TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONVERTING FROM

ANALOG TO DIGITAL MICROWAVE RADIO

By Bob Verlander

Although digital microwave radio (DMR) has been around for over twenty-five years, there remains a
surprisingly large amount of analog microwave radio (AMR) still in service today. This paper is intended
to introduce those users of AMR who wish to convert to DMR but are not familiar with DMR concepts or
terminology, to the differences between the two technologies and the effect that their differences will
have on converting from one to the other, particularly in the areas of: Performance, Reliability, Cutover
and, Cost.

The priority of each area will vary depending on the primary use of the system. For example, a system
used primarily for Public Safety applications would place more emphasis on cutover and reliability than
cost. However, needless to say, the first three can always be improved to any degree that the last,
i.e., the pocketbook, will withstand.

This article will address the different units used to measure system quality of performance, the effect
microwave radio signal fading has on AMR and DMR, Link reliability calculations, as well as Cutover
considerations and Licensing considerations.

Time does not permit nor is it the intent of this article to present a theoretical technical discussion of
each of the above topics, but rather to give the reader a basic understanding of these topics and their
influence on the AMR to DMR conversion process. Although Part 101 of the FCC rules allows
Operational Fixed users to license 30 MHz RF channels as required for establishing Synchronous OC3
capacity DMR links, this discussion is directed mainly at replacing existing AMR links licensed by the
FCC under Part 94 for Operational Fixed service in the 6525 – 6875 MHz frequency band with
Plesiochronous Digital Hierarchy (PDH) DMR.

Microwave Radio Signal Quality Measurement

Before discussing the performance quality and reliability of AMR and DMR, one should be familiar with
the terms and units of measurement used in comparing the two.
The performance quality of an AMR link is expressed in terms of the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (S/N),
measured in dB, of the circuits being transported over the link; with desirable values being 60 dB S/N
or greater and the minimum acceptable value being around 30 dB S/N.

However, DMR links transport all intelligence, including voice, in a digital format. Its quality of
performance is indicated by the number of errors introduced during the transmission process and is
expressed in terms of Bit-Error-Rate (BER). Traditionally, if a link is intended to carry mostly voice
traffic, the minimum acceptable BER is 10-3 or 1 error in every 1,000 bits of data transported. If the
link is intended to carry mostly data, the minimum acceptable BER is often raised to 10-6 or 1 error in
every 1,000,000 bits of data transported. Other DMR terms and measurements include:
• Severely Errored Second (SES): A second whose BER = 10-3 or worse
• Error Free Second (EFS): A second with no errors.
Microwave Radio Link Fading

The major impairment to the quality and reliability of a working microwave radio link is the effect that
atmospheric anomalies have on the signal as it propagates from one end of the link to the other, more
commonly referred to as fading. Link fading is divided into two basic categories:
• Non-Frequency Selective
• Frequency Selective

Non-Frequency Selective fades are often referred to as Power Fades, Attenuation Fades and Flat Fades.
Fades of this type affect the amplitude of all frequencies within a receiver’s RF pass-band equally and
simultaneously, resulting in a weak but undistorted signal. The most common causes of this type of
fading include link obstructions created by trees and buildings, rain (above 10 GHz), “earth budging”
and “ducting”. Frequency Selective fades are often referred to a Multipath Fades and Dispersive Fades.
Fades of this type affect the amplitude of all frequencies within a receiver’s RF pass-band unequally
and not necessarily simultaneously, resulting in a distorted, although sometimes strong, received
signal.

Although AMR and DMR signals are each susceptible to the same transmission anomalies when
transmitted over the same link at the same frequency, their reaction to the effects of frequency
selective and nonfrequency selective are manifested entirely differently. Simply put: frequency selective
fading has little noticeable effect on AMR links and a large noticeable effect on DMR links. Conversely,
non-frequency selective fading has a large noticeable effect on AMR links and a small noticeable effect
on DMR links. For this reason, one should not assume that a DMR link will perform satisfactorily over a
given link simply because the AMR link’s performance has been satisfactory. (see Figure 1)

Figure 1
Different Microwave Radio Fade Margins

In the AMR world the term fade margin (FM) means the difference between the normal un-faded
Received Signal Level (RSL) and the receiver threshold (RxTH) as defined by the RSL required to cause
the worst 3kHz slot of the receiver’s baseband to have a 30 dB S/N and is equal to:

Fade Margin (dB) = System Gain (dB) – Net Path Loss (dB)

where:

System Gain = Absolute Sum RxTH (dBm) + TxOUT (dBm)

Net Path Loss (NPL) (dB) = See Figure 2

Figure 2

Shortly after DMR was introduced, other “fade margin” terms appeared to account for the different
effect that frequency selective fading has on DMR. These include Composite Fade Margin (CFM),
Dispersive Fade Margin (DFM) and Flat Fade Margin (FFM) also referred to as Thermal Fade Margin
(TFM).

where:
CFM = -10 Log (10-FFM/10 + 10-DFM/10)

FFM = Analogous to analog radio’s FM, is controlled by the system designer and is the
difference between normal RSL and the RSL required to produce a 10-3 or 10-6 BER on a DMR

DFM = Not controlled by system designer. A DMR equipment parameter that is unique to each
manufacturer’s equipment and serves as a figure of merit defining the equipment’s ability to
deal with the effects of frequency selective or dispersive type fading.
Microwave Radio Link Reliability

The generally accepted formula used to calculate the annual outage probability (U) resulting from
frequency selective type fading of a non-diversity microwave radio path is the classic formula

U (non-diversity) = 2.5 c f D3x10-6 x T0 x 10-FM/10 (Vigants, 1974)

Where:
U = non-diversity annual outage probability due to frequency selective fading
D = path length in miles
f = frequency in GHz
FM = Analog: Flat Fade Margin (FFM) Digital: Composite Fade Margin (CFM)
c = climate and terrain factor
0.25 = mountainous and dry climate
1.0 = average terrain and climate
4.0 = over water and gulf coast climate
T0 = duration of fading season
0.375 = southern Temperatures (75 F)
0.250 = average Temperatures (50 F)
0.175 = northern Temperatures (35 F)

The difference in the use of the above formula for AMR and DMR link design is the value of FM. For
AMR links, it is well agreed that the fade margin used for link reliability calculations is the difference, in
dB, between the link’s equipment system gain and its net path loss (NPL). But for DMR links, there is
not the same level of agreement. Although the use of the CFM term and its formula are widely
accepted, there are differences in opinion over the value of RxTH used to derive the DMR link’s CFM.
Some support using a 10-3 BER RxTH, others support using a 10-6 BER RxTH, while a third support
using the former for links transporting mostly voice traffic and the latter for links transporting mostly
data traffic. It is beyond the scope of this paper to expand on the merits of any of these positions but
rather to make the reader aware that varying viewpoints exist.
AMR vs. DMR Link Performance Characteristics

Figure 3 is the classic figure used to compare the performance of AMR and DMR. Note that the S/N of
an AMR is directly proportional to the RSL on a dB for dB basis. A loss of 30 dB RSL produces a 30 dB
loss in S/N. On the other hand, the performance of a DMR link is not directly proportional to the RSL.
The receiver does not care whether a “1” or “0” symbol is strong, weak, ugly or pretty; as long at it
can determine its correct state. Thus, the BER of a DMR link is relatively constant or flat over a wide
RSL range and does not start to degrade until the demodulator of the link’s receiver starts having
trouble distinguishing between “1’s” and “0’s” which usually occurs as the RSL begins to approach the
RxTH. The DMR link’s BER during non-faded conditions is referred to as the link’s residual BER.

Figure 3

An analysis of Figure 3 reveals another important

characteristic difference between AMR and DMR.
Since the quality or S/N of circuits transported over
an AMR link is directly proportional to the link’s FM,
the link must be designed for a high FM regardless
of its length. For example, to achieve a 70 dB S/N,
the link’s RSL must be designed to be 40 dB above
the receiver’s 30 dB S/N RxTH. That is, the link’s
FM must be 40 dB whether its one mile long or
forty miles long. (see Figure 4)

Figure 4

However, note this is not true for a DMR link. Its

BER is unchanged over a wide RSL range,
allowing its CFM to be just large enough to
produce the desired link reliability; thus requiring
smaller antennas, lower power or both.
Microwave Radio Link Propagation and Capacity Considerations

Propagation Protection

Although numerous protection schemes have been developed to improve the propagation reliability of
lineof-sight (LOS) point-to-point microwave radio links including, space diversity, frequency diversity,
quad diversity and angle diversity, this paper will limit its discussion to space diversity since it is the
one that, if required, is most likely to be used in converting from AMR to DMR Per Vigants’ formula
above, the reliability of a microwave radio link is a function of its FM, which in turn is a function of the
link RSL. However, often the RSL of a single antenna is reduced by the effects of multiple signals
arriving at the antenna out-of-phase causing the link’s resultant or composite RSL to drop below the
link’s RxTH resulting in an outage. Locating a second antenna, connected to a separate receiver, such
that the resultant RSL is not below RxTH on both antennas simultaneously, greatly reduces the
probability of such outages. Such an arrangement is called space diversity (S/D). (See Figure 5)

Figure 5

The improvement in link performance realized from such an arrangement is expressed by

ISD = 7 x 10-5 f s2 v2 10 FM/10D

Where:
ISD = Space Diversity improvement factor
f = frequency in GHz
D = path length in miles
s = vertical distance between antennas
v = relative voltage gain factor for different size antennas
v = 10 –[(Gl – Gs) / 20]
where:
Gl = Gain of larger antenna in dB
Gs = Gain of smaller antenna in dB
Thus
U(space-diversity) = U(non-diversity) / ISD
AMR will usually use S/D on links where excessively large antennas would otherwise be required to
meet the link’s reliability objective. The reliability of an AMR link is more a function of signal amplitude
than signal quality. However on DMR links, as seen in Figure 1, bigger is not necessarily better. It is
not uncommon for a relatively strong RSL to be so severely distorted by multi-path fading, that the
demodulator of a DMR receiver cannot demodulate the signal without producing a large number of
errors. Under such conditions, the link’s performance can also be greatly improved by locating the S/D
antenna such that the error causing distortion caused by the multi-path fading does not occur on both
antennas simultaneously. This arrangement, together with errorless switching between the two
receivers to insure that the receiver with the fewest errors is always on-line; greatly reduce the effects
of frequency selective fading on DMR links.

Capacity Considerations

AMR and DMR systems both employ standard equipment protection schemes; i.e., monitored hot
standby (MHSB) equipment and ring or loop system architecture, each with similar effectiveness.
However, the type of equipment protection is a factor that must be considered when determining the
capacity of the DMR required to replace the existing AMR.

AMR systems transport intelligence via a single FDM baseband that connects all sites. Individual circuits
are easily bridged on and off of the common baseband at each site as required. On the other hand,
DMR systems transport intelligence between individual sites via dedicated 1.544 MB data signals, each
representing twenty-four circuits, and called a T1 or DS1 signal. Normally, a DS1 connects only two
sites and is not shared with other sites, as is the FDM baseband of an AMR system. This means that
twenty-four channels of the system’s capacity is required to provide a single circuit between any two
sites. Fortunately, on linear backbone DMR systems, this unnecessary use of system capacity can be
avoided by using more expensive drip-and-insert (D/I) type digital channel banks. By doing so, the
capacity of the DMR system can be made comparable to that of the AMR system it is replacing.
Unfortunately, the channelizing advantage of D/I channel banks cannot be used on loop/ring protected
DMR systems because such protection schemes involves the switching of individual T1/DS1 signals,
which is not compatible with the D/I channel bank. Thus, a loop protected DMR system will usually
require more capacity than the AMR system it is replacing.

High capacity synchronous DMR system that occupy 30 MHz of RF spectrum and transport the
equivalent of 2016 circuits, tend to favor SONET ring protection switching schemes for economic
reasons.

Cutover Considerations

One of the most challenging aspects of converting an existing in-service AMR system to DMR is doing
so with minimum interruption of service to the system users. Because no two systems are alike and
each system will have it own unique channelizing and cutover requirements, the following discussion
will simply present ideas that the reader may find applicable to their particular requirements.

The simplest and easiest cutover plan is to turn the existing AMR system off, remove any unusable
equipment, install and test the new DMR equipment, and return the system to service. Although the
simplest, many users cannot tolerate the interruption of service or cost caused by such a plan.

A less intrusive plan is to build the new DMR system, including a new antenna system, parallel to the
existing AMR system. Once the installation and testing of the DMR is completed, individual circuits can
be tested and transferred one at a time from the AMR to the DMR using cut blocks with minimum
interruption of service. Once all traffic has been transferred to the DMR system, the AMR equipment,
including its antenna system, can be physically removed. But here again, some links of an AMR system
may not be able to operate in parallel with the new DMR even for short periods of time due to tower
loading and/or tower and building space limitations. Although often more costly, a sometimes-used
solution for this situation is to build the parallel DMR links where possible and use leased digital lines to
replace the troublesome AMR link(s). Once the entire DMR system, including leased digital lines, has
been installed, tested and carrying all traffic, the troublesome AMR links can be physically removed
from the system and replaced with DMR. When the installation and testing of the troublesome link’s
DMR is complete, traffic can be transferred from the leased digital lines and the lease ended.

Ring protected systems tend to be easier to cutover by virtue of the fact that an entire link of AMR can
be removed from service and replaced with DMR without interrupting service to system users. Once the
DMR installation is complete it can be placed in service, allowing the next link of AMR to be removed
from service and converted. This procedure continues on a link-by-link basis in a clockwise or
counterclockwise direction until all links have been converted. Note that should an equipment failure
occur in either the AMR or DMR while a link is being converted, a service outage will occur.

What Can be Reused

One of the first questions that is asked when discussing converting an existing AMR system to DMR is
“how much is it going to cost”, which in turn, is directly related to how much of the existing plant can
be reused. The following paragraphs will divide an existing AMR system into sub-systems. Each will be
discussed in terms of its reusability.

Equipment Shelter or building

Existing equipment shelters can usually always be reused. If the shelter is already cramped for space,
the existing AMR equipment rack can be temporarily slid into an isle, making room for the new DMR.
Once the DMR is placed in-service the AMR rack can be removed from the shelter completely. Modern
DMR equipment occupies a smaller footprint than equivalent capacity AMR equipment.

Antenna supporting structure

Existing antenna supporting structures and towers can almost always be reused but should be analyzed
if its loading is changed by adding larger, additional antennas or relocating existing antennas. Antenna
locations may change depending on the results of a detailed link analysis. If the AMR being replaced
has been in-service for over five years, it is a good idea to resurvey the link before finalizing the DMR
link design to insure that new obstructions have not been built or grown along the path.

Antenna system
Can the existing AMR antenna system be reused with the new DMR system? The answer to this
question depends on the system gain of the DMR equipment. If the system gain of the DMR is enough
to meet the desired link reliability objective then the existing antenna system can be reused in its
entirety. This usually means that the system gain of the DMR needs to be equal to or greater than that
of the AMR it is replacing. However as seen in Figure 4 above, this may not necessarily be the case.

The height of the DMR antennas is another story. Rarely will the DMR antennas have to go higher if
the AMR is in the same frequency range and operating satisfactorily. Because AMR links are fairly
immune to the effects of multi-path fading but very susceptible to effects attenuation fades caused by
insufficient microwave beam clearance, a general link design rule of thumb was, “if in doubt, move it
up”. However, since DMR responds in a completely different manner in the presence of multi-path
fading; without unnecessarily jeopardizing the microwave beam’s clearance, it is desirable to keep the
antenna at one end of a non-diversity link as low as possible so that unwanted reflected or multi-path
signals will be blocked by the link’s terrain, foliage or obstruction fade causing anomaly. (See Figure 6a
and 6b) In determining the correct antenna heights for non-diversity DMR links the designer is faced
with the dilemma; if he goes too high he risks exposing the link to the effects of frequency selective
fading, if he goes too low he risks exposing the link to the effects of non-frequency selective fading. A
solution to this dilemma on questionable links is the use of S/D. It is wise to have each link analyzed by
an experienced microwave radio transmission professional prior to finalizing the DMR antenna system
design.

Figure 6a Figure 6b

Occasionally, larger antennas will be required for frequency coordination purposes even though the
system gain of the DMR equipment is adequate to achieve the desired link reliability with smaller
antennas. Existing waveguide should be swept and the waveguide pressurization system inspected for
pressure leaks before it is reused.

Power system
If the existing AMR system operates from a -24VDC power source, thought should be given to
replacing it with a –48VDC source. Much of today’s DMR equipment can be powered from +/- 20VDC
to +/- 56VDC power sources. Unfortunately, most digital multiplex and channel bank equipment is not
as versatile and operates only from –48VDC power sources. Although 24/48VDC voltage converters can
be used to power the –48VDC equipment, their use not only reduces the cost advantage of reusing the
existing power plant but also impact overall system reliability by adding additional equipment to the
system. If the existing power plant is a –48VDC plant, has been properly maintained and is of sufficient
capacity to power the new digital load for the desired amount of standby time, then there is no reason
to discontinue its use.

Microwave radio equipment

In order to have the least impact on system reliability and antenna system upgrade cost; the most
important equipment specification to consider when selecting a DMR product to replace an existing
AMR product is its system gain. In many cases the system gain of the existing AMR system is going to
be greater than the new DMR system. Therefore, the higher the DMR system gain the better.

SYSTEM GAIN = $$$$$$

A DMR specification that is often over emphasized is its DFM, particularly on radios that occupy 10MHz
of RF bandwidth or less. Today, the DFM of these radios is large enough to so that even a 10 dB
increase in its value will result in virtually no improvement in link reliability; whereas, only a 2 dB
improvement in system gain will result in a significant improvement in link reliability.

To maximize the useful life of the new DMR equipment, the product selected to replace the AMR should
utilize a scalable platform and have a wide range of input signal interfaces including SONET and IP.

Multiplex and channel bank equipment

The bad news is that the FDM (frequency division multiplex) used with the AMR cannot be reused on
DMR systems. They will be replaced with TDM (time division multiplex) digital channel banks.
However, the good news is that standard D4 type PCM channel banks are less expensive, have a
smaller footprint, have a larger verity of interface options and consume less power than their analog
counterpart. Drop and insert type digital channel banks are also available. Although more expensive,
they provide much more efficient use of system capacity.

Alarm & control system

AMR alarm and control systems such as those manufactured by Badger and Lears Corporation can be
reused on DMR system providing simple contact closure alarm and control functions. However, today’s
DMR products make available a wide collection of performance monitoring (PM) information that allows
system operators to monitor and more accurately analyze and diagnose problems from anywhere on or
off of the microwave radio network. However, the interface to such PM data is usually via a proprietary
or SNMP protocol thus requiring the use of a more expensive proprietary or open architecture SNMP
Network Management System.

Licensing Considerations
The FCC requires a link of microwave radio be re-licensed if any major change is made to its operating
parameters, including changes in frequency, power, emission designator, antenna size and height or
otherwise would cause interference to other microwave radio users in the immediate area. Additionally,
if the new newly licensed radio is going to occupy 10 MHz or more of RF spectrum in the 6 GHz band,
the applicant must make a showing that 50% of the microwave radio’s capacity will be utilized within
the first thirty months of operation.

Existing AMR systems can be successfully converted to DMR provided the technical differences in their
performance characteristics are taken into consideration. When selecting a DMR to replace an existing
AMR, look for a product that has high system gain. The fact that an existing AMR link appears to be
working satisfactorily is no guarantee that the DMR replacement will work just as satisfactorily without
link modifications. Too much antenna height on DMR links can often cause more problems than not
enough height. Space diversity using smaller antennas is more desirable than non-diversity using a
single large antenna and can often be accomplished without increasing tower loading. Re-licensing of
each hop will most always be required. The system capacity of linear hot-standby protected DMR
systems can usually be made the same as the AMR system it is replacing. DMR loop protected systems
will usually require higher capacity systems for equivalent channel loading.

Bob Verlander is the Director of Strategic Account Sales for Microwave Networks, Inc. Mr. Verlander
has a BS in Electric Engineering from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, formally the University of
Southwestern Louisiana. He has been involved with microwave radio system design and sales since
1964 and with Microwave Networks for the past 11 years. Microwave Networks Incorporated
specializes in the design, manufacture, and installation of wireless infrastructure transport and access
products. For more information contact 281-263-6500 or visit www.microwavenetworks.com.