422 MHz
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Active
Interf.
Density
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.38 %
0.37 %
0.37 %
0.36 %
0.36 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.40 %
0.38 %
0.38 %
0.37 %
0.37 %

TETRA mobiles for a range of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
is due to the higher probability of smaller frequency offsets. There is a small decrease in the level of interference as the
For this investigation the minimum carrier separation is maintained at its minimum and the band allocations increased.
TETRA
MS TX
410
FM MS
RX
415
420 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 26
Table 32 provides the levels of interference for a range of band allocation sizes. The TETRA active user density is fixed at
4 / km2 and the TETRA cell size at 1.95 km.
Band
Allocation
Size
Active
Interf.
Density
TETR
A Cell
Radius
2 MHz
3 MHz
4 MHz
5 MHz
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
Probability of
Interference
for 25 kHz FM
MS
0.36 %
0.36 %
0.36 %
0.36 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM
MS
0.37 %
0.37 %
0.37 %
0.37 %

TETRA mobiles for a range of band allocation sizes
The probability of interference does not change as the band allocation is increased. This is due to the TETRA mobile
station out-of-band emissions characteristic being flat above 250 kHz. The absolute levels of interference are greater than
for the non-cosited case for the same reason described in section 5.1.1.1.
5.1.1.4 The Effect of not using Power Control
When power control is not used then the levels of interference for this scenario are identical to those for the non-cosited
scenario shown in Table 5. They are identical because the results do not rely upon the TETRA mobile station to TETRA
base station distance but only upon the TETRA mobile station to FM mobile station and FM mobile station to FM base
station distances.
5.1.2
TETRA MS Interfering with an FM BS
This scenario involves a population of mobiles interfering with a victim base. The interferer to victim link now includes the
antenna gain of a base leading to increased levels of interference. In addition the wanted signal strength arriving at the base
will be less than that arriving at a mobile due to the uplink and downlink power budgets. In all of the simulations in this
section the victim FM system is assumed to have a 7.8 km cell radius which provides a 90 % availability.
Due to the TETRA and FM systems being co-sited the distance from the interferer to the victim is equal to the distance
between the interferer and its intended receiver. This has implications upon the effect of power control. Whenever the
interferer is close to the victim then it will also be close to its intended receiver and so will be transmitting at a relatively
low power. Thus for this scenario levels of interference will be lower than for the corresponding non-cosited case.
TETRA
MS TX
410
412
FM BS
RX
414 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 27
Table 33 provides the levels of interference for a range of interferer densities and cell sizes. The cell sizes are based upon
the density and carriers per cell assumed and are representative of those used in practice.
Active
Interferer
Density
0.5 / km2
1 / km2
1 / km2
2 / km2
2 / km2
4 / km2
5 / km2
10 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
4.79 km
3.39 km
3.91 km
2.39 km
2.75 km
1.95 km
1.75 km
1.24 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM BS
0.11 %
0.21 %
0.21 %
0.43 %
0.43 %
0.78 %
0.98 %
1.76 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.13 %
0.26 %
0.26 %
0.52 %
0.52 %
0.98 %
1.22 %
2.17 %

The level of interference increases as the density of active interferers increases. The levels of interference are lower than
those for the non-cosited case because when an interfering TETRA mobile station is close to the victim FM base station
then it is also close to its intended receiving base station and is able to transmit at a relatively low power level. Interfering
mobiles that are transmitting at a high power are further away from the victim and so have a greater path loss.
Section 5.1.1.2 showed that the level of interference does not change as the minimum carrier separation between the 2 MHz
band allocations is increased. If however the FM victim is restricted to using the FM channel closest to the TETRA band
then there is a reduction in the level of interference as the carrier separation is increased. This scenario is illustrated in
Figure 35.
TETRA
MS TX
410
Single FM
Channel
412 MHz
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Active
Interf.
Density
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
4 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
1.95 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM BS
0.91 %
0.89 %
0.85 %
0.78 %
0.78 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM BS
1.12 %
1.08 %
1.04 %
0.97 %
0.97 %
Table 34 : The probability of interference for an FM base station amongst a population of TETRA mobiles
is due to the higher probability of smaller frequency offsets. There is a decrease in the level of interference as the minimum
carrier separation is increased. The absolute levels of interference are less than for the non-cosited case for the same reason
described in section 5.1.2.1.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 28

Section 5.1.1.3 showed that the level of interference does not change as the allocated bands are increased from 2 MHz to
5 MHz.
5.1.2.4 The Effect of not using Power Control
When power control is not used then the levels of interference for this scenario are identical to those for the non-cosited
scenario shown in Table 8. They are identical because the results do not rely upon the TETRA mobile station to TETRA
base station distance but only upon the TETRA mobile station to FM base station and FM base station to FM mobile station
distances.
5.1.3
used. The victim is receiving from a base station and will benefit from the downlink power budget. In all of the simulations
in this section the victim FM system is assumed to have a 7.8 km cell radius which provides 90 % availability.
between the victim and its wanted signal transmitter. Whenever the victim is close to an interferer then it will also be close
to its wanted signal transmitter and so will have a relatively good signal strength margin. Thus for this scenario levels of
interference will be lower than for the corresponding non-cosited case.
TETRA
BS TX
420
422
FM MS
RX
424 MHz
Active
Interferer
Density
0.01 / km2
0.02 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.10 / km2
0.20 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
5.64 km
3.99 km
2.52 km
1.78 km
1.26 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %

TETRA base stations for a range of active interferer densities
The levels of interference are below 0.01 % for all interferer densities considered. This is due to the victim always having a
high wanted signal strength when it is close to an interferer.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 29

FM MS
RX
TETRA
BS TX
420
424 + x
MHz
422
+x
in the simulation.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
Active
Interf.
Density
TETRA
Cell
Radius
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM
MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %

TETRA base stations for a range of minimum carrier separations
The probabilities of interference remain below 0.01 % as the minimum carrier separation is increased. These probabilities
are for an FM victim who is able to use any channel across the FM band. It is also of interest to repeat the investigation for
an FM victim who is restricted to using the FM channel closest to the TETRA band. This is illustrated in Figure 38.
TETRA
BS TX
420
Single FM
Channel
422 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 30
in the simulation.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
Active
Interf.
Density
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
TETRA
Cell Radius
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Table 37 : The probability of interference for an FM Mobile amongst a population of TETRA base stations
The levels of interference remain below 0.01 % for the reason described in section 5.1.3.1.
TETRA
BS TX
420
FM MS
RX
425
430 MHz
simulation.
Band
Allocation
Size
2 MHz
3 MHz
4 MHz
5 MHz
Active
Interf.
Density
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
TETRA
Cell
Radius
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference for
25 kHz FM MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Probability of
Interference for
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Table 38 : The probability of interference for FM mobiles amongst a population of

TETRA base stations for a range of band allocation sizes
5.1.4
TETRA BS Interfering with an FM BS
Calculations have not been carried out for this scenario as control of the interference depends upon careful site engineering
to provide adequate isolation between antennas sharing the same mast. The antennas will have to be placed carefully such
that significant power is not coupled from one to the other. Additional filtering in one system may be required to protect the
other. Frequency coordination between system operators would greatly ease any difficulties encountered.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 31
5.2
The Effect of FM upon TETRA
FM MS interfering with an TETRA MS

FM MS interfering with an TETRA BS
FM BS interfering with an TETRA MS
FM BS interfering with an TETRA BS
Simulations have been completed for 25 kHz and 12.5 kHz FM systems. TETRA mobile stations are assumed to be 1 Watt.
Only an urban area has been considered in this report.
5.2.1
FM MS Interfering with an TETRA MS
Due to FM mobile stations not using power control, the levels of interference for this scenario are identical to those for the
non-cosited scenarios presented in Section 4.2.1. They are identical because the results do not rely upon the FM mobile
station to FM base station distance but only upon the FM mobile station to TETRA mobile station and TETRA mobile
station to TETRA base station distances.
5.2.2
FM MS Interfering with an TETRA BS
Due to FM mobile stations not using power control, the levels of interference for this scenario are identical to those for the
non-cosited scenarios presented in Section 4.2.2. They are identical because the results do not rely upon the FM mobile
station to FM base station distance but only upon the FM mobile station to TETRA base station and TETRA base station to
TETRA mobile station distances.
5.2.3
FM BS Interfering with an TETRA MS
For this scenario the density of interferers is relatively low. However, the transmit power is greater. The victim is receiving
from a base station and will benefit from the downlink power budget. In all of the simulations in this section the victim
TETRA system is assumed to have a 4 km cell radius which provides 90 % area availability.
between the victim and its wanted signal transmitter. Whenever the victim is close to an interferer then it will also be close
to its wanted signal transmitter and so will have a relatively good signal strength margin. Thus for this scenario levels of
interference will be lower than for the corresponding non-cosited case.
TETRA
MS RX
420
422
FM BS
TX
424 MHz
ERC REPORT 104

Page 32
Active
Interferer
Density
0.01 / km2
0.02 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.10 / km2
0.20 / km2
FM Cell Radius
5.64 km
3.99 km
2.52 km
1.78 km
1.26 km
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM BS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %

FM base stations for a range of base station densities
The levels of interference are below 0.01 % for all interferer densities considered. This is due to the victim always having a
high wanted signal strength when it is close to an interferer.
FM BS
TX
TETRA
MS RX
420
422
+x
424 + x
MHz
Table 40 provides the levels of interference for a range of minimum carrier separations. The FM base station density is
in the simulation.
Minimum
Carrier
Separation
Active
Interf.
Density
FM Cell
Radius
25 kHz
50 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference
due to 25 kHz
FM BS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Probability of
Interference
due to 12.5 kHz
FM BS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Table 40 : The probability of interference for an TETRA mobile amongst a population of

FM base stations for a range of minimum carrier separations
ERC REPORT 104

Page 33
The probabilities of interference remain below 0.01 % as the minimum carrier separation is increased. These probabilities
are for a TETRA victim who is able to use any channel across the TETRA band. It is also of interest to repeat the
investigation for an TETRA victim who is restricted to using the TETRA channel closest to the FM band. This is illustrated
in Figure 42.
Single
TETRA
Channel
FM BS
TX
422
424 MHz
Figure 42 : The Band Allocations used to Investigate the Effect of Increasing the Minimum carrier Separation
when the Victim has only a Single Channel
Table 41 provides the levels of interference for a range of minimum frequency separations. The FM base station density is
in the simulation.
Minimum
Frequency
Separation
25 kHz
100 kHz
250 kHz
500 kHz
1 MHz
Active Interf.
Density
FM Cell
Radius
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
2.52 km
Probability of
Interference due
to 25 kHz FM BS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Probability of
Interference due to
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
Table 41 : The probability of interference for TETRA mobiles amongst a population of FM base stations for a range
of minimum carrier separations when the victim has only a single channel
TETRA
MS RX
420
FM BS
TX
425
430 MHz
simulation.
Probability of
Band
Active
FM Cell
Probability of
Interference due
Allocation
Interf.
Radius
Interference
to 12.5 kHz FM
Size
Density
due to 25 kHz
BS
FM BS
2 MHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.00 %
0.00 %
3 MHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.00 %
0.00 %
2
4 MHz
0.05 / km
2.52 km
0.00 %
0.00 %
5 MHz
0.05 / km2
2.52 km
0.00 %
0.00 %
FM base stations for a range of band allocation sizes
ERC REPORT 104

Page 34
5.2.4
FM BS Interfering with an TETRA BS
Calculations have not been carried out for this scenario as control of the interference depends upon careful site engineering
to provide adequate isolation between antennas sharing the same mast. The antennas will have to be placed carefully such
that significant power is not coupled from one to the other. Additional filtering in one system may be required to protect the
other. Frequency coordination between system operators would greatly ease any difficulties encountered.
TETRA DIRECT MODE
One type of TETRA direct mode operation involves mobile to mobile communication without the use of any system
infrastructure. It is simplex and uses a 4 slot TDMA structure similar to that used for trunked mode. Direct mode is
particularly useful in providing communication capability, outside normal coverage and in high user densities e.g. at the
scene of an accident involving all three emergency services. The second of these applications shall be studied. The first will
normally be used in areas where there are not high densities of other users who are likely to suffer from or cause
interference.
Working Group 2 of ETSI technical committee RES 6 (EPT) has studied intra-system interference levels due to TETRA
direct mode 2. To achieve this they defined three interference scenarios - minor, moderate and major accidents. The details
of these scenarios are specified below in Tables 43, 44 and 45.
DMO Scenario 1: Minor Accident
Area of accident - 0.126 km2 (200m radius circle)
2 Police Vehicles
1 Fire Engine
2 Ambulances
3 Policemen/vehicle
6 Firemen/vehicle
2 Medics/vehicle
Police
Fire Service
Ambulance Service
Total
6 Policemen
6 Firemen
4 Medics
1 Watt
6
3
2
11
3 Watt
2
1
2
5
10 Watt
0
0
0
0
Table 43 : The number of TETRA radios assumed for DMO scenario 1

DMO Scenario 2: Moderate Accident
5 Police Vehicles
4 Fire Engines
4 Ambulances
4 Policemen/vehicle
6 Firemen/vehicle
2 Medics/vehicle
Police
Fire Service
Ambulance Service
Total
20 Policemen
24 Firemen
8 Medics
1 Watt
20
12
4
36
3 Watt
5
4
4
13
10 Watt
1
0
0
1
ETSI STC RES6.2(95)142 DMO Interference Scenarios (ETSI PT TETRA WG2)
ERC REPORT 104

Page 35
DMO Scenario 3: Major Accident

10 Police Vehicles
8 Fire Engines
8 Ambulances
4 Policemen/vehicle
6 Firemen/vehicle
2 Medics/vehicle
Police
Fire Service
Ambulance Service
Total
40 Policemen
48 Firemen
16 Medics
1 Watt
40
24
8
72
3 Watt
10
8
8
26
10 Watt
1
1
1
3

It is assumed that each policeman has a 1 Watt portable and that each police vehicle has a 3 Watt mobile. For the fire and
ambulance services a 1 Watt portable is shared between 2 users and each vehicle has a 3 Watt mobile. 10 Watt repeaters are
assumed when the number of users is high. It is further assumed that 10 % of the users are active at any one point in time.
TETRA direct mode does not include a power control algorithm and so all radios transmit at full power.
Two interference scenarios can be identified :
TETRA DMO MS interfering with an FM MS

TETRA DMO MS interfering with an FM BS.
6.1
TETRA DMO MS Interfering with an FM MS
This interference scenario can be further sub-divided into the cases for when the victim FM mobile station is constrained to
being within the direct mode call area and for when it is either inside or outside the direct mode call area. The former may
apply if for example the police and fire services upgrade to a TETRA system but the ambulance service continues to use
FM. In this case there will be FM users within the area of the direct mode call. The victim FM system is assumed to have a
7.8 km cell radius, which provides a 90 % area availability.
6.1.1
FM MS is within the area of the DMO call
Figure 44 illustrates the scenario for when the victim FM receiver is constrained to remain within the area of the direct
mode call. The position of the direct mode call area is randomly placed within the FM cell for each simulation trial.
FM MS
FM Base
Station
TETRA Direct
Mode Group
Figure 44 : The Direct Mode interference scenario when the victim FM MS is
within the area of the Direct Mode call
ERC REPORT 104

Page 36
It has been assumed that the TETRA system has a total of 2 MHz in the TETRA uplink band. The FM system is assumed to
have 2 MHz of channels directly adjacent to the TETRA band. This is shown in Figure 45.
TETRA
MS TX
410
412
FM MS
RX
414 MHz
Figure 45 : The Direct Mode interference scenario when the victim FM MS is

within the area of the Direct Mode call
Simulations have been completed for all three direct mode scenarios. The results are presented in Table 46.
Direct Mode
Scenario
1
2
3
Probability of
Interference to a
25 kHz FM MS
1.13 %
2.27 %
3.09 %
Probability of
Interference to a
12.5 kHz FM MS
1.18 %
2.34 %
3.24 %
Table 46 : The probability of interference for an FM mobile within the area of a

TETRA Direct Mode group
The probability of interference increases as the direct mode scenario involves more users. It is interesting to compare these
results with those in Table 5 - TETRA mobiles interfering with an FM mobile for the case of no power control. The
effective active user density for direct mode scenario 1 is 13 / km2. The maximum density considered in Table 5 is 10 / km2
and generates a probability of interference of 0.86 % for a 25 kHz FM mobile station. This agrees with the 1.13 %
produced by the direct mode scenario with a greater active user density.
6.1.2
FM MS is inside or outside the area of the DMO call
Figure 46 illustrates the scenario for when the victim FM receiver outside the area of the direct mode call. The position of
the direct mode call area is randomly placed within the FM cell for each simulation trial.
FM Base
Station
FM MS
TETRA Direct
Mode Group
Figure 46 : The Direct Mode interference scenario when the victim FM MS is outside the area of
the Direct Mode call
ERC REPORT 104

Page 37
The same channels are assumed as for the previous investigation - shown in Figure 45. Simulations have been completed
for all three direct mode scenarios. Table 47 presents the results.
Direct Mode
Scenario
1
2
3
Probability of
Interference to a
25 kHz FM MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.01 %
Probability of
Interference to a
12.5 kHz FM MS
0.00 %
0.00 %
0.01 %
Table 47 : The probability of interference for an FM mobile outside the area of a

In this case the probabilities of interference fall to virtually zero. This means that for FM users not involved in a direct
mode scenario the levels of interference will be dominated by Trunked TETRA radios rather than direct mode TETRA
radios. This is due to the relatively low probability of being close by to a direct mode call.
6.2
TETRA DMO MS Interfering with an FM BS
For this scenario the FM base station may be either within or outside the area of the direct mode call but is not constrained
to either. In Section 6.1 a scenario was considered where the FM mobile station was constrained to being within the area of
the direct mode call coverage. This was to account for the scenario where possibly only one or two of the emergency
services had upgraded to TETRA. This would lead to the scenario where possibly at the site of an accident there would be a
mixture of TETRA and FM mobiles in the same coverage area. In the case of FM base stations there is no reason why base
stations would always be within the area of the direct mode call. Only the scenario where the base stations are freely
positioned inside and outside the direct mode coverage area is considered. The victim FM system is assumed to have a
7.8 km cell radius, which provides a 90 % area availability.
6.2.1
FM BS is inside or outside the area of the DMO call
The same channels are assumed as in Section 6.1.1 but with the base station receiving in the FM band. Simulations
have been completed for all three direct mode scenarios. Table 48 presents the results.
Direct Mode
Scenario
1
2
3
Probability of
Interference to a
25 kHz FM BS
0.02 %
0..07 %
0.14 %
Probability of
Interference to a
12.5 kHz FM BS
0.02 %
0.09 %
0.16 %
Table 48 : The probability of interference for an FM base station inside or outside the area of a
The probabilities of interference are low. This means that the levels of interference for an FM base station will be
dominated by Trunked TETRA radios rather than direct mode TETRA radios. This is due to the relatively low probability
of being close by to a direct mode call. Nevertheless if an FM base station is within the area of a direct mode call frequency
planning precautions should be taken.
DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS
The results found in each section are summarized and dominant scenarios identified.
7.1
Non Co-sited TETRA and FM Systems
For this set of scenarios the TETRA and FM systems use separate masts for their base station antennas. Investigations were
completed to determine the effects of interferer density, minimum carrier separation, band allocation size and power
control. Table 49 and the bullet points below summarize the results. Two levels of interference are quoted from the body of
the report. The first is for a typical scenario which would be encountered under normal operating conditions (2 active
TETRA or FM mobile stations / km2; 0.02 active TETRA base stations / km2; 0.01 active FM base stations / km2 ). The
ERC REPORT 104

Page 38
second is representative of a special case scenario where there are extraordinarily high active interferer densities. These
may occur at some special events, for example at a large sports event (10 active TETRA or FM mobile stations / km2;
0.20 active TETRA or FM base stations / km2 ). Figures in parenthesis represent those obtained with additional base
station transmit filtering.
Scenario
Typical
Prob. of
Interference
0.15 %
Special Case
Prob. of
Interference
0.50 %
TETRA MS
to FM BS
1.65 %
4.74 %
TETRA BS to
FM MS
0.04 %
0.41 %
TETRA BS to
FM BS
3.29 %
(0.75 %)
20.09 %
(5.93 %)
FM MS to
TETRA MS
0.20 %
1.10 %
FM MS to
TETRA BS
2.32 %
9.18 %
FM BS to
TETRA MS
0.01 %
0.15 %
FM BS to
TETRA BS
0.50 %
(0.45 %)
8.12 %
(7.32 %)
TETRA MS
to FM MS
Comments
high density of interferers; wanted signal

from base; low antenna gains on victim /
interferer link
from mobile; one high antenna gain on
victim / interferer link
low density of interferers; wanted signal
from base; one high antenna gain on victim
/ interferer link
from mobile; two high antenna gains on
victim / interferer link. A Cavity Resonator
can be used to reduce levels of interference
from base; low antenna gains on victim /
interferer link
from mobile; one high antenna gain on
victim / interferer link
from base; one high antenna gain on victim
/ interferer link
from mobile; two high antenna gains on
victim / interferer link. A Cavity Resonator
can be used to reduce levels of interference
Table 49 : Summary of the results for non co-sited TETRA and FM systems
For all scenarios :
increasing the minimum carrier separation has marginal effect upon the average level of interference for the
victim system but decreases the level of interference for the victim channel closest to the interfering system. In
the former the level of interference, as estimated by the simulation, is insensitive to frequency planning
because the result is an average of all frequency configurations.
increasing the size of the allocated TETRA and FM bands from 2 MHz to 5 MHz has marginal effect upon the
level of interference
power control has a significant effect upon the level of interference typically reducing the probability of
interference from between 20 % and 40 % depending upon the density of base stations belonging to the
interfering system
12.5 kHz FM is slightly more susceptible to interference and causes slightly higher levels of interference
relative to 25 kHz FM.
The dominant scenarios are those which involve mobile station to base station and base station to base station interference.
In special case environments where the active user density is very high then additional measures may be required to
maintain compatibility between TETRA and FM. This could be additional filtering in the base transmitter and receiver or
frequency coordination between TETRA and FM operators. The figures in Table 49 show that the use of a cavity resonator
ERC REPORT 104

Page 39
can reduce TETRA base to FM base interference from 20 % to less than 6 %. The reduction is not so great when the same
is applied to FM base to TETRA base interference because receiver blocking is more dominant. In this case additional
filtering would be required in the TETRA base receiver.
7.2
Co-sited TETRA and FM Systems
For this set of scenarios the TETRA and FM systems share the same mast for their base station antennas. The same
investigations as for the previous set of scenarios were completed. Table 50 and the bullet points below summarize the
results.
Scenario
TETRA MS
to FM MS
TETRA MS
to FM BS
TETRA BS to
FM MS
TETRA BS to
FM BS
FM MS to
TETRA MS
FM MS to
TETRA BS
FM BS to
TETRA MS
FM BS to
TETRA BS
Typical
Prob. of
Interference
0.19 %
Special Case
Prob. of
Interference
0.84 %
Comments
interference greater than for non co-sited
0.43 %
1.76 %
interference lower than for non co-sited
0.00 %
0.00 %
dependent
upon site
engineering
Dependent
upon site
engineering
requires careful site engineering and

placement of antennas upon mast; may
require frequency coordination
0.20 %
1.10 %
2.32 %
9.18 %
0.00 %
0.00 %
identical to non co-sited due to no power

control used by FM mobiles
identical to non co-sited due to no power
control used by FM mobiles
dependent
upon site
engineering
Dependent
upon site
engineering
requires careful site engineering and

placement of antennas upon mast; may
require frequency coordination
Table 50 : Summary of the results for co-sited TETRA and FM systems
For all scenarios :
increasing the minimum carrier separation has marginal effect upon the average level of interference for the
victim system but decreases the level of interference for the victim channel closest to the interfering system
increasing the size of the allocated TETRA and FM bands from 2 MHz to 5 MHz has marginal upon the level
of interference
power control has a significant effect upon the level of interference typically reducing the probability of
interference from between 20 % and 40 % depending upon the density of base stations belonging to the
interfering system
12.5 kHz FM is slightly more susceptible to interference and causes slightly higher levels of interference
relative to 25 kHz FM.
Co-siting of base stations improves levels of interference in all scenarios except mobile station to mobile station. However
the increase for this scenario is not significant and co-siting should be used if adequate isolation between TETRA and FM
antennas can be achieved. Coordination of frequencies between system operators will make co-siting easier.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 40
7.3
TETRA Direct Mode
For TETRA direct mode, three scenarios involving the emergency services are considered - a minor accident, moderate
accident and major accident. The scenarios have an increasing number of active users spread across an increasing area.
Table 51 and the bullet points below summarize the results.
Scenario
TETRA DMO MS to
FM MS - victim within
area of DMO group
TETRA DMO MS to
FM MS - victim within
or outside area of DMO
group
TETRA DMO MS to
FM BS - victim within
or outside area of DMO
group
Level of
Interference
sc. 1 : 1.13 %
sc. 2 : 2.27 %
sc. 3 : 3.09 %
sc. 1 : 0.00 %
sc. 2 : 0.00 %
sc. 3 : 0.01 %
Comments
sc. 1 : 0.02 %
sc. 2 : 0.07 %
sc. 3 : 0.14 %
interference from Trunked mode

TETRA mobiles will dominate
no power control leads to relatively

high level of interference
interference from Trunked mode
TETRA mobiles will dominate
Table 51 : Summary of the results for TETRA Direct Mode
For all scenarios :

levels of interference are greatest for the major DMO scenario due to the higher density of interferers.
If an FM mobile is not directly involved in a direct mode scenario e.g. a taxi driver is not involved with a house fire, then
the probability of interference due to direct mode TETRA radios is low. This is due to the low probability of being in the
vicinity of the direct mode group. If however an FM mobile is involved in a scenario where direct mode TETRA is being
used then levels of interference can be greater. This may occur if one of the emergency services e.g. the police service,
upgrades to TETRA while the remaining emergency services continue to use FM.
CONCLUSIONS
The study has analyzed all interference scenarios between TETRA and FM including consideration of non co-sited
systems, co-sited systems and TETRA direct mode. The following conclusions can be drawn for an allocation of TETRA
channels adjacent to a set of analogue FM channels :
under normal operating conditions TETRA and FM bands are able to coexist without guard bands in the same way
that two FM operators are able to coexist without guard bands.
in special circumstances where there is a very high density of active users e.g. security at a large sports event, then
care must be taken to minimize levels of interference. Frequency coordination between TETRA and FM operators
could help relieve any problems. Additional filtering in base station transmitters and receivers is also an effective
method for controlling levels of interference.
co-siting TETRA and FM base stations reduces levels of interference in all scenarios except mobile to mobile and of
course base to base. Frequency coordination between TETRA and FM operators will make co-siting easier.
TETRA direct mode does not cause high levels of interference to the general FM user. Levels of interference are
greater for an FM user who is involved in the direct mode group e.g. at the scene of an accident where the police and
fire services are using TETRA but the ambulance service is using FM. The introduction of power control in TETRA
direct mode would alleviate any interference problems but simulations have not been completed to illustrate this.
Where coordination is required as systems are rolled out across Europe, it should be done on a case by case basis using site
engineering practices.
This study provides simulation results for general 400 MHz TETRA and FM compatibility. Further work would be required
to model specific scenarios within CEPT member states.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 41
APPENDIX A
THE MONTE CARLO SIMULATION TOOL
The Monte Carlo simulation tool used for this study is based upon that specified by WG SE3. A general description is
provided below followed by an explanation of some assumptions which are not explicitly stated in the WG SE
specification.
A.1
General Description
A Monte Carlo simulation is a statistical technique that functions by considering many trials, that means many independent
instants in time and many locations in space. For each simulation trial, a scenario is built up using a number of different
random variables i.e. where the interferers are with respect to the victim, how strong the victim's wanted signal strength is,
which channels the victim and interferer are using etc. If a sufficient number of trials are considered then the probability of
a certain event occurring can be calculated with a high level of accuracy.
The Monte Carlo simulation used for this study, models a victim receiver operating amongst a population of interferers.
The interferers are distributed around the victim using a uniform random distribution. Only a proportion of the interferers
are active at any one time. Figure A1 illustrates how the interferers and victim may appear for one simulation trial.
Wanted
Signal
Victim
Active
Interferer
Inactive
Interferer
Figure A1 : An Illustration of the Monte Carlo Simulation Model
In general the effect of each interferer upon the victim is determined using mean path loss, slow fading, transmit power,
antenna gains, transmitter wideband noise characteristic, receiver blocking and frequency separation. It can be found that
for relatively low densities of interferers, for each trial one interferer dominates. This means that once the dominant
interferer has been found then the remainder can be ignored without deeply affecting the final result. This means also that
only one RF carrier is assumed to be active per interferer, so in the case that the BS are the interferers, the density of BS is
equal to the density of sites and also to the density of active RF downlink carriers.
The victims wanted signal strength is calculated based upon the transmit power, antenna gains, mean path loss and slow
fading.
Figure A1 illustrates a population of mobile stations interfering with a victim mobile. This is an example used for
illustration purposes and in fact either or both the victim and interferers can be base stations.
The interfering power from the dominant interferer and wanted signal strength from the wanted signal transmitter are used
to determine whether or not interference is occurring. Interference is said to occur when the resultant C/I is less than the
protection ratio. Figure A2 illustrates the various signal levels.

ERC REPORT 104

Page 42
Interference is defined as occuring when the Resultant C/I is less than the
C/I used to define Sensitivity
Wanted Signal (dBm)

Resultant C/I (dB)
Wanted Signal Margin (dB)
Sensitivity (dBm)
Noise Floor Increased

by Interference (dBm)
Interference (dB)
C/I used to define Sensitivity (dB)
Noise Floor (dBm)

Figure A2 : The Signal Levels used to Determine Whether or Not Interference is Occurring
The left-hand side of the diagram represents the situation when there is no interference. In this case the resultant
C/I ratio is equal to the sum of the protection ratio and the margin. The right hand side of the diagram illustrates
what happens when interference is introduced. The interference may be caused by wideband noise or receiver
blocking. The interference adds to the noise floor and the resultant C/I is the difference between the increased
noise floor and the wanted signal strength. To avoid interference the resultant C/I must be greater than the
protection ratio.
A.2
Specific Assumptions
The following sections provide an explanation to the aspects of the simulation methodology used in this study
which may be different to that specified by Doc. SE(97)30.
A.2.1
Calculating the Victim's Receive Frequency
Two cases have been considered for this study. In the first, the victim radio system is allocated a block of channels
and for each simulation trial the victim is assigned one channel using a uniform random distribution. In this case
the probability result is in fact an average over the frequency set. In the second case, the victim system has only a
single channel assigned and for each simulation trial the victim is assigned this channel.
When the victim is a base station, the level of interference calculated is for only one among the set of receivers at,
the base station site. i.e. if a victim base station receives on four frequencies and has a probability of interference
of 1 %, each of the four frequencies has a probability of interference of 1 %.
A.2.2
Calculating the interferers Transmit Frequency
The interfering radio system is allocated a block of channels and for each simulation trial the closest interferer is
assigned one channel using a uniform random distribution. When the interferer is a base station, only one
transmitter (i.e. one frequency) is assumed to be active, although this transmitter is assumed to transmit all the
power of the base station.
A.2.3
Placing the Closest Interferer
A Rayleigh distribution is used to randomly place the closest interferer with respect to the victim. The density of
active interferers is used to calculate the standard deviation of the Rayleigh distribution. When the victim and
interferer are both base stations then a Rayleigh distribution is still used to place the closest interferer. This means
that from one trial to the next the distance between base stations is not fixed modelling a range of possible
separations. In this report the closest interferer has been considered in place of the dominant one. The closest
interferer is not necessary the dominant one, but the closest has been considered for simplification reasons, the
algorithm to determine the dominant being much more complicated because it has to take into account not only the
distance but also the frequency separation, the shadowing, the transmit power etc... all these parameters being
ERC REPORT 104

Page 43
frequently random and to determine what is the dominant combination of them. Due to this simplification the
results of the report could be considered as a little optimistic.
Moreover only the closest interferer is included in the interference calculation. The inclusion of other interferers
increases simulation run time without significantly affecting the result. This has been found to be true for
relatively low densities of interferers as experienced in PMR scenarios. For simulations where high densities of
interferers are modelled i.e. public cellular systems in hotspots, then all interferers must be considered due to the
much higher possibility of a more distant interferer having greater influence due to the effects of fading.
A.2.4
Power Control
Power control may be used to reduce transmit power when there is a low path loss between transmitter and
receiver. In this study power control has been used only for TETRA mobiles. Power control has not been used for
base stations or FM mobiles - this is believed to reflect reality. Power control for TETRA mobiles is used only
when TETRA is being considered as the interfering system. When TETRA is the victim system and for example a
TETRA mobile is transmitting to a TETRA base station then power control is not considered. By doing so,
simulation complexity and run time can be reduced without affecting the results. The results are not changed
because a 20 dB margin above sensitivity has been assumed before power control is activated. Thus when power
control is used then there is always at least 20 dB of wanted signal strength margin. In these cases there is a very
low chance of interference occurring. Interference is more likely to occur when the wanted signal strength is
relatively low and the margin is below 20 dB.
When power control is activated in the interfering system the corresponding cell radius has to be known to
determine for each trial the position of the wanted receiver in the interfering system. When it is not activated the
knowledge of the cell size is not required, only the interferers density is needed.
A.2.5
Path Loss
The path loss model for an outdoor urban area specified by WG SE in the Monte Carlo specification4 has been
used for this study. This path loss model is a combination of free space and Hata models. For distances below 40
m then free space propagation is assumed. For distances above 100 m then modified Hata propagation is assumed.
Between these two limits the propagation loss is given by the interpolation between the free space loss at 40 m and
the modified Hata loss at 100 m. The effect of shadowing is included using a lognormal distribution with standard
deviation dependent upon distance.
A.2.6
Interference Mechanisms
This study has considered the effects of unwanted emissions and receiver blocking. These are believed to be the
dominant interference mechanisms for compatibility between TETRA and FM.
A.2.7
Calculating the Wanted Signal Strength
The wanted signal strength is calculated based upon transmit power, path loss between transmitter and receiver
and antenna gains. So the victim cell radius has to be known. In this report the radius values correspond to an
intrinsic (only limited by receiver internal noise) worst link area availability of 90 %. The wanted signal strength
obtained is compared with the interfering signal strength as illustrated in Figure A.2 to determine whether or not
the desired C/I ratio is being obtained.
A.2.8
Parameters used by the simulation

Channel Spacing - The channel bandwidth defined for the system i.e. the separation in frequency between
adjacent carriers.
Transmit Power - The nominal transmit power.
Receiver Bandwidth - The bandwidth of the receiver. It may be less than the channel spacing dependent upon the
filtering in the terminals receive path.

ERC REPORT 104

Page 44
Antenna Height - The height of the antenna in metres.

Antenna Gain - Antennas in this study are assumed to have equal gain in all directions i.e. a spherical gain
pattern. The value specified includes cable and connector losses.
Active Interferer Density Range - A range of interferer densities have been considered in this study to include a
range of scenarios from what may be considered a hot spot to what may be considered normal operating
conditions.
Receiver Sensitivity - The sensitivity defined for the receiving terminal.
Receiver Protection Ratio - The protection ratio defines the number of dB between the thermal noise floor of the
receiver and sensitivity.
TDMA users / carrier - The number of TDMA users that can simultaneously operate in the same geographic area
on a single carrier. This parameter has an effect upon the interferer density being used by the simulation. When the
interferers are TETRA mobile stations the probabilities of interference are estimated using an effective interferer
density which is four times smaller than the active interferer density (taking into account the four slot TDMA
implemented in TETRA.)
Power Control Characteristic - Specified by a step size, the number of steps and the threshold at which power
control is activated. The threshold indicates the received signal level above which the receiver indicates to the
transmitter that its power can be reduced. The amount by which it is reduced is determined by the margin above
the threshold, the step size and the number of steps.
Unwanted Emissions Characteristic - The out-of-band emissions characteristic for a transmitter. Defined by a
power measured in a specific bandwidth at a specific frequency offset from the nominal transmit frequency.
Receiver Blocking Characteristic - The receiver blocking performance defined by a power level at a specific
frequency offset which the receiver can sustain which receiving its wanted signal 3 dB above sensitivity.
A.3
Interpretation of the Results
The probability of interference evaluated is the probability of a victim receiver not obtaining its desired C/I
requirement. It can be thought of as a reduction of the system area availability.
A radio system may have an area availability of 90 % meaning that either over 10 % of the area, coverage is not
provided or that for 10 % of the time a user will be out of coverage (assuming the user to move around the cell
occupying both outer and inner cell positions). Likewise the probability of interference can be interpreted in this
way and a 1 % probability of interference would reduce a 90 % area availability to 89.1 %.
The probability of interference is the probability for a single receive channel. In the case of a base station where
multiple channels are being used then the probability is that for each channel considered in isolation. In the same
way, when the interferers are base stations, it is assumed that only one interfering RF carrier is activated per base
station and per trial. This RF carrier is assumed to be active 100 % of the time.
It should be kept in mind that in the case of group calls interference to a single base station channel can affect the
reception of multiple mobile stations.
ERC REPORT 104

Page 45
APPENDIX B
PARAMETERS USED FOR SIMULATION
B.1
TETRA
The ETSI standard ETS 300 392-2 has been used to obtain most of the TETRA system parameters. This standard
is titled Radio Equipment and Systems (RES); Trans-European Trunked Radio (TETRA); Voice plus Data
(V+D); Part 2: Air Interface (AI). Those parameters which cannot be obtained from the standard are assumed
values believed to accurately model operational TETRA systems. Tables B1, B2 and B3 list all of the parameters
required by the Monte Carlo simulation to model a TETRA system.
Parameter
Channel Spacing
Transmit Power
Receiver Bandwidth
Antenna Height
Antenna Gain
Active Interferer Density Range
Receiver Sensitivity
Receiver Protection Ratio
TDMA Users / carrier
Power Control Characteristic
Mobile Station
25 kHz
30 dBm, 35 dBm, 40 dBm
18 kHz
1.5 m
0 dBi
Variable
- 103 dBm
19 dB
4
5 dB steps to a minimum of 15 dBm.
Threshold = - 86 dBm
Base Station
25 kHz
40 dBm
18 kHz
30 m
9 dBi (12 dBi - 3 dB)
variable
- 106 dBm
19 dB
4
not used
Table B1 : Parameters used to model the TETRA System

Frequency Offset
30 dBm Mobile
35 dBm Mobile
40 dBm Mobile
40 dBm Base
Station
Station
Station
Station
25 kHz
- 30 dBm
- 25 dBm
- 20 dBm
- 20 dBm
50 kHz
- 36 dBm
- 35 dBm
- 30 dBm
- 30 dBm
75 kHz
- 36 dBm
- 35 dBm
- 30 dBm
- 30 dBm
100 - 250 kHz
- 45 dBm
- 43 dBm
- 40 dBm
- 40 dBm
250 - 500 kHz
- 50 dBm
- 48 dBm
- 45 dBm
- 45 dBm
500 kHz - frb
- 50 dBm
- 50 dBm
- 50 dBm
- 50 dBm
> frb
- 70 dBm
- 65 dBm
- 60 dBm
- 60 dBm
At frequency offsets less than 100 kHz no limit tighter than - 36 dBm shall apply
At frequency offsets equal to and greater than 100 kHz no limit tighter than - 70 dBm shall apply
Table B2 : Unwanted Emissions for the TETRA System (measurement bandwidth of 18 kHz)
Frequency Offset
50 - 100 kHz
100 - 200 kHz
200 - 500 kHz
> 500 kHz
30, 35, 40 dBm

Mobile Station
- 40 dBm
- 35 dBm
- 30 dBm
- 25 dBm
40 dBm Base
Station
- 40 dBm
- 35 dBm
- 30 dBm
- 25 dBm
Table B3 : Receiver Blocking for the TETRA System
ERC REPORT 104

Page 46
B.2
25 kHz FM
The ETSI standards ETS 300 086 and ETS 300 113 have been used to obtain information regarding 25 kHz FM
system parameters. Other parameters are assumed values believed to accurately model operational FM systems.
Tables B4, B5 and B6 list all of the parameters required by the Monte Carlo simulation to model a 25 kHz FM
system.
Parameter
Channel Spacing
Transmit Power
Receiver Bandwidth
Antenna Height
Antenna Gain
Mobile Station
25 kHz
37 dBm
15 kHz
1.5 m
0 dBi
Variable
- 107 dBm
17 dB
not used
Base Station
25 kHz
44 dBm
15 kHz
30 m
9 dBi
variable
- 110 dBm
17 dB
not used
Table B4 : Parameters Assumed for 25 kHz FM Systems

Frequency Offset
Mobile Station
Base Station
25 kHz
- 33 dBm
- 26 dBm
100 - 250 kHz
- 53 dBm
- 46 dBm
250 - 500 kHz
- 60 dBm
- 53 dBm
500 kHz - 1 MHz
- 64 dBm
- 57 dBm
1 MHz - 10 MHz
- 69 dBm
- 62 dBm
> 10 MHz
- 71 dBm
- 64 dBm
Linear interpolation (in dB) is used between 25 kHz and 100 kHz
Table B5 : Unwanted Emissions for 25 kHz FM Systems (measurement bandwidth of 18 kHz)
Frequency Offset
any frequency
Mobile Station
- 23 dBm
Base Station
- 23 dBm
Table B6 : Receiver Blocking for 25 kHz FM Systems
ERC REPORT 104

Page 47
B.3
20 kHz FM
The ETSI standards ETS 300 086 and ETS 300 113 have been used to obtain information regarding 20 kHz FM
Tables B7, B8 and B9 list all of the parameters required by the Monte Carlo simulation to model a 20 kHz FM
system.
Parameter
Channel Spacing
Transmit Power
Receiver Bandwidth
Antenna Height
Antenna Gain
Mobile Station
20 kHz
37 dBm
12 kHz
1.5 m
0 dBi
Variable
- 107 dBm
17 dB
not used
Base Station
20 kHz
44 dBm
12 kHz
30 m
9 dBi
variable
- 110 dBm
17 dB
not used
Table B7 : Parameters Assumed for 20 kHz FM Systems

Frequency Offset
Mobile Station
Base Station
20 kHz
- 33 dBm
- 26 dBm
100 - 250 kHz
- 53 dBm
- 46 dBm
250 - 500 kHz
- 60 dBm
- 53 dBm
500 kHz - 1 MHz
- 64 dBm
- 57 dBm
1 MHz - 10 MHz
- 69 dBm
- 62 dBm
> 10 MHz
- 71 dBm
- 64 dBm
Linear interpolation (in dB) is used between 20 kHz and 100 kHz
Table B8 : Unwanted Emissions for 20 kHz FM Systems (measurement bandwidth of 12 kHz)
Frequency Offset
any frequency
Mobile Station
- 23 dBm
Base Station
- 23 dBm
Table B9 : Receiver Blocking for 20 kHz FM Systems
ERC REPORT 104

Page 48
B.4
12.5 kHz FM
The ETSI standards ETS 300 086 and ETS 300 113 have been used to obtain information regarding 12.5 kHz FM
Tables B10, B11 and B12 list all of the parameters required by the Monte Carlo simulation to model a 12.5 kHz
FM system.
Parameter
Channel Spacing
Transmit Power
Receiver Bandwidth
Antenna Height
Antenna Gain
Mobile Station
12.5 kHz
37 dBm
8 kHz
1.5 m
0 dBi
Variable
- 107 dBm
21 dB
not used
Base Station
12.5 kHz
44 dBm
8 kHz
30 m
9 dBi
variable
- 110 dBm
21 dB
not used
Table B10 : Parameters Assumed for 12.5 kHz FM Systems

Frequency Offset
Mobile Station
Base Station
12.5 kHz
- 23 dBm
- 16 dBm
100 - 250 kHz
- 43 dBm
- 36 dBm
250 - 500 kHz
- 60 dBm
- 53 dBm
500 kHz - 1 MHz
- 64 dBm
- 57 dBm
1 MHz - 10 MHz
- 69 dBm
- 62 dBm
> 10 MHz
- 71 dBm
- 64 dBm
Linear interpolation (in dB) is used between 12.5 kHz and 100 kHz
Table B11 : Unwanted Emissions for 12.5 kHz FM Systems (measurement bandwidth of 8 kHz)
Frequency Offset
Any frequency
Mobile Station
- 23 dBm
Base Station
- 23 dBm
Table B12 : Receiver Blocking for 12.5 kHz FM Systems
ERC REPORT 104

Page 49
APPENDIX C
ABBREVIATIONS
BS
CEPT
DMO
ERC
ETSI
FDD
FM
MS
PAMR
PMR
PT
RES
SE
TDMA
TETRA
Base Station
European Conference of Posts and Telecommunications Administrations
Direct Mode Operation
European Radio Commission
European Telecommunications Standards Institute
Frequency Division Duplex
Frequency Modulation
Mobile Station
Public Access Mobile Radio
Private (or Professional) Mobile Radio
Project Team
Radio Equipment and Systems
Spectrum Engineering
Time Division Multiple Access
Terrestrial Enhanced Trunked Radio

Adjacent Band Compatibility of 400 MHZ Tetra and Analogue FM PMR - An Analysis Completed Using A Monte Carlo Based Simulation Tool Vilnius, June 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adjacent Band Compatibility of 400 MHZ Tetra and Analogue FM PMR - An Analysis Completed Using A Monte Carlo Based Simulation Tool Vilnius, June 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adjacent Band Compatibility of 400 MHZ Tetra and Analogue FM PMR - An Analysis Completed Using A Monte Carlo Based Simulation Tool Vilnius, June 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ERC REPORT 104

European Radiocommunications Committee (ERC)

ERC REPORT 104

ERC REPORT 104

ERC REPORT 104

NON CO-SITED TETRA AND FM SYSTEMS ......................................................................................................... 3

The Effect of Active Interferer Density.......................................................................................................................... 3

TETRA MS Interfering with an FM BS ............................................................................................................ 7

TETRA BS interfering with an FM MS............................................................................................................. 9

TETRA BS Interfering with an FM BS ........................................................................................................... 12

The Effect of Active Interferer Density........................................................................................................................ 15

FM MS Interfering with an TETRA BS .......................................................................................................... 18

FM BS Interfering with an TETRA MS .......................................................................................................... 19

FM BS Interfering with an TETRA BS ........................................................................................................... 21

The Effect of Active Interferer Density........................................................................................................................ 23

TETRA MS Interfering with an FM BS .......................................................................................................... 26

TETRA BS interfering with an FM MS........................................................................................................... 28

The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations............................................................................................................. 30

The Effect of Active Interferer Density ........................................................................................................................ 31

FM BS Interfering with an TETRA BS ............................................................................................................34

TETRA DIRECT MODE.............................................................................................................................................34

DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS.............................................................................................................................37

NON CO-SITED TETRA AND FM SYSTEMS .............................................................................................................37

APPENDIX A : THE MONTE CARLO SIMULATION TOOL .......................................................................................................... 41

ERC REPORT 104

The objectives of this study are to :

Identify all interference scenarios between TETRA and analogue FM.

Determine the critical scenarios.

Determine minimum frequency separation requirements for acceptable levels of interference.

CEPT ERC Report 68, Monte Carlo Radio Simulation Methodology,

ERC REPORT 104

Figure 1 : An example TETRA channel allocation adjacent to FM

TETRA MS interfering with FM MS

ERC REPORT 104

NON CO-SITED TETRA AND FM SYSTEMS

Figure 2 : A pair of non co-sited systems

The Effect of TETRA upon FM

Four interference scenarios can be identified :

TETRA MS interfering with an FM MS

TETRA MS interfering with an FM MS

ERC REPORT 104

Table 1 : The probability of interference for an FM mobile amongst a population of

Figure 4 : The band allocations used to investigate the effect of increasing

ERC REPORT 104

Table 2 : The probability of interference for an FM mobile amongst a population of

ERC REPORT 104

4.1.1.3 The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations

Table 4 : The probability of interference for an FM mobile amongst a population of

ERC REPORT 104

Table 5 provides the levels of interference for a range of interferer densities.

Table 5 : The probability of interference for an FM mobile amongst a population of

TETRA MS Interfering with an FM BS

ERC REPORT 104

Table 6 : The probability of interference for an FM base station amongst a population of

Table 7 : The probability of interference for an FM base station amongst a population of

ERC REPORT 104

4.1.2.3 The Effect of Increasing the Band Allocations

Table 8 : The Probability of Interference for an FM base station amongst a Population of