0 Up votes0 Down votes

4 views86 pagesIn the last years there has been a large increase in the use of mobile data. As of
today, being connected is a natural thing, and already the number of mobile devices
and connections exceeds the total global population. It is predicted that the
growth will continue at a fast pace, with the data traffic increasing with more than
50% every year at least until year 2020 [1]. To be able to support this increase
in traffic, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3gpp) is working to create a
specification for the next generation mobile network (5G) that is to be submitted
to the International Telecommunication Union (itu) in 2020 [2].

Jan 27, 2018

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

In the last years there has been a large increase in the use of mobile data. As of
today, being connected is a natural thing, and already the number of mobile devices
and connections exceeds the total global population. It is predicted that the
growth will continue at a fast pace, with the data traffic increasing with more than
50% every year at least until year 2020 [1]. To be able to support this increase
in traffic, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3gpp) is working to create a
specification for the next generation mobile network (5G) that is to be submitted
to the International Telecommunication Union (itu) in 2020 [2].

© All Rights Reserved

4 views

In the last years there has been a large increase in the use of mobile data. As of
today, being connected is a natural thing, and already the number of mobile devices
and connections exceeds the total global population. It is predicted that the
growth will continue at a fast pace, with the data traffic increasing with more than
50% every year at least until year 2020 [1]. To be able to support this increase
in traffic, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3gpp) is working to create a
specification for the next generation mobile network (5G) that is to be submitted
to the International Telecommunication Union (itu) in 2020 [2].

© All Rights Reserved

- LTE Benefits - LTE Product Design
- Ofdm in Gnu Radio
- White Paper
- 4G LTE Advanced Tutorial
- Project Literature Survey (1)
- A 0530106
- 4G Technology
- Performance of Efficient Signal Detection for LED-ID Systems
- REDUCING PAPR OF OFDM BASED WIRELESS SYSTEMS USING COMPANDING WITH CONVOLUTIONAL CODES
- OFDM Presentation
- oe-21-2-1669
- SIM OSDM
- An Improved Performance of 2D ASCO-OFDM in Wireless Communication
- D-34-367-372.pdf
- Performance Comparison of Two Clipping Based Filtering Methods for Papr Reduction in OFDM Signal
- 38211-f10.docx
- C80216a-02_16
- Lattice-Reduction Aided Equalization for OFDM Systems
- OFDMA for 4th Generation Cellular Networks
- A 429888

You are on page 1of 86

System Information

Distribution in Massive

MIMO Systems

Simon Sörman

Master of Science Thesis in Communication Systems

Simon Sörman

LiTH-ISY-EX--16/4952--SE

isy, Linköpings universitet

Martin Hessler

Ericsson, Linköping

Erik Eriksson

Ericsson, Linköping

isy, Linköpings universitet

Communication Systems

Department of Electrical Engineering

Linköping University

SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden

To Ida

Abstract

The 5th generation mobile telecommunication system (5G) is currently being

specified and developed, with large expectations on throughput and efficiency.

While 4G and more specifically LTE might constitute a basis of the design of the

network, there are some parts that should be improved. One thing to improve

is the static signalling that occurs very frequently in a 4G network, of which sys-

tem information such as synchronization signals, detection of network frequen-

cies, operators, configurations etc. is a part. It has been shown that the static

signalling requires both much energy and time-frequency resources. Since the

system information is not intended for a single user it is always broadcast so that

any user, and any amount of users can read it when needed.

5G will use a technique called massive MIMO, where the base station is equipped

with a large number of antennas which can be used to direct signals in space,

called beamforming. This thesis presents a new method for distribution of sys-

tem information that can utilize the beamforming capabilities of massive MIMO.

A simple model together with simulated user channel statistics from urban 4G

scenarios are used to show that the new method outperforms the classical method

of only broadcasting the information, with respect to time-frequency resources.

Especially if there are high requirements on the latency of the system informa-

tion, the new method results in a large gain.

v

Sammanfattning

Den 5:e generationens mobila nätverk (5G) håller för tillfället på att specifice-

ras och utvecklas med stora förväntningar och krav på datatakt och effektivitet.

4G, och mer specifikt LTE, kan utgöra en grund för designen av nätverket men

det finns flera delar som borde förbättras. En sak att förbättra är den frekven-

ta statiska signalleringen, där systeminformation så som synkroniseringssigna-

ler, nätverksfrekvenser, operatörer, konfigureringar etc. utgör en del. Det har ti-

digare visats att den statiska signalleringen kräver både mycket energi och tid-

frekvensresurser. Eftersom systeminformationen inte är riktad till en specifik an-

vändare så sänds den frekvent till hela cellen, så att alla användare, oavsett antal,

alltid har tillgång till att läsa informationen om det behövs.

5G kommer att använda sig av tekniken massiv MIMO, där basstationen är ut-

rustad med ett stort antal antenner som tillsammans kan användas för att rik-

ta signaler, vilket kallas lobformning. Denna uppsats presenterar en ny metod

för distribueringen av systeminformation som kan utnyttja möjligheten att lob-

forma. En enkel modell tillsammans med kanalstatistik från simuleringar av ur-

bana 4G-scenarion används för att visa att den nya metoden kräver mindre tid-

frekvensresurser än vad som krävs då informationen alltid sänds över hela cellen.

Med höga krav på låg latensen för systeminformationen är vinsten med den nya

metoden särskilt stor.

vii

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to Martin Hessler and Erik Eriksson at Er-

icsson Research in Linköping for guiding me and supporting my work with this

thesis. Whenever I was stuck, you would present many ways forward for me to

choose from. I would also like to thank the entire Ericsson LINLAB team for a

great time while writing my thesis. It has been inspiring to work in a such stim-

ulating environment. Another thanks goes to my fellow master thesis writers at

Ericsson who I have enjoyed many moments with during this thesis.

At Linköping university I want to thank Erik G. Larsson and Emil Björnson for

their help and advice. It is a privilege to have the possibility to learn from such

distinguished researchers.

Finally, I would like to thank my fiancée for giving me strength and motivation

whenever I need it. You have had a great part in creating this thesis.

Simon Sörman

ix

Contents

Notation xiii

1 Introduction 1

1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Problem Formulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.4 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.5 Thesis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 LTE 5

2.1 Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 System Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.3 Random Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2.3.1 Step 1: Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3.2 Step 2: Random Access Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.3.3 Step 3: Identification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.3.4 Step 4: Collision Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3 Transmission Methods 13

3.1 Broadcasting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.1.1 Single Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.2 Multiple Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.1.3 Beam Sweeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.2 Dedicated Transmissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2.1 Precoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.2.2 Channel State Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.2.3 Reciprocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1 Classical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.2 Proposed Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.2.1 Alternative 1: Static Pilot Slots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.2.2 Alternative 2: PRACH-Preamble . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

xi

xii Contents

4.3 System Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4.3.1 Time-Frequency Allocation Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

4.3.2 Latency Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.3.3 Pilot Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.3.4 Reference Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.4 Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.4.1 Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.4.2 Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5 Simulation 39

5.1 SINR Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1.1 Single Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1.2 Multiple Cell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

5.2 Beamforming Gain Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

6 Results 43

6.1 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

6.1.1 SINR Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

6.1.2 Beamforming Gain Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6.2 Method Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.2.1 A Minimum on the Bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.2.2 Latency Dependencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

7 Conclusion 59

7.1 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

7.2 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

7.3 The Thesis in a Wider Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

7.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

7.4.1 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

List of Figures 65

List of Tables 67

Bibliography 69

xiii

xiv Notation

Notation

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

3gpp 3rd Generation Partnership Project

aoa Angle of Arrival

aod Angle of Departure

bs Base Station

cdf Cumulative Density Function

cp Cyclic Prefix

csi Channel State Information

fdd Frequency Division Duplex

fft Fast Fourier Transform

gob Grid of Beams

ifft Inverse fft

isi Inter-Symbol Interference

itu International Telecommunication Union

los Line of Sight

lte Long-Term Evolution

mib Master-Information Block

mimo Multiple-Input Multiple-Output

mmse Minimum Mean Square Error

mrt Maximum Ratio Transmission

ofdm Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing

prach Physical Random Access Channel

pss Primary Synchronization Signal

si System Information

sib System-Information Block

sinr Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio

sip1 System Information Part 1

sip2 System Information Part 2

snr Signal-to-Noise Ratio

sss Secondary Synchronization Signal

tdd Time Division Duplex

ue User Equipment

zf Zero-Forcing

Notation xv

Notation Definition

C The set of all complex numbers

R+ The set of all non-negative real numbers

U (a, b) Uniform distribution in the interval [a, b[

CN (µ, σ ) Circular symmetric complex normal distribution with

mean µ and variance σ 2

Qp (Y1 ; Y2 ) Random variable that takes the value Y1 with proba-

bility p, otherwise Y2

Defined Parameters

Notation Definition

T1 Interval between broadcasts of sip1

T2 Interval between broadcasts of sip2

T3 Interval between allocated pilot slots

N1 Size of sip1

N2 Size of sip2

N3 Size of pilot (pilot overhead)

pf Full coverage

pc Variable coverage

Ru User arrival rate

A (t) Poisson process of user arrivals

A1 (t) Poisson process of sip2 -covered user arrivals

A2 (t) Poisson process of non-sip2 -covered user arrivals

λ Intensity of the process A2 (t)

L Random variable of latency

LN Random variable of latency, case Normal Detection

LE Random variable of latency, case Early Detection

D Random variable of pilot retries

Si State in a Markov chain where i ues transmit a pilot

ai Probability of adding i users to a Markov chain in one

step

π Stationary probability distribution of a Markov chain

ti Probability of being served a sip2 if i ues transmits a

pilot

Br Bandwidth of reference method

Bn Bandwidth of new proposed method

Bded Bandwidth of dedicated transmissions of sip2

Introduction

1

This chapter is a short introduction to the thesis. It is intended to provide a back-

ground, motivation and purpose of the thesis, as well as presenting the actual

questions that are intended to be answered by it.

1.1 Background

In the last years there has been a large increase in the use of mobile data. As of

today, being connected is a natural thing, and already the number of mobile de-

vices and connections exceeds the total global population. It is predicted that the

growth will continue at a fast pace, with the data traffic increasing with more than

50% every year at least until year 2020 [1]. To be able to support this increase

in traffic, the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3gpp) is working to create a

specification for the next generation mobile network (5G) that is to be submitted

to the International Telecommunication Union (itu) in 2020 [2].

technology to be used in 5G, that offers largely increased spectral efficiency as

compared to current systems. Spectral efficiency is a measure of how efficient the

usage of the radio resource is, and is most often given in bits/s/Hz. This makes it

possible, with the same bandwidth, to provide larger data rates than Long-Term

Evolution (lte), which is a fourth generation mobile network (4G). As dedicated

bandwidth is a very expensive resource, this is a very attractive property of mas-

sive mimo. The basic idea of this technology is to use many antennas at the Base

Station (bs), from one hundred up to thousands, to serve a smaller amount of

users (up to half the amount of bs antennas). This gives the bs many spatial

degrees of freedom, which can be utilized to beamform, i.e. to focus the signal

1

2 1 Introduction

energy at a specific user, see Figure 1.1. By beamforming at several users at once,

the bs can effectively communicate with several users at the exact same time and

exact same frequency. The focusing of energy in space also reduces the energy

that is wasted by transmitting signals in all directions, leading to lower power

consumption [3].

A vital part of mobile networks is the distribution of System Information (si),

i.e. information about the system that is not specific to a single user. Examples

of such information can be detection of the network and synchronization to it,

cell identity, timing information, public warning messages, information about

accessing the network etc. Historically, the distribution has been performed by

broadcasting it frequently. For instance, lte defines a number of different signals

that all contain a set of the entire si. All those signals are broadcast with some

periodicities, which is explained further in Section 2.2. Important to note is that

broadcasting is performed without knowledge of whether any users are actually

listening. This is so that users always will be able to read the information when

needed [4].

Clearly, system information will have to be distributed in the next generation

networks as well. It therefore seems motivated to investigate the design of the

distribution given the new technology provided by massive mimo.

The aim of this thesis is to propose and evaluate at least one method of distribut-

ing si, intended for the next generation of mobile networks (5G). Initially, the

applicable research is investigated in an effort to thoroughly investigate the pos-

sibilities offered by massive mimo. Based on this, methods will be defined and

simulated in different scenarios. The questions that are to be answered by this

thesis are:

1. How can massive mimo be utilized for system information distribution?

1.3 Method 3

resources?

3. What drawbacks or limitations exists in the proposed solutions (e.g. latency

issues)?

To be able to answer these questions fairly, the method used in lte will be in-

cluded as one option.

1.3 Method

This thesis is written at Ericsson Research in Linköping. The methodology and

content of the thesis are developed under supervision from researchers at the site.

In the beginning, literature was researched to investigate the relevant communi-

cation system theory. The background of the subject of massive mimo is based

on recent academic research and small case studies, as the subject is quite new.

As for the concept of system information distribution, the background is mainly

based on the procedure performed in lte and therefore some information about

lte was also required. Then, distribution methods were defined together with

theoretical models that relied on data extracted from simulations. All results in

this thesis stem from data collected from an internal simulator at Ericsson and

these models. The obtained results were analysed with aim of providing a rigid

foundation of answering the questions posed in the Problem Formulation.

1.4 Limitations

To keep the scope of the thesis to a reasonable size, some limitations have been

put on the thesis. They are as follows:

• Section 3.1 introduces three different methods of broadcasting. However,

only the first two will be considered.

• The thesis assumes that each bs will be equipped with 100 antennas. The

actual number does not show to be crucial, but this is still a limitation.

• Due to restrictions of the simulator, the thesis has only considered one type

of beamforming.

• Simulations of the actual si distribution methods have not been performed,

but the results rely on modelling of a system and theoretical analysis of

these models.

• Since there is a very large amount of parameters that affects the system,

some of them are not varied throughout the thesis. They are however cho-

sen in accordance with expectations of future mobile networks.

• The most complex variant of the models of the proposed method of si dis-

tribution has not been fully analysed due to time issues, it is only used to

motivate some conclusions.

4 1 Introduction

The thesis is structured as follows:

Chapter 1 gives an introduction of the thesis and contains the questions that are

intended to be answered by it.

Chapter 2 provides a description of relevant parts of lte as a background on the

current technologies.

Chapter 3 presents the different forms of transmission that this thesis considers,

which are broadcasting and massive mimo beamforming.

Chapter 4 introduces the two methods for distribution of si that this thesis de-

fines, as well as the models being used to analyse them.

Chapter 5 describes the simulations that have been performed to analyse the

methods defined in the previous chapter.

Chapter 6 presents the results that were acquired when processing the data from

the simulations.

Chapter 7 discusses the results from different perspectives, provides answers to

the questions from the problem formulation and concludes the thesis.

2 LTE

The leading technology for the fourth generation mobile network systems is Long-

Term Evolution. The first specification of lte was released by 3gpp in 2008 and

offers downlink peak rates of 300 Mbps and uplink peak rates of 75 Mbps. How-

ever, it was not fully classified as advanced 4G by itu until a new release in 2011.

lte has enjoyed a great commercial and technological success, therefore it makes

sense to compare the next generations networks to lte, and in some parts base

the design on it [5].

This chapter presents those parts of lte that is of concern to this thesis. It aims

to provide a sufficient background of currently used technologies.

The basic modulation method used in lte is Orthogonal Frequency-Division

Multiplexing (ofdm), which is a modulation that uses a large number of nar-

rowband subcarriers. A basic ofdm modulator using N subcarriers can be de-

scribed with the illustration in Figure 2.1. The modulator takes complex symbols

in blocks of N and modulates each one with a different frequency. All carriers

are then added to obtain the transmitted signal.

The frequencies of the subcarriers are all separated with a fixed spacing ∆f = 1/Tu

so that fn+1 = fn + ∆f . Here Tu denotes the modulation symbol time for all sub-

carriers, and is often referred to as the useful symbol time. Due to the relation

between these two parameters, the signals on two different subcarriers are orthog-

onal over a symbol time interval. This can be seen graphically by first realising

that the spectrum of a single subcarrier is a sinc2 -function with zero-crossings

spaced with ∆f assuming a rectangular pulse-shape. A sufficient condition on

5

6 2 LTE

s0

f0

s1

s0 , s1 , s2 , . . . f1 x(t)

S→P +

···

sN −1

fN −1

the pulse-shape is that it fulfils the Nyquist criterion, which means that it should

have the same zero-crossings as the rectangular pulse. The resulting spectrum

of the subcarriers looks as in Figure 2.2, where each carrier has an individual

line. In the figure it can be seen that at each subcarrier’s peak, the other subcar-

riers have zero signal energy. The spectrum of the total signal is the sum of all

subcarrier spectra.

To see mathematically why the subcarriers are orthogonal, we observe that the

signal on a subcarrier with frequency fn can be expressed in complex baseband

notation by xn (t) = sn ej2πnt/Tu . We then have orthogonality between different

subcarriers (m , n) due to

ZTu ZTu

xm (t)xn∗ (t) dt = sm sn∗ ej2π(m−n)t/Tu dt = 0. (2.1)

0 0

• The subcarriers are almost always chosen to be narrowband, i.e. their band-

width is smaller than the coherence bandwidth of the channel. This implies

that they will not be subject to frequency selectivity, which removes the

need for equalization.

• The modulation provides full control over both the time and frequency do-

main, for instance giving more freedom to the lte scheduler. The scheduler

makes decisions on when and where in the time-frequency grid different

signals should be sent.

• Although the description of modulation above includes many carriers, both

the demodulation and the modulation can be implemented using a single

carrier in conjunction with fft (Fast Fourier Transform) and Inverse fft

(ifft) processing respectively.

The orthogonality between subcarriers rely on an ideal scenario with no time

dispersion over the entire band that is used. This is of course not the case in

reality and thus the carriers will not be entirely orthogonal and the modulation

2.1 Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing 7

Frequency

will suffer from Inter-Symbol Interference (isi). This problem is solved by the

insertion of a Cyclic Prefix (cp) in front of every ofdm symbol. The cp is simply

the last part of the ofdm symbol and we denote its length by TCP . Figure 2.3

illustrates that if the demodulator only integrates over the useful time interval,

the orthogonality is preserved even towards signal components that are not time

delayed by more than TCP , since the integration is only performed over one ofdm

symbol together with its cp. As in (2.1), this is also easily shown by an integral,

in which τ ≤ TCP :

ZTu Zτ ZTu

xm (t)xn∗ (t − τ) dt = xm (t)xn∗ (t − τ + Tu ) dt + xm (t)xn∗ (t − τ) dt

0 0 τ

Zτ ZTu

= sm sn∗ ej2π(m−n)t/Tu ej2πnτ/Tu dt + sm sn∗ ej2π(m−n)t/Tu ej2πnτ/Tu dt = 0. (2.2)

0 τ

The simplification of the first term in the second equality is valid due to the fact

that ej2πnTu /Tu = 1, and therefore the shift of Tu disappears. It should be noted

that the use of a Cyclic Prefix entails that only Tu / (Tu + TCP ) of the received signal

energy is used for demodulation [6].

In lte under normal operation we have ∆f = 15 kHz and TCP ≈ 5.1 µs in every

seventh ofdm symbol and TCP ≈ 4.7 µs in all other symbols. The reason for this

is that the symbols should fill the defined time slot of 0.5 s [4].

8 2 LTE

TCP Tu

Direct path

Time-delayed path

Integration interval

Figure 2.3: Time dispersion is handled in ofdm with the insertion of a Cyclic

Prefix.

the time and frequency domain, it is usually visualized by a time-frequency grid

as shown in Figure 2.4. Each rectangle in the grid corresponds to one single

complex symbol, sent in one slot of duration Tu + TCP and on one subcarrier

fk . This figure also shows the important concept of time-frequency resources; a

certain number of bits corresponds to a certain number of symbols depending on

the underlying symbol constellation. These symbols can be placed freely on the

grid, but the used amount of resources measured in seconds times Hertz are the

same.

Since ofdm has been very successful in lte, it is highly likely that ofdm will

also be the foundation of the modulation used in 5G. There are currently some

waveform suggestions for 5G, all of which are multi-carrier modulations that can

be seen as ofdm with some modifications. Thus the time-frequency grid visual-

ization is valid also for those schemes [7] [8].

fN −1

) .

ie

r .. .

r ..

ar f4

u bc

(s f3

y

nc f2

ue f1

eq

Fr f0

... ...

m−3 m−2 m−1 m m+1 m+2 m+3

In lte there is an amount of system information that the cell can supply a user

with, some of it is optional and some is mandatory.

2.3 Random Access 9

in frequency and in time) to be able to read further information and possibly

access the network. To do this, lte has defined two synchronization signals

called Primary Synchronization Signal (pss) and Secondary Synchronization Sig-

nal (sss) which both are transmitted during one ofdm symbol on a bandwidth

of 1.08 MHz every 5 ms. When the user has read these two signals successfully,

it knows the timing in the cell and its physical cell-identity.

Before the ue can access the network there is some more si that is needed. The

most important information is located in a so-called Master-Information Block

(mib), in which the content is very small (only 24 bits) and is broadcast with

an interval of 40 ms. However, the mib is extensively channel coded so that even

users with really bad channel conditions are able to decode it. The mib is required

to be able to read the rest of the system information, which is located in a range

of different sibs (System-Information Blocks). These contain different sets of the

total system information and are quite varying in size and transmission interval,

and some are entirely optional for the network to use. But in all cases, both sib1

and sib2 are required before the ue can finally access the network to be able to

operate in it [4].

Apart from the explicit information described above, lte also broadcasts a set

of various reference signals intended to be used for channel estimation, demodu-

lation reference, positioning etc. Unfortunately all these static signals has to be

transmitted at all times, even when there are no users present in the cell. This

leads to some seemingly unwanted results, as shown in [9]. In that study, an

lte network was simulated for 4 scenarios during 24 hours, resulting in the his-

togram in Figure 2.5. The three scenarios with traffic were defined as “The most

relevant European scenario for 2015”, “An upper bound on the anticipated traf-

fic for 2015” and “An extremity for very high data usage in future networks”

respectively. The figure shows that the amount of empty sub-frames in the net-

work is large even under heavy load. The report does not elaborate on why this

is the case, but the result implies that the static signalling takes up very much re-

sources, since adding a large amount of traffic does not decrease the percentage

of empty sub-frames very much. This is compared to the case of no traffic, where

the only used sub-frames are static signalling. Note that the static signals are not

considered to occupy any sub-frames in these percentages. This motivates the

investigation of how to distribute system information more effectively in future

networks.

When a ue wants to use more advanced features of the network, such as making

a phone call or switch cell, it has to connect to the bs with a procedure called

random access. After a random access, the ue is synchronized in time in the

uplink, compensating for the propagation delay, and it is scheduled resources in

both the uplink and the downlink, so that data can be communicated in both

10 2 LTE

100

90

80

Empty sub−frame ratio [%]

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

No traffic Low traffic Medium traffic High traffic

Figure 2.5: The ratio of empty sub-frames at an lte bs for four different

traffic scenarios.

ways.

The random access procedure in lte consist of four steps described below.

In the first step, the ue chooses a preamble sequence from one of three subsets

of the predefined preambles, which there are 64 of in total. Which set the ue

chooses from signals some additional information to the bs. One of the subsets

is used only for ues that are explicitly requested by the bs to perform random

access, e.g. for handover, and the preamble to be used is indicated by the bs. For

the other two subsets, the ue chooses a random sequence. The chosen preamble

is transmitted on a channel called the Physical Random Access Channel (prach).

The location of the prach is signalled in sib2. The reception of a preamble at the

bs indicates that there is at least one ue that is doing random access, and it also

provides an estimate of the propagation delay. Note that it is possible that two

users choose the same preamble and transmits it on the same prach resource,

but the bs will hear their combined transmission and will be unable to detect

that there is more than one ue [4].

In the second step, the bs responds to the reception of a preamble by broadcasting

a message including timing correction that the ue should use and a scheduling of

2.3 Random Access 11

dedicated uplink and downlink resource blocks. ues that used different pream-

bles in Step 1 will get individual resource blocks, but those that used the same

preamble are still unaware of the collision. The timing correction included in the

random access response is used to compensate for the propagation delay between

the ue and the bs [4].

The last two steps of the random access protocol are intended to resolve any colli-

sions that might have occurred. To do this it is necessary to identify the ue. The

third step is thus to let the ue send a message with the needed information to set

up the connection properly, which includes an identity. The transmission of this

message is made on the uplink resources granted in Step 2. Two users that used

the same preamble will in this step transmit different identifiers to the bs [4].

The last step of a random access in lte consists of the bs signalling that the

random access was successful for the terminal. The signalling is made with the

identity from Step 3. Thus, if two users used the same preamble, the bs will only

signal success for at most one of them, depending on which ue’s identification

message was detected in Step 3, if any [4].

Transmission Methods

3

When a User Equipment (ue) arrives to a network area for the first time, for

instance when it is initially powered on, it has to find the network. To make

itself discoverable, the network has to communicate some information to the ue

so that it can first synchronize to the network, and then there is as stated an

amount of System Information that the user should be supplied with. The si is

always transmitted from a bs, but the transmission can be fashioned in a number

of ways. This chapter presents the available choices of transmission methods that

have been considered in this thesis.

3.1 Broadcasting

A crucial part of current radio networks is broadcasting, which is a process where

the bs transmits the signal to the entire cell area, so that the transmission reaches

all users that might be listening. This is today vital to supply ues with system

information so that they can operate correctly in the network.

Important to note is that broadcasting can be done with no information at the

bs about where users are positioned, or about if there even are users listening.

Broadcasting is intended to make it possible for all users to read the transmission

at any time, without prior signalling to the bs.

Also, one should know that while broadcasting is commonly made with just a

single antenna, which is also the case assumed throughout this thesis, there is

some research that shows the benefits of using massive mimo for broadcasting

as well. In [10] and [11] it is shown that some special types of precoding (ex-

plained in Section 3.2.1) results in broadcasts that are more resilient to different

bad channel conditions by introducing extra diversity. Broadcasting can also be

13

14 3 Transmission Methods

alternating the two while at the same time introduce extra diversity on the broad-

casts [12]. However, we will not go into more detail about these techniques as we

in this thesis for broadcasting limit ourselves to one antenna.

This section presents three different methods in which broadcasting is achieved.

The possibly simplest method of broadcasting is in this thesis named Single Cell.

This broadcasting method lets each bs node in each cell operate in an uncoor-

dinated manner; the network does not need to synchronize different bss. A ue

in this scenario will only be able to listen to one bs, and therefore it chooses to

synchronize to the single cell from which the received power is the largest.

A requirement for this method to work is that the ue has to be able to separate

broadcasts from different base stations. This implies that the broadcasts have

to contain a cell-specific identity that is not repeated in cells that are too close

together, otherwise that will lead to inter-cell interference. Worth noting is that

the chosen cell will almost always correspond to the bs that is closest in distance

to the ue, as the path loss will most often be smallest for that bs. While not always

true, this can be used as a simple, well-motivated assumption for calculations. An

illustration of this is located in Figure 3.1, where three cells are depicted which

all have different identities. The ue in this case will probably synchronize to the

medium gray cell, but is free to choose any of them.

Expressed mathematically, bs i is transmitting a broadcast signal P si (t), indepen-

dent of all other bss, which will be received at the ue as ri (t) = j αi,j si (t − τi,j ).

The sum is taken over all signal paths, enumerated by j, where αi,j represents

attenuation of the signal on each path and τi,j is the propagation delay of the

signal paths. It should also be noted that the signals si (t) are time-limited to the

duration of the broadcast. This results in the total received signal

Signal Interference

Noise

X z}|{ z X

}| { z}|{

r(t) = ri (t) + n(t) = r1 (t) + ri (t) + n(t) , (3.1)

i i,1

where we assume that the signal from bs 1 is the received signal with largest

power, so that this is the bs to which the ue synchronizes. The summations in

(3.1) is taken over all bss in the network, and is valid for the duration of the

broadcast plus some additional time to allow for propagation delay.

Another scheme that is available for broadcasting, is in this thesis named Multi-

ple Cell. As the name implies, a ue might listen to broadcasts from several cells

simultaneously if this method is used. The first thing that is required for this to

be possible is that the cells are operating in a coordinated manner, such that they

all broadcast the exact same signals at the same time.

3.1 Broadcasting 15

Figure 3.1: Illustration of Single Cell broadcasting, each cell broadcasts in-

dependently.

16 3 Transmission Methods

Each bs will thus send the same signal s(t), which due to multipath propagation

will result in a total received signal at the ue of

XX

r(t) = αi,j s(t − τi,j ) + n(t), (3.2)

i j

where the outer sum is over all base stations, and the notation is the same as in

(3.1). As can be seen, this appears to the ue as nothing else than multipath prop-

agation of a single transmission of s(t), although the number of paths is larger

than in a single cell case. Furthermore, since the distances to different bss might

differ, the spread of the delays τi,j will be larger than the spread of a single base

station’s signal. The effect of this is that some signal parts from cells that would

be interference in a Single Cell setting are now turned into useful signal energy

instead. But some signal parts are delayed by too much and will still constitute

interference.

This method of broadcasting is also used in lte, although not for transmission of

system information but was intended for multimedia broadcasting. [4]

handled with the insertion of a Cyclic Prefix. It should be clear that the cp can

handle those signal parts that are not delayed by more than TCP (in reality the

actual time dispersion

n o that can be handled is somewhat smaller than TCP ). By or-

dering the set of τi,j into a linearly indexed set such that τ0 < τ1 < . . . < τN and

n o

make the same corresponding ordering of αi,j and letting τl be the minimum

τk such that τk − τ0 > TCP , we get

Signal Interference

z }| { z }| { Noise

l−1

X N

X z}|{

r(t) = αk s(t − τk ) + αk s(t − τk ) + n(t) . (3.3)

k=0 k=l

the cell-edge ue might be able to use the signals from all three visible base sta-

tions, thus the received signal energy should be significantly increased and the

interference will be reduced.

Important to note here is that the TCP in lte is 4.7 to 5.1 µs, which implies that the

significant delay spread of the channel is not expected to be larger than this value.

A distance of just 1 km corresponds to a signal time delay of 3.3 µs, which then

should imply that the distance between bs i and the ue constitutes the largest

part of most of the τi,j . Because of this, it is motivated to make an approximation.

Let c be the speed of light, B = {bi } be the set of all bss with corresponding

distances di to the ue, such that d0 < d1 < . . . < dM , and lastly dm is the smallest

3.1 Broadcasting 17

synchronously.

≈ Signal ≈ Interference

z }| { z }| { Noise

m−1

XX M X

X z}|{

r(t) = αi,j s(t − τi,j ) + αi,j s(t − τi,j ) + n(t) . (3.4)

i=0 j i=m j

In other words, the approximation is that all signals transmitted from bss that

are close enough to the ue, as compared to the closest bs, will contribute fully to

the received signal energy. bss that are further away will only contribute to the

interference. Another property that makes this a good approximation is that αi,j

is almost certainly smaller for larger τi,j due to both longer propagation distance

and that the signal might have gone through more reflections. Thus, the signal

parts that have larger power also have a delay closer to the distance between the

bs and the ue divided by c.

Figure 3.3 illustrates the above approximation in a scenario with 3 base stations.

Each rectangle represents a version of the transmitted signal, with the color inten-

sity indicating energy, and the horizontal position representing the arrival time

at the ue, i.e. in total αi,j s(t − τi,j ). In reality, only those copies that are received

within TCP constitute useful signal energy, and in the figure those rectangles are

plain. The approximation, however, considers all signal parts from close enough

18 3 Transmission Methods

TCP

bs1

bs2

bs3

simulate signal quality.

base stations as useful, thus the vertically striped rectangles will also be included

as signal energy. The rectangles with a diagonal line are interference in both

reality and in the approximation.

The third and last broadcasting method is set in a quite different scenario as

compared to Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. To use this method, the bs has to have a

Grid of Beams (gob), which is defined as a fixed set of beams (precoders, see

Section 3.2.1) for possible use [13].

tion transmits its broadcast signal in one beam at a time, i.e. only one beam is

active at a specific time instance. This technique is referred to as beam sweeping

as the bs effectively sweeps the entire cell area with a set of beams. An illustra-

tion is available in Figure 3.4. Although this method directs the signal energy in

space, it classifies as broadcasting since the bs has no knowledge of where users

might be located, and thus it has to use its beams to cover the entire cell.

The effect of beam sweeping is that most ues will be able to receive a broadcast

with a larger signal energy than otherwise, since each one should be positioned

inside at least one beam. However, if this type of system is to have the same

latency as a system where the broadcast covers the entire cell, the beam sweep

has to be made quite fast. In fact, a gob with N beams will have to transmit the

broadcast signal a factor N times more frequently than a broadcast that covers

the entire cell.

3.2 Dedicated Transmissions 19

Sweep direction

at a time.

The technique of having multiple receive and transmit antennas is called mimo.

In current technology, it is mainly used to enhance the signal quality on a fading

channel by introducing diversity, and/or to spatially multiplex several channels.

For example in lte, it is possible to simultaneously have 4 different channels be-

tween the bs and the ue, referred to as single-user mimo. Moreover, it is possible

to have those simultaneous channels to 4 different ues, which is instead called

multi-user mimo. The lte specification also allows a number of different config-

urations to create diversity from the multiple antennas [4].

Recent research has shown that it is possible to communicate with many ues in

the same time-frequency resource by using a large number of antennas at the

bs. This is referred to as massive mimo. Usual numbers are that the base station

antenna array should have a few hundred elements, and that this could serve tens

or even more terminals [3].

3.2.1 Precoding

Consider a system where the bs has M antennas, and there are K ues with one

antenna each. If we limit the system to operate within the coherence bandwidth

and the coherence time, the channel between each bs antenna and each ue is

just a multiplication with a complex constant in complex baseband notation. A

20 3 Transmission Methods

√

y = ρd HT x + w, (3.5)

where y = (y1 , . . . , yK )T , x = (x1 , . . . , xM )T and w = (w1 , . . . , wK )T . yi and wi

are the symbol and included noise that is received by ue i respectively, xj is the

symbol that is transmitted on bs antenna j, and all wj ∼ CN (0, 1) are i.i.d. Thus

H = {hmk } is a collection of size M × K of all the channel coefficients. An often

used assumption is that these are i.i.d. hmk ∼ CN (0, 1), which models a Rayleigh

fading channel, i.e. that there is no Line of Sight (los) and that there is a rich

scattering environment. This is however not of importancenin this o thesis. Finally,

2

there is a power constraint on the transmitted symbols of E kxk ≤ 1. In total, all

this implies that the interpretation of ρd is average Signal-to-Noise Ratio (snr)

measured at the ues.

The way that massive mimo is utilized is that the transmit vector x is chosen in

a manner that exploits the channel. Let s = (s1 , . . . , sK ) be the symbols that are

intended for each ue, then x is created by precoding the symbols linearly with a

precoding matrix x = Ws.

The precoding matrix can be chosen arbitrarily, but some common options are

• Maximum Ratio Transmission (mrt): W = αH∗ (3.6)

−1

• Minimum Mean Square Error (mmse): W = αH∗ HT H∗ + ρK IK (3.7)

d

−1

• Zero-Forcing (zf): ∗

W = αH H HT ∗ , (3.8)

power constraint on x is fulfilled.

The different precoder matrices are chosen with different aims. mrt maximizes

the snr for each user but disregards the interference between users, for a given

transmit power. zf is the opposite of mrt, it chooses the precoding matrix so that

the interference between users is zero. mmse is the middle-road, it minimizes the

mean square error between received and transmitted symbols. Linear precoding

is not optimal but it is very efficient, and research shows that it is near optimal

for large M [14].

To see why precoding works, consider the zf precoding. The received vector then

is

√ −1 √

y = ρd αHT H∗ HT H∗ s + w = ρd αs + w. (3.9)

This shows that each user now has a channel that is independent of all other

users. The channel is only a scaling with a real constant, in which only the snr is

unknown.

The procedure of precoding in this manner makes the bs transmit the signal en-

ergy in a very narrow direction aimed at the ues, this is called beamforming since

one can imagine narrow signal beams being sent from the bs just as in Figure 1.1.

3.2 Dedicated Transmissions 21

In this thesis, we will make use of the mrt precoding and the property of it that

the Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (sinr) scales with M/K for large M

and K [15].

The precoding matrix in the previous section is evidently dependent on the chan-

nel matrix which the transmitter in reality does not know beforehand. Therefore,

some estimation procedure has to be performed in order to obtain Channel State

Information (csi).

The most prevalent method in massive MIMO theory to obtain csi is to rely on

channel reciprocity, i.e. that the channel is the same for uplink and downlink, see

more in Section 3.2.3. A common idea is to let all ues transmit reference signals,

called pilots, which should all be orthogonal and known a priori by the bs. Based

on the reception of these signals, an estimate of the channel can be made and used

for precoding. Note that this is not the only means of csi acquisition. Although it

probably needs at least as much overhead, another option is for the ue to estimate

its channel based on transmissions from the bs and feed those estimates back on

the uplink. The overhead in this method can easily be varied by allowing different

csi qualities; if the system can function with a harsh quantization of the csi, the

overhead is smaller than if better csi is needed. Also note that pilots could be

used in the downlink beamforming as well, for better decoding performance [16].

3.2.3 Reciprocity

Reciprocity is as stated a property of the wireless communication channel that

means that the channel is the same in uplink and downlink. There are, however,

different interpretations that can be made of this definition.

The simplest type of reciprocity in a multipath environment is directional reci-

procity, which means that the Angle of Arrival (aoa) of the channel is the same as

the Angle of Departure (aod). This originates in the fact that the most significant

scatterers for a user are the same in both up- and downlink [17] [18]. Scatterers

are the points in space that reflect the signals to produce a multipath channel.

Thus by estimating the few strongest aoas of the pilot signal sent by the ue, the

bs also knows which aods to use to aim the signal energy in direction of the ue.

To exploit this reciprocity, one can use a pilot of small bandwidth but the down-

link transmission can have a much larger bandwidth since the aoas and aods are

quite independent of the frequency of the signal. Obviously, the precoders in Sec-

tion 3.2.1 cannot be used with directional reciprocity, but the precoding matrix

has to be based on the estimated aoas instead. This type of reciprocity should

be possible to exploit in both a Time Division Duplex (tdd) and a Frequency Di-

vision Duplex (fdd) system, as the received aoa includes information for other

frequencies than the received signal.

At the other end of the reciprocity spectra, there is what is here denoted as full

reciprocity. This is the conventional form of reciprocity in massive mimo litera-

ture, where the channel coefficients are the same in up- and downlink [3]. When

22 3 Transmission Methods

the bs receives the orthogonal pilot signals from the ues, it can estimate the chan-

nel coefficient to each ue with some conventional estimation method. It may how-

ever be more expensive to try to utilize full reciprocity rather than directional.

Since the channel coefficient is only constant within the coherence bandwidth,

the downlink transmission can only use as much bandwidth as the pilot signal

used. For instance, if the system should use four times the coherence bandwidth

for the downlink transmission, the ue has to repeat its pilot signal (which is only

as wide as the coherence bandwidth) on four different carrier frequencies. This

type of reciprocity is only applicable in a tdd system, as the reciprocity-based

transmission must be sent on the same frequency as the pilot was received on.

Observe that reciprocity is a property of the physical channel, while the hardware

is not in general reciprocal. This can be countered by calibration of the hardware

chains to achieve full reciprocity [3].

System Information Distribution

4

Methods

distribution of it has impact on for instance latency, energy consumption and

spectral efficiency of the system. This thesis proposes two different methods

of distributing si, of which one is an entirely new approach, while the other is

mainly used as a reference. These two methods and their characteristics are de-

scribed in detail in this chapter. Also we will present and describe the different

models that we will use to analyse them.

The first method that is investigated is the classical approach of only distributing

the si via broadcasts. This is what has been used in previous mobile networks,

and for example in lte this comes with a price, as described in Section 2.2.

The formal definition of this method is simply that the entire set of system in-

formation is broadcast with any of the methods in Sections 3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 3.1.3.

The network is completely free to classify different parts of the set of si with

different urgency, and therefore broadcast them with different intervals. The im-

portant thing to note is that regardless of how this is done, a specific set-up is

characterized by a total information rate needed for its si distribution. For in-

stance, a system that has one 100-bit part of si broadcast every 10 ms, and one

400-bit part broadcast every 100 ms requires in total an information rate of 14

kbps.

The term full coverage that will be used throughout this thesis, does not actu-

ally mean that exactly all users can decode the information that is being sent. It

should be clear that when a system has been designed it covers almost all users,

23

24 4 System Information Distribution Methods

but that the probability of a user experiencing worse channel conditions than

what the system is capable of handling is larger than zero. It therefore makes

sense to define full coverage as a probability of not being able to serve a user, or

equivalently, defining a percentage of coverage. In this thesis we will define full

coverage as pf = 0.9999, i.e. that with full coverage we expect that 99.99% of all

users can be served.

Since this distribution method is what historically have been used as standard, it

will in this thesis be seen as a reference to compare with.

In this thesis we propose a new method for distribution of system information

that is able to utilize the beamforming capabilities of massive mimo. But to be

able to beamform to a specific user, the bs needs some form of csi, as described

in Section 3.2.1. To obtain any form of csi, there has to be some communication

between the bs and the ue. Consequently, it is not possible to only make use of

downlink transmissions if dedicated beamforming is wanted.

The definition of the proposed method is that the entire set of si is split up into

two different parts, called System Information Part 1 (sip1 ) and System Informa-

tion Part 2 (sip2 ), which is visualized in Figure 4.1. The information in sip1 is

broadcast with full coverage, just as in the classical approach. The information

in sip2 is however broadcast with a lower coverage, meaning that only a certain

percentage of the users in the system are expected to be able to decode the trans-

mission of sip2 . The percentage will in the future be referred to as sip2 -coverage

and the probability will be denoted by pc . Note that the method does not specify

what pc is, but it is limited to the range 0 ≤ pc < pf . In the extreme case of pc = 0

we do not broadcast sip2 at all, and when pc tends to pf , this method tends to the

classical approach.

Obviously, some users will not receive the second part of the system information,

and this is solved by letting those users request a dedicated sip2 . When the bs

receives such a request, it could use the reception to gain some csi used for beam-

forming, but that is not required by the definition. What is required is simply

that the bs should be able to supply sip2 on demand.

sip1 sip2

Figure 4.1: The set of system information is split into two parts.

This proposed method does not specify anything about what type of information

that should go into which part, other than that sip1 has to contain information on

how to request sip2 if that procedure is not entirely fixed in the protocol. In any

case it might be useful to, in an objective way, think of sip1 as the information

4.2 Proposed Approach 25

that is most critical and is vital to all users, and sip2 as the information that is

good to know but not equally important.

The requesting procedure can be designed in different ways. In this thesis three

different procedures have been identified and are presented in Sections 4.2.1 to 4.2.3.

The first request procedure alternative is also the simplest one. The bs pre-

allocates some time-frequency resources (slots) that can be used by ues to trans-

mit pilot signals in. A pilot signal is a specific sequence that is known a priori

by both the ue and the bs, which makes it possible for the bs to both detect the

request and to estimate the channel to the ue. There might be more than one

possible pilot signal, and in that case the ue chooses one from the pre-defined

set. All pilot signals in this set should be pairwise orthogonal, so that it is possi-

ble to separately estimate channels to users that happens to choose different pilot

signals in the same pilot slot.

In a system with broadcast signals that cover the entire cell, as in a Single/Multiple

Cell setting, the detection and reception of a pilot signal is sufficient to get some

estimate of the csi. But the type of csi might depend on the bandwidth of the

pilot signal. To be able to exploit the full reciprocity, the pilot signal might be re-

quired to have a relatively large bandwidth, and the allocation of wideband slots

could be expensive when only a fraction of the slots are used due to low load on

the network. With a lower bandwidth of the pilots, it is possible that the bs only

can make an estimate of in which direction the transmitting ue is located, and

can thus only utilize the directional reciprocity of the channel.

In a beam sweeping system, the pilot slot does not necessarily have to have a

large bandwidth. Consider a case where pilot slots are allocated directly after

broadcasts of sip2 in each beam. Then the reception of a pilot indicates that a

ue could not decode the sip2 that was broadcast in the beam that the pilot slot

corresponds to. Figure 4.2 illustrates that if a pilot signal is detected in the striped

pilot slot, the bs knows that there exists a user in beam 2 that could not decode

sip2 , and thus that it should make the dedicated sip2 -transmission in that beam.

Beam N sip2

..

.

Pilot slots

Beam 2 sip2

Beam 1 sip2

26 4 System Information Distribution Methods

The second alternative is very closely related to the first one. This alternative also

has the ue transmit a signal in a pre-allocated resource to request a dedicated

sip2 .

Since the random access procedure is another vital part of a mobile network,

there is reason to assume that future networks will have a similar procedure. For

instance in research of massive mimo, there has been a proposal of a random ac-

cess protocol based on the lte procedure described in Section 2.3, but improved

to utilize the large antenna array at the bs. [19]

The idea of alternative 2 is to use a small subset of the preambles as requests

for sip2 , so that users needing a dedicated sip2 transmits one of those preambles

on the prach. This is as stated very similar to the first alternative, since the

preamble could be viewed as a pilot signal. The difference is that the request

procedure now shares resources with the random access procedure, and it might

thus increase the probability of collisions (two ues transmitting equal preambles

simultaneously) in these procedures. At the same time it decreases the probabil-

ity of a low utilization of the resources spent on the random access.

In both previous alternatives there are concerns about the bandwidth of the pilot

signal, resource utilization and reciprocity type. The third request procedure is

aimed at resolving these concerns by extending the protocol with a handshake

before pilot transmission.

Instead of letting the subset of preambles that can be sent on the prach signal

a request of sip2 , we instead let them signal a request for a pilot slot. The bs

can upon such a request dynamically allocate resources for that ue to transmit a

pilot signal in, which is signalled in the downlink of the prach. This alternative

ensures that resources for pilot signals are allocated exactly when needed and not

being unused, and they could also be wideband with no wasting of resources, to

make sure that full reciprocity can be exploited. However, this procedure adds

some overhead due to the extra signalling required to make the handshake before

the pilot signal.

A visual comparison of this third procedure and the two previous is presented in

Figure 4.3.

This section presents the model that is used for a bs in this thesis. A bs is as-

sumed to have 100 antennas that can be used for beamforming, but when the bs

is broadcasting, it is only using a single antenna.

To a bs’s cell, users arrive according to a Poisson process A (t) with intensity Ru .

Note that arrivals to the cell consists both of ues that are powered on and users

4.3 System Model 27

Failed to Failed to

decode sip2 decode sip2

Estimate Allocate

channel pilot slot

Dedicated sip2 Send grant signal

Send pilot

Estimate

channel

Dedicated sip2

28 4 System Information Distribution Methods

T1 T2 T3

Broadcast sip1

Broadcast sip2

Pilot slots

sip2 on demand

that for some reason needs si again, perhaps due to outdated information being

stored.

One important thing to note is that the value of pf is actually only used in expres-

sions concerning sinr. In expressions such as arrival rates and latency probabil-

ities, we will only consider those users that are actually covered by the network.

It is not interesting to look at the users that will not be able to take part in any

communication with the system at all.

In Sections 4.3.1, 4.3.2 and 4.3.3 we present different aspects of the model that is

used for the new approach. In Section 4.3.4 we present the model for the classical

approach.

The model that we are using for a single bs in the system is that it has allocated

time-frequency resources, as illustrated in Figure 4.4. This illustrates that each

bs broadcasts a sip1 of pf coverage with an interval of T1 , and a sip2 of pc cov-

erage with the interval T2 . We then model it as if the bs has allocated pilot slots

separated by T3 seconds according to alternative 1 in Section 4.2.1. Observe that

this model can also be used for the other alternatives by letting the size of the pi-

lot slot represent the overhead of the method being used. Lastly, the bs can send

sip2 upon request, and this is assumed to occupy the entire resource slot, i.e. the

bs will not beamform any other signal to other users or broadcast other informa-

tion in that resource slot. In the figure, these dedicated transmissions occur after

every pilot slot, but that is not required, they should occur whenever it is needed.

In a realization of a system, it is not required that the signals are always located

with a regular interval, but as this is very common in existing systems it will be

assumed for modelling purposes.

The sizes of all signals are in this thesis fixed to the values found in Table 4.1.

These values are chosen to be in proportion to what could be expected in a real-

isation of this system. Furthermore, we also fix the value T1 = 50 ms, which is

of the same proportion as sib1 in lte. The fixed coverages of sip1 , sip2 and pilot

slots leads to fixed sizes of the time-frequency resource needed for each transmis-

sion of those signals. However, for dedicated sip2 we assume both that the bs

is able to beamform with all antennas, and that it can adapt the resource alloca-

4.3 System Model 29

Table 4.1: The sizes of different signals are constant in this thesis.

sip1 N1 = 100 pf

sip2 N2 = 1000 pc

Pilot slot N3 = 100 pf

tion based on the estimated channel to the user. This will be further described in

Section 4.3.3.

Note that this model also is valid if sip1 and/or sip2 is split into different seg-

ments that are sent with different intervals as with the system information in lte

(see Section 2.2). The only thing that is important is the total rate of the signal

that is required.

A user that arrives to the network is required to first search for a transmission of

sip1 . After this there is two different cases that are separated:

• Normal Detection - In this case the ue has to try to decode the next sip2

transmission before it is allowed to send a pilot signal.

detect from the received signal strength on sip1 if it will be able to decode

sip2 . That way, the ue can make an early decision that it has to send a pilot

signal.

A ue can as stated decode sip2 with probability pc . ues that need to send a pilot

signal do so in the next available pilot slot, and all subsequent slots until they

receive a dedicated sip2 .

Observe that the splitting property of the Poisson process entails that we can

write A (t) = A1 (t) + A2 (t). Where A1 (t) and A2 (t) are two independent Poisson

processes with intensities Ru pc and Ru (1 − pc ) respectively. Thus A1 (t) is the

arrivals of users which will be able to decode sip2 , and A2 (t) is the arrivals of

users that are not able to do so.

We define the latency that a single user experiences as the time it takes from

arrival, to when the sip2 transmission which can be decoded by the user starts.

To model the latency for mathematical purposes we first need to define the ‘choice’

random variable Qp (Y1 ; Y2 ) to be a random variable that takes on the value Y1

with probability p and Y2 with probability 1 − p. We can then model the latency

for a user in the Normal Detection scenario as

LN = U1 + U2 + Qpc (0; U3 + T3 D) (4.1)

30 4 System Information Distribution Methods

LE = U1 + Qpc (U2 ; U3 + T3 D) , (4.2)

where U1 ∼ U (0, T1 ), U2 ∼ U (0, T2 ) and U3 ∼ U (0, T3 ) are all independent. In

these expressions U1 represents that the ue has to wait for sip1 , U2 that it has to

wait for sip2 and U3 that it has to wait for a pilot slot. U1 is uniform due to the

characteristics of a Poisson process, but U2 and U3 will in reality not be uniform

on a real interval since T1 , T2 and T3 will most likely be defined as multiples of

some common unit of time in a real system. However, this should still constitute

a good approximation since the sip1 , sip2 and pilot slot occasions are distributed

uniformly. In fact, for T1 and T2 being multiples of some common unit with

T2 > T1 , the approximation will be an overestimate. The users will then arrive

between broadcasts of sip2 , but there is almost always a broadcast of sip1 before

that, with the only exception being the users that arrive between the last sip1

before the next sip2 . The time between those two will most likely be chosen very

small, and thus very few users will experience that case. The result would be that

U1 disappears from the expressions for almost all users. One could view it as we

can count the time spent waiting on sip1 also towards the waiting time for sip2 .

The same could hold for the pilot slots, which further motivates why this is an

over-estimate.

Also note that the model disregards that the signals are not instantaneous, and

that it assumes that a dedicated sip2 can be received the moment the pilot is sent.

This approximation is motivated by that the total latency will most often be in

the order of seconds, while the transmission and processing times should be in

the order of milliseconds.

of pilot retries a user has to make in order to receive a dedicated sip2 . This is

described in more detail in Section 4.3.3.

T + T2 T

E {LN } = 1 + (1 − pc ) 3 + T3 E {D} (4.3)

2 2

T + p c T2 T

E {LE } = 1 + (1 − pc ) 3 + T3 E {D} . (4.4)

2 2

We can also derive the Cumulative Density Function (cdf) as

FLN (l) = Pr {LN ≤ l}

= pc Pr {U1 + U2 ≤ l} + (1 − pc ) Pr {U1 + U2 + U3 + T3 D ≤ l}

X∞

= pc Pr {U1 + U2 ≤ l} + (1 − pc ) Pr {D = d} Pr {U1 + U2 + U3 ≤ l − T3 d}

d=0

(4.5)

4.3 System Model 31

= pc Pr {U1 + U2 ≤ l} + (1 − pc ) Pr {U1 + U3 + T3 D ≤ l}

X∞

= pc Pr {U1 + U2 ≤ l} + (1 − pc ) Pr {D = d} Pr {U1 + U3 ≤ l − T3 d} .

d=0

(4.6)

The process A2 (t) produces users that will have to send pilots. At each pilot

slot occurrence, all users that transmitted a pilot in the previous slot but did not

receive a dedicated sip2 will transmit again, and newly arrived users will also

transmit. The number of users to transmit in pilot slot n, denoted by Xn , is thus

only dependent on Xn−1 and A2 (t), therefore the sequence X0 , X1 , . . . is a Markov

chain. The state space of this chain is countably infinite as Xn in theory can be any

non-negative integer. We denote the state in which there are k users transmitting

a pilot by Sk , and the transition matrix of the Markov chain by P = {pij }∞ i,j=0 .

Element pij is then the probability of moving from state Sj to state Si .

We approximate the number of new transmitting ues as the number of users that

are produced by A2 (t) in an interval of size T3 . This is not entirely according to

the model in which users first have to wait for at least sip1 before being allowed

to transmit a pilot. But the amount of new users that will transmit a pilot signal

will still correspond to that random variable. We will denote the probability of i

new users arriving that needs to transmit pilots by ai , which due to the Poisson

process will have Poisson distribution with expected value λ = Ru (1 − pc ) T3 :

λi −λ

ai = e . (4.7)

i!

ti = Pr {Being served a dedicated sip2 | i users transmitting pilots} , (4.8)

which is defined for i ≥ 1 since it makes no sense in serving a sip2 if no users are

requesting it.

It is only interesting to consider a Markov chain that is ’well-behaved’, P i.e. that

there exists a stationary distribution vector π such that π = Pπ and ∞ i=0 πi = 1.

It is convenient to start the indices of π on 0 since it in steady-state then holds that

Pr {X = Sk } = πk . An infinite Markov chain can be shown to have a stationary

distribution if there exists a function v : S → R+ and a finite set of states Γ such

that

E {v (X1 ) |X0 = s} < ∞, for s ∈ Γ

(4.9)

E {v (X1 ) − v (X0 ) |X0 = s} < 0, for s < Γ ,

which is called Foster’s criterion [20].

Given the values of π and ti we can obtain expressions for E {D} and Pr {D = d}

32 4 System Information Distribution Methods

that are needed to calculate (4.3) through (4.6). It is easy to realize that

∞

X πk

E {D} = E {D|X = Sk } , (4.10)

1 − π0

k=1

i.e. it is the sum over all states where at least one user is transmitting a pilot, of

the probability of finding the Markov chain in that state, times the conditioned

expected value. The sum starts on 1 user as there will be at least 1 user when a

ue itself wants a dedicated sip2 . Furthermore, for k > 0 it holds that

∞

X

E {D|X = Sk } = tk · 0 + (1 − tk ) 1 +

pik E {D|X = Si } . (4.11)

i=1

This formula captures that if the ue is served, then it has to do zero retries, and

else it has to do one retry followed by a transition in the Markov chain’s state

space leading to the addition of the expected number of retries from that point.

In total, (4.11) gives an infinite linear system of equations for the conditioned

expected values, which can then be summed according to (4.10).

The values of Pr {D = d} can be retrieved by defining the following vectors and

matrix

t = (t1 , t2 , t3 , t4 , . . .)T , (4.12)

(1 − t1 )

(1 − t2 )

(1 − t3 )

T = (4.13)

(1 − t4 )

. .

.

(i)

first pilot slot for a specific ue, i.e. c0 = Pr {i users present upon arrival}. Indices

of ck and t are starting on 1 since at least one user (the one in question) is present

(i)

on arrival. It is easily seen that Pr {D = 0} = ∞

P

i=1 c0 ti = c0 · t is the probability

of being served on the first transmission of a pilot.

The vector Tc0 then contains probabilities of not have been served a dedicated

sip2 given the number of users present upon arrival, i.e.

(Tc0 )(i) = Pr {Has to retry | i users present upon arrival} . (4.16)

By multiplying this with the state transitioning matrix, we now get

(i)

c1 = Pr {i users present at next pilot slot | Has to retry} , (4.17)

which essentially has the same interpretation as c0 , with the only difference being

4.3 System Model 33

that this is the user’s second pilot transmission. Thus, by recursively applying the

above argumentation we can obtain

Pr {D = d} = cd · t (4.18)

To be able to compute values of (4.10) and (4.18) with finite number of operations

it is necessary to limit the state space of the Markov chain to a maximum state

SN . This is a valid approximation if it can be argued that πi ≈ 0 for i > N , since

the Markov chain then almost never will be in those states that are removed. It

is also intuitive that it should be negative for the system to be in a state with a

too large number of users transmitting pilots. In this thesis, we chose to limit the

state space to the states S0 , S1 , . . . , S99 . This was deemed sufficiently large as sets

of parameters that entailed that πi 0 0 for some i > 25 were not performing very

well as compared to those that were more limited in their state space.

The only thing that needs to be specified in order to get values of P and ti is how

users are served dedicated sip2 . For this we consider a set of cases defined below.

Case 1: Always Serve All Users

The most simple case to consider is a case when all users that transmit a pilot

signal are served a dedicated sip2 . Some different possible realisations have been

identified that motivates this assumption:

(a) A system which does not do any beamforming, but broadcasts the dedicated

sip2 after a pilot slot where at least one pilot signal was received.

(b) If the system has a large amount of possible orthogonal pilot signals to

choose from, then the probability of ues choosing the same pilot is small.

If this probability is small enough, then we can approximate it with 0, thus

we make the assumption that ues never chooses the same pilot signal as

others. This is also the case if we use alternative 3 in Section 4.2.3, which

makes it possible for the bs to assign pilot signals to ues in a coordinated

manner.

In this case, the transition matrix of the Markov chain degenerates to a matrix

in which all the columns are (a0 , a1 , a2 , . . .)T . We can show by Foster’s criterion

(4.9) that this chain always has a stationary distribution for finite λ by letting

v (Sk ) = k and Γ = {S0 , . . . , SM } for M being the smallest integer larger than λ,

thus Γ is finite. Then for s ∈ Γ we have

X∞

E {v (X1 ) |X0 = s} = iai = λ < ∞ (4.19)

i=0

and for s < Γ

∞

X

E {v (X1 ) − v (X0 ) |X0 = sk } = (i − k) ai = λ − k ≤ λ − M < 0. (4.20)

i=0

34 4 System Information Distribution Methods

Case 2: Single Served User

In a more complex case, the bs is modelled to be able to serve at most one trans-

mitting ue, sending a dedicated sip2 to it. All ues are assumed to be served with

the same probability, and the bs always serves a ue if there is at least one ue

transmitting a pilot. For simplicity, all ues will constantly retry in all subsequent

pilot slots until a dedicated sip2 is received.

This case is valid if, again, all ues uses different pilot signals. Then this is a

limitation of the bss capabilities, and is mainly used to show how latency might

be affected by a system which can not handle all users at once.

With this model, the transition matrix of the Markov chain is

a0 a0 0 0 0 · · ·

a1 a1 a0 0 0 · · ·

a2 a2 a1 a0 0 · · ·

P = (4.21)

a3 a3 a2 a1 a0

. . . . . . . . .

.

. . . . .

We can again show by Foster’s criterion (4.9) that this chain has a stationary dis-

tribution under the condition that λ < 1 by letting v be the same function as in

the previous case, and Γ = {S0 }. Then for s ∈ Γ we have

∞

X

E {v (X1 ) |X0 = s} = iai = λ < ∞, (4.22)

i=0

and for s < Γ

∞

X

E {v (X1 ) − v (X0 ) |X0 = s} = (i − 1) ai = λ − 1 < 0. (4.23)

i=0

This case is also ’well-behaved’ and properties of it can be calculated with π and

the fact that ti = 1/i, as all transmitting ues have the same probability of being

served. Observe that we require λ < 1 for this case.

Case 3: K User Groups

In the third and final case, we consider a scenario where the set of pilot signals

are split into K groups, each representing that the received sinr from the bs

broadcast is within some interval. These intervals are chosen such that given that

a user cannot decode the broadcast sip2 , it has equal probability of being required

to send a pilot from each group. The bs is in this case assumed to be able to serve

at most one user per group, and it always serves at least one user for every group

in which there is sent a pilot.

Since users that belong to different groups do not interfere with one another, just

with the users that belong to the same group, this can be modelled as each user

4.4 Performance Metrics 35

group has a Markov chain with the same properties as for Case 2. The only

difference is that the user arrival rate to each Markov chain is scaled by K, i.e.

λ = Ru (1 − pc ) T3 /K. The K Markov chains are all equal and independent of each

other, so from a ue’s perspective, this scenario is the exact same as Case 2 with a

smaller λ. Thus the expressions in (4.10) and (4.18) are still applicable.

The model that is used for the reference method described in Section 4.1 is mainly

the same as described in the sections above. The bs is assumed to have a single

antenna capable of broadcasting and users arrive according to the same Poisson

process A (t). For simplicity of comparison, the si for the reference approach

is also split into sip1 and sip2 with broadcasting intervals T1 = 50 ms and T2

(variable) respectively, and also with the sizes N1 and N2 according to Table 4.1,

but both with full coverage pf .

The latency model is the same as before, but results in the simpler expressions

T +T

E {L} = 1 2 2 ,

L = U1 + U2 =⇒ (4.24)

Pr {L ≤ l} = Pr {U1 + U2 ≤ l} .

To compare the two different distribution methods, and also different sets of pa-

rameters, two metrics have been chosen. These are bandwidth allocation and

latency, and are chosen to fit the problem formulation.

4.4.1 Bandwidth

that the bs always can use optimal link adaption, i.e. that for a given sinr, the

maximum spectral efficiency for the channel is achieved. The bandwidth is then

acquired with Shannon’s famous formula for non-fading channels with additive

white Gaussian noise

C = B log2 (1 + sinr) , (4.25)

which for a given rate of a signal and sinr gives a minimum value of the band-

width needed. Observe that this corresponds to the amount of time-frequency

resources needed per second, which relates more closely to the time frequency

grid shown in Figure 2.4.

Consider a scenario where the users’ sinr is a random variable distributed with

probability density function fG (g) and respective cdf FG (g). The probability dis-

tribution arises from that different users are located differently, and thus have a

different sinr on the large-scale. Then the reference method will need a band-

36 4 System Information Distribution Methods

width of

N1 /T1 N2 /T2

Br = + . (4.26)

−1 −1

log2 1 + FG 1 − pf log2 1 + FG 1 − pf

The first term is the bandwidth required for sip1 and the second term is the band-

width for sip2 . The terms are both derived from (4.25), with sinr such that pf of

the users have a larger sinr, thus they are able to decode the transmission.

N1 /T1 + N3 /T3 N2 /T2

Bn = + + Bded , (4.27)

−1 −1

log2 1 + FG 1 − pf log2 1 + FG (1 − pc )

where the first two terms has the same interpretations as the terms in (4.26), and

Bded is the bandwidth needed for transmissions of dedicated sip2 . This last band-

width is dependent on which pilot model from Section 4.3.3 is being used.

In the first case we had two different realisations, which both gives a different ex-

pression of Bded . For realisation (a), where we broadcast the sip2 after a detected

pilot signal, we get

N2 (1 − π0 ) /T3

Bded = , (4.28)

−1

log2 1 + FG 1 − pf

since we make a broadcast each T3 seconds with probability (1 − π0 ).

For the realisation in (b) where the bs allocates the pilot signal to the ues in an

initial handshake, we instead will use

−1 (1−p )

FG c

∞ Z

X N2 /T3

Bded = πd fmin{H (1) ,...,H (d) } (h) dh, (4.29)

d=1 log2 1 + 30d h

−1

FG (1−pf )

where H is a random variable of user sinr given that the user needs a dedicated

sip2 , and fmin{H (1) ,...,H (d) } (h) is the probability distribution of the minimum of d

samples from H. This expression reflects that for each pilot slot, we transmit a

dedicated sip2 to d ≥ 1 users with probability πd , and that the bs link adapt to

the worst user. We are also assuming a static beamforming gain of 30 ≈ 15 dB,

which is split with the current number of users according to how sinr scales with

mrt described in Section 3.2.1. This gain is a perfect gain for 30 antennas, but

imperfect for the assumed number of 100 antennas which accounts for non-ideal

scenarios.

example.

4.4 Performance Metrics 37

For the second case, it holds that

FG−1 (1−p )

Z c Z∞

Ru N2

Bded = f (m) dm fG (g) dg, (4.30)

log (1 + gm) M|G=g

2

−1 1−p

FG ( f) 0

where fM|G=g (m) is the conditional probability density function of the beamform-

ing sinr gain experienced by a user with broadcasting sinr of g. This expression

is an integral over all users that need a dedicated sip2 and their possible beam-

forming gains, since all users will eventually be served individually. It assumes

that the bs is able to link adapt perfectly to the beamforming channel. This as-

sumption is motivated by that the set-up for a dedicated sip2 involves communi-

cation between the ue and the bs, which then can make estimates of the channel.

Case 3: K User Groups

This case has not been considered in this thesis, and no expression of Bded has

been worked out.

4.4.2 Latency

It is obvious that to minimize the bandwidth needed for si distribution, we would

like to have exceedingly large T2 and T3 . This is from a user perspective not

wanted due to the latency that will be experienced. Therefore we use latency as

the second important metric of a system. Latency can however be measured in

different ways, of which two are used in this thesis.

The first and most intuitive way of measuring latency is to take the mean latency

experienced by a large number of ues, which tends to the expected values given

by (4.3), (4.4) and (4.24) when the number of users grows towards infinity. This

metric considers all users’ experiences.

The second metric is to take a certain percentile’s latency, i.e. if we look at the

95th percentile latency, it is the minimum latency that at least 95 % of the ues lies

within. This metric gives a guarantee of that with some probability, a user will at

most experience a certain latency. Observe that this metric does not include the

latencies of the rest of the users at all. This metric can be calculated with (4.5),

(4.6) and (4.24).

5

Simulation

The results of this thesis are generated by the models of the system described in

Section 4.3 together with simulations. The simulations were performed in a state

of the art Ericsson-internal simulator. The collected data was then post-processed

and analysed in MATLAB.

This chapter presents the set up of the simulator, and what data was collected.

The first simulations that were performed was aimed at collecting statistics of ues

downlink sinr during broadcasting in the two scenarios Single Cell and Multiple

Cell, see Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

The very first simulation that was performed was a simulation of the sinr that

users experience in a Single Cell scenario. The simulator was set up to run a tdd

lte network with 7 bss, each serving 3 hexagonal cells as in Figure 5.1. The grid

supports wrap-around, i.e. the network looks the same from a ue perspective

regardless of whether it is placed at the center or the edge of the grid in the

figure. In this grid, 1000 users were placed at random with uniform distribution

over all points at least 35 meters distance from all bss, and communicates with

full buffer traffic with the network. All users were stationary and their downlink

sinr was recorded during a period of 4 s, starting from simulation second 1,

to alleviate the effect of possible transients. The channel and bs antenna model

used by the simulation is a 3D spatial channel model for an urban macro scenario,

standardized by 3gpp [21]. This channel model contains both users that have los

39

40 5 Simulation

and users that don’t, as well as users located both outdoors and indoors. The bss

each have 1 antenna per cell. Other parameters that influence the simulation are

summed up in Table 5.1.

This simulation was repeated 10 times to get a total of 10000 observations. Since

the data that is collected is the downlink sinr in a tdd system, the users do

not get any interference from other users, only from other bss. Thus it does not

matter how many users that are in each simulation.

The downlink sinr was also simulated in a Multiple Cell scenario. The set up

of this simulation was almost the same as in the Single Case scenario, but with a

larger hexagonal grid for the users to be placed in, according to Figure 5.2. The

reason for increasing the size of the grid is that the approximation used for sinr

calculation in this scenario, as described in Section 3.1.2, only considers signals

from far away bss as interference. In a small grid, the ues will almost always be

positioned such that all bss in the grid will count towards useful signal energy.

A larger grid thus makes the situation closer resemble the reality, to get realistic

data. This simulation used the values from Table 5.1 except that the number of

bss and cells were 37 and 111 respectively. And just as before, the simulation was

repeated 10 times with 1000 users each time.

5.1 SINR Simulations 41

Parameter Value

Number of simulations 10

Number of users per simulation 1000

Number of bss 7

Number of cells 21

Inter-Site Distance 500 m

Carrier frequency 2 GHz

Carrier bandwidth 5 MHz

bs maximum transmit power 20 W

Simulation time 5s

Start of data logging 1s

ue antenna Isotropic

Minimum distance from bss 35 m

42 5 Simulation

The second data that had to be simulated was the possible sinr gain that users

perceive when the bss have the ability to beamform signals with a large number

of antennas.

Once again, the deployment from Section 5.1.1 was set up with a small modifi-

cation. In this simulation, each bs was configured to have 100 antennas per cell.

The bss then alternated between using two different precoding matrices for the

transmissions. The first precoder was a matrix which made the entire signal en-

ergy being only transmitted on one single antenna, all other antennas were silent,

thus reproducing the Single Cell case but with a so called virtual antenna instead.

The second precoder that was used was a mrt precoder as given in (3.6) based on

channel estimates, this provides a simulation of beamforming.

The sinr was recorded for four different combinations of the two precoder op-

tions; for each user, the bs was making one transmission with each precoder in

the two interference environments. These environments was produced by all

other transmissions from all bss, using either beamforming precoders or a sin-

gle broadcast antenna. This gives us data for sinr produced during broadcast

and beamforming, and we can compare the interfering environments to see if it

matters if the other bs are broadcasting or beamforming simultaneously.

6

Results

In this chapter, we present all the results that the thesis has produced.

First, we present the data that is collected from the simulations that all other

results build upon.

The first simulation from Section 5.1.1 gave a distribution of the users’ downlink

sinr in a Single Cell broadcasting scenario, which is shown in Figure 6.1. In

Figure 6.1a the entire cdf is presented, and in Figure 6.1b a zoomed-in version

of the tail of the cdf is visible together with some lines that shows the shape of

this tail. The dashed vertical line is placed where the cdf first deviates from 0,

i.e. there is no user that experienced an sinr below that value. The dotted lines

shows the sinr at some percentiles. These values are also available in Table 6.1

where it is easy to see that just by lowering the coverage requirement from pf to

99 % produces a sinr gain of about 8 dB. As one lowers the coverage require-

ment further one can see that the gain increases, but at a lower rate than in the

beginning.

The corresponding cdf and data for the Multiple Cell scenario can be found

in Figure 6.2 and Table 6.2. Although the sinr is significantly larger for this

scenario, we can see the same characteristics in this cdf, i.e. that it has a long thin

tail which implies that lowering the coverage requirement just by a few percent

gives a large increase in sinr.

43

44 6 Results

0.8

0.6

CDF

0.4

0.2

0

-20 0 20 40 60

SINR [dB]

(a) Full plot of the empirical cdf.

0.3

0.25

0.2

CDF

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10

SINR [dB]

(b) Closer look at the empirical cdf.

Figure 6.1: Empirical cdf of downlink sinr in the Single Cell scenario.

6.1 Simulation Results 45

Table 6.1: Values of the Single Cell sinr for some percentiles.

1 − pf = 0.01% −12.944

1% −4.985

5% −0.980

10 % 0.983

25 % 4.544

50 % 9.543

0.8

0.6

CDF

0.4

0.2

0

0 20 40 60

SINR [dB]

Figure 6.2: Empirical cdf of downlink sinr in the Multiple Cell scenario.

Table 6.2: Values of the Multiple Cell sinr for some percentiles.

1 − pf = 0.01% −3.236

1% 3.742

5% 7.525

10 % 9.852

25 % 14.630

50 % 21.415

46 6 Results

Beamformed SINR, broadcast interference

Broadcast SINR, beamformed interference

0.8 Beamformed SINR, beamformed interference

0.6

CDF

0.4

0.2

0

-20 0 20 40 60

SINR [dB]

Figure 6.3: cdfs of sinr for broadcast and beamforming transmissions in

two different interference environments.

The results presented in Section 6.1.1 shows the characteristics of broadcasting

sinrs. The next generation mobile networks will as stated be able to beamform

signals with a large number of bs antennas. The simulations of the beamform-

ing gain also produced a set of data points that shows some characteristics of a

beamforming network.

The first thing that we wanted to look at is how the interference environment

affects the sinr during both broadcasting and beamforming. Therefore we have

plotted the cdf of sinr for all four combinations described in Section 5.2, which

are presented in Figure 6.3. As one can see, there is not a large difference be-

tween the two interference environments. The curves where the interference is

beamformed lies about 0 to 0.5 dB to the right of the others. The fact that the

interference environment does not have a large impact on the results holds for

other characteristics as well, therefore we will only use the data from the broad-

cast interference from this point on.

We can note from Figure 6.3 that the cdfs for broadcast and beamformed sinr

does not have the exact same shape. By making a scatter plot of the beamforming

gain that a user gets versus the broadcast sinr for that user in Figure 6.4, we can

see that there is some correlation between the two. It is obvious that ues with

a large sinr have a higher probability of experiencing a high beamforming gain.

However, it seems that ues with low sinr can get an equally large beamforming

6.2 Method Comparison 47

30

25

Beamforming gain [dB]

20

15

10

0

-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40

Broadcast SINR [dB]

Figure 6.4: The beamforming gain is correlated in some manner with the

broadcast sinr.

In this section, we compare the two distribution methods presented in Chapter 4.

The total bandwidth required by the classical approach will be referred to as the

baseline.

An important thing to note about the two methods for si distribution is that both

the classical and the new approach has a term of the bandwidth that is equal

and constant under the limitations we have put on the parameters, namely the

bandwidth that is needed for broadcasts of sip1 . This is easy to realize as the new

method does not change how the si in part 1 is treated, only part 2. This means

that no matter what parameters are chosen, there is a minimum bandwidth that

none of the methods can surpass. The resulting values of this limit for our two

simulated broadcast scenarios are presented in Table 6.3.

As we can see, there is a significant difference between the two cases, which comes

from the fact that the users with the lowest sinr are in the power-limited capacity

region, where the capacity of the channel increases almost linearly with the sinr.

The worst sinr for the two cases differ by almost one order of magnitude, and

48 6 Results

Single Cell 27.99

Multiple Cell 3.57

Parameter Value(s)

Ru 5

pc {0.75, 0.90, 0.99}

T3 1/ ((1 − pc ) Ru )

consequently so does the bandwidth required for sip1 broadcasts. The reason

behind the large difference in sinr between the two broadcasting methods is

that the Multiple Cell broadcasting both results in increased useful signal energy

at the users, as well as decreased interference as compared to the Single Cell

broadcasting.

Apart from the fixed size bandwidth, the classical approach only has one more

signal that requires bandwidth, and that is the broadcasts of sip2 . The proposed

approach has two further allocations; the pilot slots for possible pilot signals,

and the transmissions of sip2 upon request. We can see the impact they have on

the total bandwidth with a very simple plot in Figure 6.5. In this figure we have

calculated the bandwidth for both sub-cases of the most simple pilot model (Case

1), in which all users always get served a sip2 upon request. For this calculation

we have used Single Cell broadcasting, fixed parameters according to Table 6.4

and varied T2 . As can be seen in the table, T3 is chosen depending on pc . If we

had used a fixed T3 , then we know that almost the only difference in the resulting

bandwidth for different values on pc would be the difference in broadcast sip2

bandwidth. To make a fair comparison of different choices of coverage on the

sip2 broadcast, we choose T3 such that there will on average be one user in each

pilot slot. This also makes the assumption in the pilot model of being able to

serve all users, equally probable for all values of pc .

In Figure 6.5a we can see that the new method in this case is more efficient than

the baseline even for quite large T2 , even when using the simplest form of dis-

tributing sip2 on demand, broadcasting. When we are able to use beamforming

and link adaption as we have in Figure 6.5b we can gain even a little bit more,

and most prominently is that lower sip2 coverages perform significantly better.

In this simple case, we vary one parameter (T2 ), which leads to that only the

bandwidth required for sip2 broadcasts is varied in Figure 6.5. The other com-

ponents of the total bandwidth are constant for this case and are presented in

Table 6.5. This table shows that a very important factor to obtain a small band-

6.2 Method Comparison 49

60

90% SIP2 coverage

99% SIP2 coverage

Total Bandwidth [kHz]

Baseline

50

45

40

35

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

SIP2 interval [s]

60

55

75% SIP2 coverage

90% SIP2 coverage

Total Bandwidth [kHz]

50 Baseline

45

40

35

30

0 1 2 3 4 5

SIP2 interval [s]

Figure 6.5: Simple bandwidth comparison using the simplest pilot model.

50 6 Results

Table 6.5: Values of constant bandwidth parts of the first simple case.

(a) (b)

75% 1.73 10.95 0.11

90% 0.69 4.38 0.03

99% 0.07 0.44 0.0005

width is to not have to make transmissions with full coverage, exemplified by the

fact that for pc = 75% the bandwidth for dedicated sip2 decreases with four or-

ders of magnitude when we go from broadcasts to link adapted and beamformed

transmissions.

In the previous section, there was a simple comparison using the most simple

model of the pilot slots and dedicated sip2 transmissions. Since that model as-

sumes that all users always gets served a sip2 when they have transmitted a pilot

signal, it is not very interesting to look at the latency experienced by the ues

when we have quite limited values of T2 and T3 . However, for the other pilot

models, a user is not always served a sip2 even if it has sent a pilot signal, then it

becomes more interesting to look at the latency. It should be obvious that if using

the same value on T2 for both the classical and the new approach, the latency will

not be the same for the two methods, as some users will have to await at least one

pilot slot in the new method.

To be able to compare the two distribution methods’ latencies, we can impose a

requirement on the latency and then minimize the bandwidth over the parame-

ters that can be varied. The latency requirement that we impose is either a limit

on the mean ((4.3), (4.4) and (4.24)), or we require that a certain percentage of the

users should have a latency below a limit ((4.5), (4.6) and (4.24)). For the classical

approach we only have one parameter to vary, T2 . To minimize the bandwidth

Br in (4.26) we clearly should maximize T2 , thus we choose the T2 that lies on

the bound of the latency requirement. For the new approach the situation is a bit

more complicated in that we have three parameters to choose, T2 , T3 and pc . But

for a fixed T3 and pc , it is clear from the bandwidth Bn (4.27) that we again should

maximize T2 by choosing it to lie on the latency bound. To find the best combi-

nation of parameters for the new method, we’ve used a non-linear optimizer in

MATLAB to minimize Bn over the two parameters T3 and pc , always choosing T2

according to above. Observe that the arrival rate of users, Ru , is not a parameter

we can vary ourselves but is a characteristic of the system.

For the results presented below, Single Cell broadcasting was assumed together

with the statistics collected in the beamforming gain simulations with broadcast

interference. Furthermore, we have chosen the more advanced pilot model Case

2, in which only one random ue of those which transmit a pilot gets served a

6.2 Method Comparison 51

In Figure 6.6, the result of this optimization is presented for a low user arrival

rate Ru = 0.5, with the latency requirement that Pr {L ≤ l} ≥ 0.95, where l is

varied. Figure 6.7 shows the same optimized results but for a large user arrival

rate Ru = 10.

In Figure 6.6a and Figure 6.7a, showing the minimized bandwidths, we can see

that the new approach outperforms the classical approach. If we put a very tight

requirement on the latency, then the gain of the new approach is very large, but

there is still some gain even when we allow large latencies. Observe that the band-

width curves are quite close to the lower limit of 27.99 kHz. The other graphs of

Figure 6.6 and Figure 6.7 show the optimized parameters, but these graphs are

not always entirely smooth. This shows that the non-linear optimizer had a bit of

trouble finding the optimal values for each case. That the bandwidth curves still

are quite smooth implies that finding the exact minimum isn’t extremely impor-

tant. One can choose sub-optimal parameters, not necessarily very close to the

optimal, and still perform very close to optimal.

One case that sticks out is for Ru = 0.5 and Pr {L ≤ 0.25} ≥ 0.95 for both scenarios,

in which the optimizer found that it was beneficial to let pc = 0 and not broadcast

sip2 at all. The fact that the scenarios have very different T2 (∞ and ≈ 0) is

irrelevant since no sip2 broadcasts are made anyway.

A problem that arises with the percentage requirement for the low user rate is

that in most cases the optimal solution is to choose parameters such that 95%

or a bit more of the users gets an acceptable latency, but the other users gets an

extremely large one. In Figure 6.8 there is an example of the resulting cdf of

latency for Early Detection with Ru = 0.5 and Pr {L ≤ 5} ≥ 0.95. Here there is

a risk of almost 4% of having a latency of at least 100 s, which is not a wanted

property of a system. In this particular case, pc was optimized to about 95%

and T3 was chosen as large as possibly allowed by the pilot model, and thus it

is easy to realize why the remaining 5% gets a large latency; they need to wait

a very long time for the pilot slot. This property, that of a fraction of the users

are experiencing a very large latency does however hold also for when Ru = 10,

although not quite as obvious.

52 6 Results

60 1

0.9

55

0.8

Normal Detection

Total Bandwidth [kHz]

Baseline

SIP 2 coverage

Lower limit 0.6

45

0.5

40 Normal Detection

0.4

Early Detection

35 0.3

0.2

30

0.1

25 0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

95th percentile latency [s] 95th percentile latency [s]

(a) Total bandwidth for all scenarios. (b) The optimized value of pc .

20 60

18

50

16

14

40

SIP 2 interval [s]

12

10 30

8

20

6

Normal Detection

4

Early Detection 10 Normal Detection

2 Early Detection

0 0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

95th percentile latency [s] 95th percentile latency [s]

Ru = 0.5, with the requirement that Pr {L ≤ l} ≥ 0.95.

6.2 Method Comparison 53

60 1

0.995

55

0.99

Normal Detection

50

Total Bandwidth [kHz]

SIP 2 coverage

Baseline

0.98

45 Lower limit

0.975

40

0.97

35 0.965

Normal Detection

0.96 Early Detection

30

0.955

25 0.95

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

95th percentile latency [s] 95th percentile latency [s]

(a) Total bandwidth for all scenarios. (b) The optimized value of pc .

25 30

20

Early Detection Early Detection

20

SIP 2 interval [s]

15

15

10

10

5

5

0 0

0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20

95th percentile latency [s] 95th percentile latency [s]

Ru = 10, with the requirement that Pr {L ≤ l} ≥ 0.95.

54 6 Results

0.98

0.96

CDF

0.94

0.92

0.9

0 20 40 60 80 100

Latency [s]

ment of Pr {L ≤ 5} ≥ 0.95, in this figure for the Early Detection scenario with

Ru = 0.5.

6.2 Method Comparison 55

As shown, placing a requirement that states that a part of the users should have

limited latency might result in system properties that only considers that part

of the users, ignoring what happens to the others. It can then make sense to

consider a latency requirement that concerns the latency of all users, namely the

average latency. In Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.10 we have the same plots as before,

but with a requirement on the mean latency. The limit is chosen to be lower than

the limit of the percentage, since the mean latency should be lower than the 95th

percentile latency. The two figures uses the same values of Ru as before, one low

and one large.

These cases are very similar to when the percentage requirement was used in that

the new approach requires less total bandwidth than the classical approach, there

are some properties that hold under both the mean and the percentage require-

ment. In almost all cases the Early Detection scenario performs marginally better

than the Normal Detection, but that is barely visible in the graphs. Also common

for all cases is that the optimal coverage of sip2 seems to mostly be 90-99.5%. Fi-

nally, it seems that the new method approaches the lower limit a little bit faster

if Ru is low, implying that it performs a little bit better during lower user loads,

although the difference is small.

The reason to have a requirement on the mean latency was to avoid the prop-

erty that a part of the users had an extremely high latency. This is somewhat

improved by the mean requirement, but the cdf (not shown) again has a “knee”

as in Figure 6.8. The knee is however not nearly as sharp as in this figure, and it

is placed at a higher position, meaning that less users are affected and with much

less grave consequences.

Another solution to many users having too large latency could have been to in-

crease the percentage that should have a low latency. While not being presented

here, it is worth mentioning that we get similar result if putting the requirement

Pr {L ≤ l} ≥ 0.999.

56 6 Results

60 1

55

Normal Detection 0.8

Early Detection

Total Bandwidth [kHz]

50

Baseline

SIP 2 coverage

Lower limit 0.6

45

40 Normal Detection

0.4

Early Detection

35

0.2

30

25 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Mean latency [s] Mean latency [s]

(a) Total bandwidth for all scenarios. (b) The optimized value of pc .

18 45

16 40

Normal Detection Normal Detection

14 Early Detection 35 Early Detection

12 30

SIP 2 interval [s]

10 25

8 20

6 15

4 10

2 5

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Mean latency [s] Mean latency [s]

Ru = 0.5, with the requirement that E {L} ≤ l.

6.2 Method Comparison 57

60 1

55

0.99

Normal Detection

Early Detection

Total Bandwidth [kHz]

50

Baseline 0.98

SIP 2 coverage

Lower limit

45

0.97

40

35 Early Detection

0.95

30

25 0.94

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Mean latency [s] Mean latency [s]

(a) Total bandwidth for all scenarios. (b) The optimized value of pc .

20 25

Normal Detection

Early Detection 20

Normal Detection

15 Early Detection

SIP 2 interval [s]

15

10

10

5

5

0 0

0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10

Mean latency [s] Mean latency [s]

Ru = 10, with the requirement that E {L} ≤ l.

58 6 Results

As all results in this section so far have been generated with the data from the

Single Cell broadcasting, it is also interesting to look at similar graphs using the

Multiple Cell sinr statistics. Unfortunately there has been no collection of data

of the beamforming gain that can be achieved compared to the broadcast sinr in

Multiple Cell, due to simulation limitations. We therefore assume together with

pilot Case 2 that all users experience exactly zero gain from beamforming. This

should therefore be seen as an underestimate, since beamforming increases the

sinr in general. This can equivalently be seen as that the dedicated sip2 are also

sent via Multiple Cell broadcasting but link adapted to the user being served,

and only decoded by that user. This assumption should lead to an overestimate

of the bandwidth needed for the new distribution method, but it still produces

the graph in Figure 6.11 for the mean requirement. It seems excessive to present

the resulting parameters and more cases, since the result is very similar to the

Singe Cell results, but with a lower total bandwidth. This figure is intended to

show that the results above hold also for the Multiple Cell case.

7 Early Detection

Total Bandwidth [kHz]

Baseline

6.5 Lower limit

5.5

4.5

3.5

0 2 4 6 8 10

Mean latency [s]

Figure 6.11: Minimized bandwidth for Multiple Cell when Ru = 10, with

the requirement that E {L} ≤ l.

Conclusion

7

This is the final chapter of the thesis, which discusses the thesis and its results,

both in detail and with a wider perspective. In the last section we present our

answers to the questions stated in Section 1.2.

7.1 Results

The results presented in Chapter 6 shows that the new approach of si distribution

provides a reduction of time-frequency resources needed as compared to only

broadcasting, with the system model that is used. The reason as to why it is

possible to distribute the same information with less resources originates in the

fact that broadcasting with full coverage is very expensive. As can be seen by the

simple comparison in Figure 6.5 there is a very large difference between having

to broadcast the requested sip2 and being able to adapt the transmission of each

sip2 to the users that should receive it.

The new approach exploits this by only broadcasting part of the si with full cov-

erage and the rest of the information is broadcast only to users with favourable

channels, and on demand to the rest. The gain of the new approach is that the

lower coverage on the sip2 broadcasts makes it possible to adapt the transmission

to a better channel. It shows that this gain is larger than the cost of adding allo-

cation of pilot slots for sip2 requests and dedicated sip2 transmissions. That the

gain is larger than the cost is, of course, dependent on the sizes N2 and N3 , but

they are chosen to reflect the expectation that can be put on a real system.

We analysed two different variations of the new approach, regarding how ues

determine whether they need to send a pilot signal to request a dedicated sip2 .

In almost none of the cases presented in Chapter 6 there is any visible difference

59

60 7 Conclusion

between the two different detections. It is only stated that the Early Detection

performs a little bit better in a majority of the cases. One would expect that

Early Detection should always perform better than Normal Detection, since it

only gives an improvement in latency without any additional cost. Those cases

in which Normal Detection performed better thus have to be the result of the

optimizer failing to find the optimal point. In total the detection scheme does

however not constitute a major difference in time-frequency resources.

When analysing the new method in more detail, it seems that there is two differ-

ent strategies of choosing parameters that fit different cases. The most common

way in the presented results is to cover most of the ues with the sip2 broadcasts

and only have a low load on the pilot slots. The other strategy is to not broadcast

sip2 at all and let all arriving users request it. The latter strategy has only been

applied in a minority of the cases; when the user arrival rate is low, and the la-

tency requirements are high. It makes sense that it actually is optimal to do so in

this case, as the strict latency requirement results in a low T2 if pc is larger than

zero, and as stated the broadcasts can be expensive. Instead, one can elect to have

T3 small so that each user that arrives to the network can send a request within

a small time interval. The first strategy is applicable for larger user arrival rates

and/or not as high requirements on the total latency. Furthermore, it looks as the

new approach converges to the classical approach when the latency requirement

disappears.

A concern that might be present is that it can seem plausible that the reason

that the new method is able to perform more efficiently is that the sinr that the

broadcasts has to be adapted to in the Single Case scenario (−12.944 dB) lies far

into the power-limited region of transmission. The channel capacity in (4.25)

then grows linearly with the sinr gain that is held from lowering the coverage

on broadcast sip2 . Figure 6.11 shows that this is not the case, but that the new

method is more efficient also for the Multiple Case scenario, when the sinr that

the broadcasts has to be adapted to is almost an order of magnitude larger. This

shows that the gain of the new method is much more dependent on the fact that

the cdfs of sinr have long and thin tails, than on the magnitude of the sinr at

the tail. The simulations performed in this thesis shows that this can be expected

to be the case for the sinr.

However, for best performance with the new si distribution method it is impor-

tant that the bs can make use of the information that the pilot transmissions sup-

plies. This is shown by Figure 6.5 where the most simple approach to dedicated

sip2 transmissions is broadcasting with full coverage. As can be seen, that incurs

a high cost that can be reduced greatly by being able to make some estimate of

the channel that the sip2 should be transmitted on. The estimate of the channel

could in practice consist of a link adaption to choose modulation and coding that

suits the channel, a beamforming precoder to direct the signal energy in space,

or most preferably both.

7.2 Method 61

7.2 Method

This thesis concerns a procedure in the not yet specified fifth generation’s mobile

telecommunication system. The simulator that was used in the thesis simulated

an lte network, and while it does support some simulations of some early realiza-

tion of 5G, it would require a considerable amount of work to be able to simulate

an arbitrary si distribution protocol. We have therefore been forced to use an

abstract model of how si distribution works in a system. The validity of the re-

sults is dependent on the validity of the models being used and the simulated

statistics.

For all bandwidth calculations we have assumed that the bs is able to perform

perfect link adaption, i.e. use the full channel capacity. This is of course not the

case in reality, the link adaption will not achieve full capacity. We have then al-

ways calculated an underestimate of the actual bandwidth required, but as this is

done for both the classical and the new approach the errors should approximately

cancel each other out, and the comparison is still quite accurate.

The time-frequency allocation model that is used for the classical approach should

be very accurate, as it only consists of broadcasting with full coverage. The model

does make use of the two different system information parts which is unnecessar-

ily complicated, but it is equally valid as explained in Section 4.3.1. The corre-

sponding model for the new approach is more difficult to asses the accuracy of.

The parts of the si that are broadcast are as valid as for the classical method.

The pilot slot allocation is a representation of the overhead that is induced by

the transmission of pilot signals, the magnitude of it should be large enough to

provide useful channel estimates. The most difficult part in the model of the

new approach is the bandwidth required for the dedicated transmissions of sip2 ,

where we have three different cases:

- In Case 1(a) the bs broadcast the sip2 on demand which is perfectly func-

tional, but not efficient as shown in the results.

- Case 1(b) is assumed to be able to serve any amount of users, with link

adaption for the worst user, and beamforming that splits an imperfect gain

for 100 antennas equally on the users. This relies on the assumption that

no users will transmit the same pilot signal, which is not possible for large

amount of users, since the number of orthogonal pilot signals that can be

created is limited. This model is furthermore very simplified but since it

is only used with an aim of having only one ue per pilot slot, the model is

quite reasonable and should suffice for our purposes.

- Case 2 limits the amount of users that can be served at once to 1, selecting a

random pilot transmitting user and adapting the sip2 beamforming to that

user. That all users are chosen with the same probability might be valid

if all users choose different pilot signals, and all of those can be detected

at the bs. Due to the limitation to 1 served user per pilot slot, there will

not be much more than one user transmitting a pilot, and the probability of

62 7 Conclusion

- Case 3 was only presented from a functional point-of-view; that the avail-

able pilot signals were split into K groups, which signals the downlink re-

ception quality of the broadcasts. It was argued that this is from a latency

point-of-view equal to dividing λ, the arrival rate of users needing dedi-

cated sip2 , with K. Thus we can support total user arrival rates of a factor

K larger than in Case 2. An expression for the bandwidth required for this

was not calculated, but one might suspect that it should be similar to both

Case 1(b) and 2.

Overall, these cases contain some approximations that we consider quite well mo-

tivated, but one could always improve the model. Regarding approximations of

the Markov chains, they have actually been verified experimentally by simulating

the actual chains and comparing probability distributions with the approximated

ones. For model Case 1(b) and 2 the total bandwidth that is allocated for dedi-

cated sip2 transmissions is quite small, and thus approximations should not have

a major impact on the final results.

The latency model used calculates latency as the time from arrival to the time

of the start of successful sip2 reception. For the users in the new approach that

are not covered by the sip2 broadcasts, the final time is taken as the start of pilot

transmission. This is not completely realistic as there should be some delay be-

tween the pilot transmission and the reception of sip2 . The results presented will

be a bit altered if this delay is large, but otherwise the impact should be minor.

In total, the models that are being used are not excessively complicated for the

scope of the thesis, but they still should be accurate such as to be able to conclude

that there is a gain to be had by using the new distribution method. Furthermore

there are two different strategies for choosing the coverage of sip2 , each one opti-

mal for different settings and systems.

As this thesis has shown that there is a more efficient method of distributing

system information in a system, it should be considered in the 5G development

to include a similar procedure. The system would benefit from it in that it both

opens up more resources to be used for user data, and should induce a lower

energy consumption for the si distribution part. In total this should contribute

to a network that is cheaper to run, and that could have a larger total throughput

than compared to a network that only broadcasts the si. From an environmental

point-of-view, it is of also course beneficial to minimize the energy consumption.

Since the thesis is quite theoretical, there is no ethical implications of the thesis

that has to be addressed.

7.4 Summary 63

7.4 Summary

The aim of the thesis was to propose at least one brand new method of si distribu-

tion and evaluate it. We presented two different methods, one reference method

that has been used classically, and one new. With the analysis that has been done

of these two methods, we now answer the questions posed in the problem formu-

lation in Section 1.2.

1. How can massive mimo be utilized for system information distribution?

A system that employs massive mimo can use the large antenna arrays for

system information distribution in more than one way. As stated in Sec-

tion 3.1, using a certain precoding has been shown to improve the broad-

casts. This is something that definitely should be considered for a system,

but that was not included in this thesis. We have instead shown how mas-

sive mimo can aid the distribution of si by beamforming. For the bs to

be able to make user-specific beamforming, some csi is required at the bs,

which in turn requires some initial communication between the ues and

the bs. The new approach lets some users request the sip2 in some way, and

this request can be exploited to estimate some form of csi. Without any csi

the bs would not be able to beamform other than in random directions. It

was shown in this thesis that while beamforming can be used for transmis-

sions of dedicated sip2 , which improves the efficiency, it is not vital to the

new distribution method to do so. Even when no beamforming gain was as-

sumed, the new approach could perform better than the classical approach.

However, if one has the possibility to beamform, then there is no reason

from a time-frequency resource perspective to not beamform.

2. How efficient are the proposed solutions with respect to time-frequency

resources?

The new proposed method is in this regard more efficient than the classical

method in a large range of cases. However, the total bandwidth required is

very dependent on the bandwidth required for broadcasts of sip1 , which is

the same for the two methods. As shown, there might be a very large gain in

distributing sip1 with Multiple Cell broadcasts, as it increases the downlink

sinr for all users. Another thing that could decrease this bandwidth would

be to minimize the information that is included in sip1 to make it as small

as possible. For the information that is not included in sip1 , we have shown

that it is possible to reduce the resources needed with a new protocol.

3. What drawbacks or limitations exists in the proposed solutions (e.g. latency

issues)?

The explicit case of latency was dealt with in the thesis, and while the new

method induces a larger overall latency for a fixed set of parameters, the

parameters can be chosen to perform better than the classical method, with

the same latency properties. A drawback of the new method is however

that it is more complex in that it needs to be able to handle users that are

64 7 Conclusion

not covered by sip2 broadcasts. In this thesis we have always assumed the

probability of two ues transmitting the same pilot being zero. This is not

the case when there is no handshake before pilot, and even when there

is, there is a probability of a collision in the handshake instead. This is

something that a realisation has to take into account, and be able to resolve.

The random access procedure of lte shows one way of dealing with such

collisions, and something like that is thus required in the new method.

This thesis is only an introductory investigation on how to design the si distri-

bution in future mobile networks. The thesis has relied on simple models that

approximate some behaviours of reality, and only investigated some variations

of one new approach. As shown, using a more intricate method should be better

than relying on the classical broadcasting method, but to incorporate this into 5G

there is more work that needs to be done. The following is a list of suggestions

for future research subjects.

• Another method for making the distribution of sip2 could be to only broad-

cast it, but still with a lower coverage than pf . ues that cannot decode a

single transmission of sip2 could then listen to several sip2 broadcasts, ef-

fectively having a repetition code on it. At some point the ue will be able to

decode the sip2 correctly. One could investigate how this method performs,

and if it maybe can be combined with the proposed approach to improve

things even more.

• As stated, implementing the proposed approach in a simulator was out of

scope for this thesis, but it is very important to do that to evaluate how it

would function in a real system. A simulation might also give insights in

other characteristics and problems with the distribution method that have

so far been overlooked. This would also require a design of how to handle

collisions between ues when sending a pilot signal, or making a handshake.

List of Figures

2.2 The spectrum of an ODFM signal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.3 Time dispersion is handled in ofdm with the insertion of a Cyclic

Prefix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.4 The time-frequency grid of ofdm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.5 The ratio of empty sub-frames at an lte bs for four different traffic

scenarios. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

pendently. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 Illustration of Multiple Cell broadcasting, all cells broadcasts syn-

chronously. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

3.3 Illustration of the Multiple Cell scenario approximation used to

simulate signal quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.4 Illustration of beam sweeping, broadcasting is made in one beam

at a time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2 Example allocation of pilot slots in a Grid of Beams. . . . . . . . . 25

4.3 Comparison of the different sip2 -request protocols. . . . . . . . . . 27

4.4 Model of the time-frequency resource allocation at the bs. . . . . . 28

5.2 Hexagonal grid deployment used in Multiple Cell simulations. . . 41

6.2 Empirical cdf of downlink sinr in the Multiple Cell scenario. . . 45

6.3 cdfs of sinr for broadcast and beamforming transmissions in two

different interference environments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6.4 The beamforming gain is correlated in some manner with the broad-

cast sinr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6.5 Simple bandwidth comparison using the simplest pilot model. . . 49

6.6 Minimized bandwidth and corresponding parameters when Ru = 0.5,

with the requirement that Pr {L ≤ l} ≥ 0.95. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

65

66 LIST OF FIGURES

with the requirement that Pr {L ≤ l} ≥ 0.95. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

6.8 Example of a resulting cdf of latency when imposing a require-

ment of Pr {L ≤ 5} ≥ 0.95, in this figure for the Early Detection

scenario with Ru = 0.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

6.9 Minimized bandwidth and corresponding parameters when Ru = 0.5,

with the requirement that E {L} ≤ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

6.10 Minimized bandwidth and corresponding parameters when Ru = 10,

with the requirement that E {L} ≤ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

6.11 Minimized bandwidth for Multiple Cell when Ru = 10, with the

requirement that E {L} ≤ l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

List of Tables

6.2 Values of the Multiple Cell sinr for some percentiles. . . . . . . . 45

6.3 The minimum limit on the bandwidth that is needed. . . . . . . . 48

6.4 Parameters fixed for first simple plot of bandwidth. . . . . . . . . . 48

6.5 Values of constant bandwidth parts of the first simple case. . . . . 50

67

Bibliography

[1] Cisco, “Cisco visual networking index: Global mobile data traffic

forecast update, 2015-2020,” 2016. [Online, 2016-02-18]. Available:

http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/

service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/

mobile-white-paper-c11-520862.html. Cited on page 1.

[2] 3GPP, “Tentative 3GPP timeline for 5G,” 2015. [Online, 2016-02-

23]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org/news-events/3gpp-news/

1674-timeline_5g. Cited on page 1.

for next generation wireless systems,” IEEE Communications Magazine,

vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 186–195, 2014. Cited on pages 2, 19, 21, and 22.

Broadband. Academic Press, 2011. Cited on pages 2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 16, and 19.

[5] J.-G. Remy and C. Letamendia, LTE Standards. ISTE Limited, John Wiley &

Sons, 2014. Cited on page 5.

[6] M. Engels, Wireless OFDM Systems: How to Make Them Work? Kluwer

Academic Publishers, 2002. Cited on page 7.

for short packet and low latency transmissions,” in Proc. IEEE VTC-Spring-

2014, May 2014. Cited on page 8.

//www.radio-electronics.com/info/cellulartelecomms/

5g-mobile-cellular/modulation-waveforms.php. Cited on page

8.

consumption in multi-RAT scenarios,” in Proc. IEEE VTC-Spring-2014, May

2014. Cited on page 9.

69

70 Bibliography

MIMO using OSTBC with reduced dimension,” in Proc. of IEEE Inter-

national Symposium on Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), 2015.

Cited on page 13.

[11] X. Meng, X.-G. Xia, and X. Gao, “Constant-envelope omni-directional trans-

mission with diversity in massive MIMO systems,” in 2014 IEEE Global

Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), pp. 3784–3789, 2014. Cited

on page 13.

[12] E. G. Larsson and H. V. Poor, “Joint beamforming and broadcasting in mas-

sive MIMO,” in Proc. of IEEE Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Com-

munications (SPAWC), 2015. Cited on page 14.

[13] S. Saur, H. Halbauer, A. Rueegg, and F. Schaich, “Grid-of-beams (GoB) based

downlink multi-user MIMO,” May 2008. [Online, 2016-02-23]. Available:

http://www.ieee802.org/16/tgm/contrib/C80216m-08_487.

doc. Cited on page 18.

[14] H. Q. Ngo, Massive MIMO: Fundamentals and System Designs. PhD thesis,

Linköping University, 2015. Cited on page 20.

[15] F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. G. Larsson, T. L. Marzetta, O. Edfors, and

F. Tufvesson, “Scaling up MIMO,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 30,

no. 1, pp. 40–60, 2013. Cited on page 21.

[16] T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers

of base station antennas,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,

vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, 2010. Cited on page 21.

[17] K. Hugl, K. Kalliola, and J. Laurila, “Spatial reciprocity of uplink and down-

link radio channels in FDD systems,” Proc. COST 273 Technical Document

TD (02), vol. 66, p. 7, May 2002. Cited on page 21.

[18] X. Zhang, J. Tadrous, E. Everett, F. Xue, and A. Sabharwal, “Angle-of-arrival

based beamforming for FDD massive MIMO,” in 2015 49th Asilomar Con-

ference on Signals, Systems and Computers, pp. 704–708, IEEE, 2015. Cited

on page 21.

[19] E. Björnson, E. de Carvalho, E. G. Larsson, and P. Popovski, “Random access

protocol for massive MIMO: Strongest-user collision resolution (SUCR),”

CoRR, vol. abs/1512.00490, 2015. Cited on page 26.

[20] R. Serfozo, Basics of Applied Stochastic Processes. Springer Science & Busi-

ness Media, 2009. Cited on page 31.

[21] 3GPP, “Study on 3D channel model for LTE,” TR 36.873, 3rd Generation

Partnership Project (3GPP), 2015. Cited on page 39.

- LTE Benefits - LTE Product DesignUploaded bychrismorley
- Ofdm in Gnu RadioUploaded byRakesh S K
- White PaperUploaded byArchana Tiwari Bajpai
- 4G LTE Advanced TutorialUploaded byRuth Ignacio Alonzo
- Project Literature Survey (1)Uploaded byجعفرالشموسي
- A 0530106Uploaded byInternational Organization of Scientific Research (IOSR)
- 4G TechnologyUploaded byAamna Aiman
- Performance of Efficient Signal Detection for LED-ID SystemsUploaded byDoohee Han
- REDUCING PAPR OF OFDM BASED WIRELESS SYSTEMS USING COMPANDING WITH CONVOLUTIONAL CODESUploaded byijdps
- OFDM PresentationUploaded byThanhNN0312
- oe-21-2-1669Uploaded byAliAzarnia
- SIM OSDMUploaded byMitesh
- An Improved Performance of 2D ASCO-OFDM in Wireless CommunicationUploaded byIRJAES
- D-34-367-372.pdfUploaded bylambanaveen
- Performance Comparison of Two Clipping Based Filtering Methods for Papr Reduction in OFDM SignalUploaded byLawrence Avery
- 38211-f10.docxUploaded byrigoberto
- C80216a-02_16Uploaded byChien Pham Huy
- Lattice-Reduction Aided Equalization for OFDM SystemsUploaded bykhajarasool_sk
- OFDMA for 4th Generation Cellular NetworksUploaded byShahid Shabbir
- A 429888Uploaded bywoodksd
- Ofdm TutorialUploaded byam010571
- OFDM Simulation ModelUploaded byNaresh Kumar
- IMP - OfDM Symbol Synchronization Using Frequency Domain in Time DomainUploaded bykhajarasool_sk
- 45 Paper 23100932 IJCSIS Camera Ready Pp332-336Uploaded byijcsis
- o3Uploaded bydhullparveen
- IJIRAE:: Analyzing the BER Performance of OFDM-System with QPSK and BPSK Modulation TechniqueUploaded byIJIRAE- International Journal of Innovative Research in Advanced Engineering
- aya_sUploaded byFahd Saif
- Digital Video BroadcastingUploaded byust_eteeap
- Link Budget analysisUploaded byIrene Emerald
- 8-38-1-PBUploaded byDeepak Salian

- 1Uploaded byhendra lam
- A Tutorial on Cross-Layer Optimization in Wireless NetworksUploaded byhendra lam
- 10.1.1.85.9260.pdfUploaded byhendra lam
- Kalman Filter Models for the Prediction of Individualised Thermal Work StrainUploaded byhendra lam
- Sensitivity-Based Adaptive SRUKF for State, Parameter, and Covariance Estimation on Mechatronic SystemsUploaded byhendra lam
- Kalman Filters for Parameter Estimation of Nonstationary SignalsUploaded byhendra lam
- Unscented Kalman Filter for State and Parameter Estimation in Vehicle DynamicsUploaded byhendra lam
- 2Uploaded byhendra lam
- 10.1017@CBO9781107447981.001Uploaded byhendra lam
- chap9Uploaded byhendra lam
- chap8Uploaded byhendra lam
- chap6Uploaded byhendra lam
- chap5Uploaded byhendra lam
- chap4Uploaded byhendra lam
- chap3.pdfUploaded byhendra lam
- chap2Uploaded byhendra lam
- chap1Uploaded byhendra lam
- Journal.papersUploaded byhendra lam
- Ahn 2017Uploaded byhendra lam
- You 2017Uploaded byhendra lam
- s13638-017-1013-1Uploaded byhendra lam
- 63c5597e49c5a73d3233ad6239a8c4fbc980Uploaded byhendra lam
- koca2017Uploaded byhendra lam
- Liang 2017Uploaded byhendra lam
- j221Uploaded byhendra lam
- 1511.01291v1Uploaded byhendra lam
- 1511.01291Uploaded byhendra lam
- Power Relayed SystemUploaded byhendra lam
- 1202.0298Uploaded byhendra lam
- (Jabo2) Hw Bss 4g Branch Bekasi Cell Lvl r4 Discardtimer 20170616Uploaded byhendra lam

- Marginal Costing and Absorption CostingUploaded byAshutosh Pandey
- Libya as a Collapsed State and Security in the Sahel_Issue3_M.hamchiUploaded bymohamchi
- MIRA2011athensadvProgramUploaded byMIRA 2011 ATHENS
- Pewarisan Mendel IUploaded byMasriah Al-ArsMa
- National Grade Six Assessment - 2014 - Mathematics - P1.pdfUploaded bysusannobrega
- u s history curriculum mapUploaded byapi-381921448
- Buteyko Control Pause (CP) ..Uploaded byalien_ask
- kemh1smUploaded byrajatgupt
- Two Miles - Eighteen Bridges A walk along the Chicago RiverUploaded byJim Phillips
- Madam Changing prospectus.pdfUploaded byAnonymous bh7bwkJKIe
- Passenger Load FactorUploaded bysign
- Energy Meter Electric Power MeterUploaded byartmakyong
- Auto Transmission TroubleshootUploaded bywei foo
- Cover LetterUploaded byFadhil Nawawi
- 1573472356395_project list 2008 to 2017Uploaded bySaqlain Patel
- 99-guideline-impurities-residual-solvents_en.pdfUploaded byEko Setyo Budi
- Gjhs Pistol Game Planning ClinicUploaded byjohn.scott7215
- Agilent Data Sheet 5989-6317ENUploaded byJohn Castillo
- Trigonometric IdentitiesUploaded byMikhail López
- Leadership Styles PresentationUploaded byVinnu Kumar
- InfoX-AAA Interface Developer Guide - MMLUploaded byFiras Adel Tahir
- People v Bonner_Judge Lowenthal Re-Sentencing Transcipt.pdfUploaded byKate Chatfield
- Doctoral ProposalUploaded byThomas McGovern
- 4Z4TJ (1)Uploaded byBimal Chutia
- Microsoft Word - ZXK-CAN3200C User Manual VER3 2-09-12-22Uploaded byJames Quintero
- SEE _Hermosa_K.J_full paper.pdfUploaded byeljien Hermosa
- Course Material for ASNT LEVEL II in Liquid Penetrant Testing CommonUploaded byThulasi Ram
- Emulsifiers&StabilizersUploaded bycastimax
- Welcome to Kaziranga National Orchid ParkUploaded byNisha Arora
- Data Sheet for Mixer M34Uploaded bybingmin

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.