Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX

Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL jsn at bjtpartners.com
Thu Mar 15 00:42:42 UTC 2012


Hi Andrey,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Yes, you are all right.

It think your calculations are good. I just did not knew how hard was the
GSM macro BTS spec.

I browsed a bit the web and found the GSM 05.05 specs which confirm what
you say. I also found some similar information and calculations in an
academic paper which confirm your figures.
http://www.uta.edu/rfmems/Conferences/2001_SPIE_MicroMEMS/4592-20.pdf (page
5 and 6)

Anyway, I tried to look at other components than the ADRF6601.

I found a quite low phase noise VCO/PLL from Hittite which seems to be able
to let us probably pass the macro BTS spec or at least the micro BTS spec.
http://www.hittite.com/products/view.html/view/HMC830LP6GE

For the mixer, we may use a separate component like the ADL5801.

Please let me know what you think about these chips. Please do not hesitate
to let us know some other suggestions if you know or if you can find some
other components that would have better performances.

Actually, even if the specs are not easy to pass, I still feel quite
optimistic as it was possible to pass these specs 15 years old components.
Anyway, if the macro BTS specs are really too hard to pass, we may focus on
the micro BTS spec. This would already be great to convince the market you
may be interested in and the performances would be good enough for most
practical situations in my deployment in Mayotte.

Best regards.

Jean-Samuel.
:-)


2012/3/14 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>

> Hi all!
>
> I am again about far-near problem.
>
> If we have heterodyne noise -135dBc/Hz at 600kHz offset (ADRF6601), then
> for blocking signal at the same offset and at 200kHz RBW we get additional
> noise level 135-53=72dBc relative to blocking signal level.
> To keep "normal GSM900 BS" sensitivity -104dBm we must keep additional
> noise as low as -107dBm, therefore blocking signal maximum level must less
> then -107+73=-39dBm.
> But in GSM-05.05 (sec 5.1) I saw blocking characteristics requirements for
> normal BTS must be -26 dBm at 0.6-0.8 MHz offset and -16 dBm at 0.8-1.6 MHz
> offset.
> So, I do not know how and who can meet those requirements and I am really
> hope that there are fundamental mistakes in my calculations.
> Correct me please.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
>
> 16 января 2012 г. 19:22 пользователь Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> написал:
>
> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity
>> improvement.
>>
>> I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd,
>> 4th and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than
>> others.
>>
>> 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the
>> IF signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF
>> frequency. This would save some components.
>> We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW filter.
>> The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite
>> convenient.
>> The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400
>> MHz center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit).
>>
>> Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be
>> really good.
>> The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the
>> signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM
>> carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would
>> only be able to get switched diversity.
>>
>> After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the signal
>> between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX path
>> (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1).
>> Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of
>> these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS
>> RX LNA1).
>>
>> This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board
>> or with a very selective filter.
>>
>>
>> 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution with
>> a wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600 KHz
>> bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we would
>> also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would allow a
>> good selectivity and full diversity.
>>
>> The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good
>> selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I
>> was not able to find such a filter.
>>
>>
>> 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity
>> improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW
>> filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW
>> filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of
>> budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX
>> path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB
>> and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This
>> would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would
>> be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still
>> quite expensive.
>>
>>
>> 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the 3rd
>> solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with only 1
>> narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter or
>> combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times
>> lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would
>> not be able to get diversity at all.
>>
>> This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st
>> solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity.
>>
>>
>> 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement
>> board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter.
>>
>> We could use the following RF path:
>> LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW filter.
>> Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO.
>>
>> We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable
>> (< 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2
>> GSM carriers (separated by 400 KHz).
>>
>> Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite
>> reasonable.
>> This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected to
>> the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both
>> switched or true diversity.
>>
>> As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect
>> directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal
>> back to the RF frequency.
>> As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF
>> frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board
>> with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC
>> (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx
>> selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard
>> solution.
>>
>>
>> Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems to
>> be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was not
>> able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter.
>> Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions.
>>
>> By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I
>> am not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band
>> ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable.
>> Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts of
>> the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a bit
>> by the SAW filter.
>>
>> Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to double
>> check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you think
>> cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ?
>>
>> Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these selectivity
>> improvement solutions.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> Jean-Samuel.
>> :-)
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120315/fb278f64/attachment.html>


More information about the UmTRX mailing list