Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
CASE A: Equipment 20W Flexi-RRH with 2x2 open CASE A: 20W Flexi RF module, 2x2 open loop TX
loop TX diversity power increase at cell edge 3dB diversity power increase at cell edge 3dB
(TX diversity; no beamforming) CASE B: 40W Flexi RF module, 2x2 open loop TX
CASE B: Equipment 5W transmit power per antenna diversity power increase at cell edge 3dB
with 8 pipe beamforming antenna (total 8x5W=40W),
HBF (hybrid beamforming), beamforming gain= 7.34
dB
Conclusion
Delta between max. allowable pathloss values:
About 6dB benefit of LTE-FDD as compared Also the antenna gain is lower in LTE TDD
with TD-LTE due to the fact that cell ranges are
calculated so a certain bit rate is achieved at the With beamforming the FDD and TDD there is only
cell edge. Since the transmission is 3dB benefit for LTE FDD
discontinuous in LTE TDD it would be necessary
to transmit with larger bandwidth in TDD than
FDD to achieve similar bit rates
6 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0
Comparison: LTE vs. other technologies (2/2)
General and common assumptions
Outdoor macro cell layout (cloverleaf) Interference margin: 1dB (at 50% load)
TMA/MHA disabled HARQ enabled
MCS: optimized for highest MAPL/cell range of the BLER on first transmission = 10%
limiting link (UL), DL MCS adapted to match UL Propagation model:
MAPL COST 231 Hata 2-slope propagation model with
Equipment parameters: Penetration loss (du,u,su,r): +2dB offset on LTE
TMA/MHA disabled clutter [dB]
Feeder Loss 0.5 dB Clutter correction factor (du,u,su,r): 3, 0, -12, -23 [dB]
Stand. deviation outdoor (du,u,su,r): 9,9,8, 6[dB]
Channel model: Enhanced Pedestrian A 5 Hz Cell Area Probability (du,u,su,r): 90%
Cell load: DL 50% / UL 50% Antenna height NB (du,u,su,r): 30 ,30,35,45m
UE power class3 Antenna height UE/MS: 1.5 m
Urban Urban
TDSCDMA HSDPA TD-LTE TD-LTE TD-LTE
DL384/UL64 DL384/UL64 AMR12.2(VoIP) AMR12.2(VoIP)
0.32km 0.45km 0.33km w/ TTI bundling
121.14 dB 127.79 dB 121.77 dB 0.44km
127.45 dB
TD-LTE
TDSCDMA AMR12.2
DL4096/UL384 0.49km
0.32 km 129.15 dB
121.19 dB
Conclusion
Delta between max. allowable pathloss values: Delta between max. cell range:
Similar coverage between 0.16km weakness of TD-LTE VoIP
TDSCDMA(DL384/UL64) w/o TTI bunding compare with TDSCDMA
with TD-LTE(DL4096/UL384 AMR12.2 in Urban (the DL328/UL328 bear for TD-
About 6 dB benefit of TD-LTE(DL384/UL64) LTE VoIP leads to smaller cell range of LTE VoIP)
compare with TDSCDMA HSDPA due to lower Similar cell range of of TD-LTE VoIP
TD-LTE SINR requirement at cell edge w/ TTI bunding compare with TDSCDMA AMR12.2
due to gain of TTI bundling
8 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0