Harmonised compatibility and sharing conditions for video pmse in the 7 9 ghz frequency band, taking into account radar use
compatibility and sharing scenarios
Download 225.98 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Compatibility between video PMSE and radars in the band 2.7-2.9 GHz (ATC/defence and meteorological radars)
- Co-channel scenario
- Adjacent channel scenario
- Protection of ATC radar from category A video PMSE
- Protection of meteorological radar from category A video PMSE
- Example: Protection of ATC and meteorological radars from category A video PMSE with an e.i.r.p. of 0 dBw
compatibility and sharing scenariosTaking into account the video PMSE technical characteristics outlined in section , three different PMSE categories have been defined when conducting the sharing and compatibility studies for the band 2.7-2.9 GHz, as described in . Category A is defined for an antenna height of approximately 1.5 m, and a mobile application. This corresponds particularly to mobile wireless cameras. Category B is defined for an antenna height higher than 10 m. This corresponds to the type of links for providing connectivity. Category C is defined for airborne video links where the range of antenna height can be very flexible. Video PMSE categories
Compatibility between video PMSE and radars in the band 2.7-2.9 GHz (ATC/defence and meteorological radars)As indicated in Section of this CEPT Report, point-to-point links (identified as category B video PMSE), with high directivity antennas, are not appropriate for the band 2.7-2.9 GHz. Those links, which are used for carrying broadcast quality video/audio signals, are preferably deployed in higher frequency bands (higher than 5 GHz). They are not covered by the Mandate. Their usage may be possible on a national basis depending on local conditions. Moreover, compatibility studies between category C video PMSE and radars show that the use of such video PMSE is not possible in the band 2.7-2.9 GHz, due to the required separation distance. Results of those studies are detailed in Annex 2 and Annex 3 of the ECC Report 243 [2]. In consequence, compatibility and sharing studies further developed in this CEPT Report deal with category A video PMSE only.
A possible co-channel scenario could be, after a coordination on a case-by-case basis, with a category A video PMSE, a maximum e.i.r.p. of 0 dBW, an antenna height of 1.5 m and an appropriate shielding loss (in accordance with the Recommendation ITU-R P.1411 [23]), brought for example by an urban environment and by a building loss. Adjacent channel scenarioIn the adjacent channel scenario, the following three effects on radar protection have been considered:
Protection of ATC radar from category A video PMSEThe Figure , Figure and Figure provide the separation distances required to protect ATC radar from one single category A video PMSE (no aggregated interference) with e.i.r.p. considered as a variable and a radar selectivity of 60 dBc. The separation distances are derived assuming an urban environment. Each of those figures includes three separate curves, corresponding to the three effects on radar protection that are considered in the adjacent channel scenario: out-of-band, blocking and selectivity. The separation distance to protect radar corresponds, for a specified e.i.r.p., to the distance that ensures the protection against the three effects and thus to the maximum value of the three curves. As described in Figure of this CEPT Report, the first (N+1), second (N+2) and third (N+3) adjacent channels are defined with a 10 MHz bandwidth.
Figure : Separation distances to protect ATC radar from category A video PMSE channel N+1 
Figure : Separation distances to protect ATC radar from category A video PMSE channel N+2 Figure : Separation distances to protect ATC radar from category A video PMSE channel N+3 Protection of meteorological radar from category A video PMSEThe Figure , Figure and Figure provide the separation distances required to protect meteorological radar from one single category A video PMSE (no aggregated interference) with e.i.r.p. considered as a variable and a radar selectivity of 60 dBc. The separation distances are derived assuming an urban environment. Each of those figures includes three separate curves, corresponding to the three effects on radar protection that are considered in the adjacent channel scenario: out-of-band, blocking and selectivity. The separation distance to protect radar corresponds, for a specified e.i.r.p., to the distance that ensures the protection against the three effects and thus to the maximum value of the three curves. As described in Figure of this CEPT Report, the first (N+1), second (N+2) and third (N+3) adjacent channels are defined with a 10 MHz bandwidth.
Figure : Separation distances to protect meteorological radar from category A video PMSE channel N+1 
Figure : Separation distances to protect meteorological radar from category A video PMSE channel N+2 
Figure : Separation distances to protect meteorological radar from category A video PMSE channel N+3 Example: Protection of ATC and meteorological radars from category A video PMSE with an e.i.r.p. of 0 dBwThe is derived from Figures 4 to 9 of this CEPT Report. It provides the separation distances required to protect ATC and meteorological radars from one single category A video PMSE (no aggregated interference) with an e.i.r.p. of 0 dBW at the height of 1.5 m and a radar selectivity of 60 dBc. The separation distances are derived assuming an urban environment. Separation distances to protect radars from category A video PMSE1
The separation distances may be larger for aggregated interference or a more sensitive radar. In addition, they may be different considering the altitude of the radar, the topography of the real ground around the radar and the propagation conditions between the radar and the video PMSE link (such as rural or suburban environments). This would have to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. If the radar presents a blocking response and a selectivity below those used in this CEPT Report, the separation distances may increase (up to 27 km assuming the other conditions unchanged). The separation distances will also depend on the deployment scenario of video PMSE (they may be smaller if PMSE is used in buildings due to the additional penetration loss). Regarding the interference from radar into PMSE, taking into account the flexibility of video PMSE for adjusting the frequency gap, the required separation distance to respect the C/I protection criteria could be considered from 5 to 30 km for the protection of a category A or category B video PMSE in a worst case configuration. It is assumed that video PMSE can cope with a short pulse that interferes with the receiver. In the case of radar pulse, the main issue concerns the capability of the video PMSE receiver front-end to handle the input signal power and the time needed to recover a sync state of the video signal.
Directory: files -> 1051 files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations 1051 -> Speaker Biographies & Presentation Information 1051 -> Session Chairman/Speaker Biographies and Abstract of Presentation – cept m2m workshop 21-22 March 2016. Mainz, Germany Download 225.98 Kb. Share with your friends:
|
