Scribd
Upload
17 views8 pages

Distance Betn Antennas

Uploaded by

Nandkumar Sinha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
17 views8 pages

Distance Betn Antennas

Uploaded by

Nandkumar Sinha
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 8

Defining a MIMO Antenna Configuration

for Vehicle Testing

Prepared by: Date: Document:


Steve Rogers 8 July 2010 Defining a MIMO Antenna
Configuration for Vehicle Testing

© Ascom (2010)
All rights reserved. TEMS is a trademark of Ascom. All other trademarks are the property of their respective holders.
Contents

1 Defining Vehicle Mount MIMO Antennas ................. 3

2 Isolation ...................................................................... 3

3 Polarization................................................................. 3

4 Correlation Coefficient .............................................. 3

5 Antenna Spacing for Americas ................................ 5

6 Antenna Spacing for Europe .................................... 7

7 Conclusion ................................................................. 8

© Ascom (2010) Document:


Defining a MIMO Antenna Configuration 2(8)
for Vehicle Testing
1 Defining Vehicle Mount MIMO Antennas for
Vehicle Testing
With the continuing effort to increase spectral efficiency, MIMO is
becoming a requirement for LTE and WCDMA. In order to optimally
place multiple antennas on a vehicle, care must be taken regarding
their locations, and many aspects must be considered when
defining the MIMO antenna configuration. In addition to the normal
antenna parameters, three new parameters must be considered
when selecting and configuring MIMO antennas: isolation,
polarization, and the correlation coefficient.

2 Isolation
Isolation is the dB separation between two antennas. The isolation
should be much greater than 10 dB. This assumes that the saw
duplexer in the UE will satisfactorily filter out the Tx1-Rx2 and Tx2-
Rx1 signals. Typically, the saw duplexers have 5dB more isolation
on the Tx1 to Rx1 than antennas in the UE’s transmit band (i.e.,
55dB to 65dB, compared to 50dB to 6 dB). The antennas will also
be separated by 1 to 4λ, which will provide about 27 to 34dB
isolation for a unity gain antenna.

3 Polarization
Although polarization can provide up to 6dB of average
improvement, in poor coverage areas it performs worse than non-
polarization. And, perfectly orthogonal polarization is hard to obtain
in UEs. The advantages fall off quickly if the two antennas are not
perfectly orthogonal. For this reason, polarization was not
considered.

4 Correlation Coefficient
The correlation coefficient represents how orthogonal the paths are
in a MIMO system. If two signals were the same, then they would be
perfectly correlated and have a correlation coefficient of 1. If two
signals were perfectly orthogonal, they would have a correlation
coefficient of 0.
The correlation coefficient should be as small as possible. A value
required by one carrier was less than 0.5 for UEs. The correlation
coefficient varies with the azimuth spread of the received signals
and the distance between the antennas. The chart below shows a
simplified curve of the correlation of two antennas with a 30-degree
azimuth spread of the received signal based on antenna separation.

© Ascom (2010) Document:


Defining a MIMO Antenna Configuration 3(8)
for Vehicle Testing
As the azimuth spread approaches zero, the correlation coefficient
approaches one.
Figure 1 shows the envelope correlation coefficient vs. the λ
separation. Two plots are shown: Uniform and truncated Laplacian.
(A truncated Gaussian plot is not shown but would fall between the
two curves.) The truncated Laplacian has been found to be the most
accurate in modeling reception in field trials in urban and rural
areas. The first null where subsequent maximums are less than 0.5
is at 1.86λ.
If one plans on using antennas on multiple bands, then the lowest
frequency of the bands should fall in the nulls of the truncated
Laplacian curve in order to keep the antenna spacing at a minimum.
This allows the maximum number of antennas to be placed in the
limited space on the test vehicle roof.

Figure 1. Envelope correlation coefficient verses the received wavelength


for the Uniform and truncated Laplacian with a 30-degree azimuth spread.

© Ascom (2010) Document:


Defining a MIMO Antenna Configuration 4(8)
for Vehicle Testing
5 Antenna Spacing for Americas
Given that 700 MHz LTE is the lowest frequency used in the
Americas, the 1.86λ would be the distance between the antennas.
Figure 2 shows the same curve shown in Figure 1 with the
700 MHz, 850 MHz, 1900 MHz, and 2100 MHz uplink and downlink
overlaid on the chart, and setting 745 MHz at 1.86 λ.

Figure 2. Correlation of signals of different American bands

The 2.45-foot separation of the antennas allows for a minimum


correlation coefficient of less than 0.2 at 700 MHz and still provides
a value less than 0.5 for 850 MHz, less than 0.3 for PCS, and 0.2
for AWS. Depending on the number of devices the vehicle roof
needs to support, the distance could be increased to improve the
850 MHz performance.
Figure 3 is the same as Figure 2, except that it looks only at the 1.7
to 2.3λ range.

© Ascom (2010) Document:


Defining a MIMO Antenna Configuration 5(8)
for Vehicle Testing
Figure 3. Correlation of signals of different American 700 MHz and 850
MHz bands

© Ascom (2010) Document:


Defining a MIMO Antenna Configuration 6(8)
for Vehicle Testing
6 Antenna Spacing for Europe
Given that the newly allocated 800 MHz is the lowest frequency
used in Europe, the 1.86λ should be the distance between the
antennas. Figure 4 shows same curve shown in Figure 1 with the
800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, and 2100 MHz uplink and downlink
overlaid on the chart and setting 826.5 MHz at 1.86 λ.

Figure 4. Correlation of signals of different American bands

The 0.68-meter separation of the antennas allows for a minimum


correlation coefficient of less than 0.2 at 800 MHz and still provides
a value less than 0.5 for 900 MHz, about 0.3 for DCS, and less than
0.2 for 2100 MHz. Depending on the number of devices the vehicle
roof needs to support, this distance could be increased to improve
the 900 MHz performance.
Figure 5 is the same as Figure 4, except that it looks only at the 1.7
to 2.3λ range.

© Ascom (2010) Document:


Defining a MIMO Antenna Configuration 7(8)
for Vehicle Testing
Figure 5. Correlation of signals of different European 800 MHz and
900 MHz bands

7 Conclusion
Separating unity gain antennas by 1.86λ for the lowest frequency
will provide excellent correlation coefficients in the 0.2 range. But
one should also be cognizant of the effects at shorter wavelengths.
These results are based on a truncated Laplacian analysis with a
30-degree azimuth spread.

© Ascom (2010) Document:


Defining a MIMO Antenna Configuration 8(8)
for Vehicle Testing

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy