RA4120-60A

Nokia Academy
LTE RPESS
LTE TDD Coverage Planning - Cell Range

RA41207EN60GLA0 ©2014 Nokia Solutions and Networks. All rights reserved.

Index

LTE/EPC Overview

LTE Air Interface

Air Interface Overheads

RRM overview

LTE Link Budget

Radio Planning – Coverage Planning Cell Range

Radio Planning – Capacity

LTE Performance Simulations

Nokia LTE Solution

Initial Parameters Planning

5 RA41207EN60GLA0 ©2014 Nokia Solutions and Networks. All rights reserved.

Module Objectives

•After completing this module, the participant will be able to:

•Compare the cell range of LTE TDD with other technologies

6 RA41207EN60GLA0 ©2014 Nokia Solutions and Networks. All rights reserved.

 Coverage Dimensioning

• Comparison: LTE TDD vs. other technologies

7 RA41207EN60GLA0 ©2014 Nokia Solutions and Networks. All rights reserved.

Comparison: LTE vs. other technologies (1/2)

General and common assumptions

• Operating band 2600 MHz • Cell Edge Throughput: 1024Kbps DL & 128Kbps UL
• Bandwidth 20 MHz • Frequency dependent packet scheduling: channel aware DL and channel
• Cell Load 50% for both UL & DL unaware in UL
• Channel model: Enhanced Pedestrian A 5 Hz • Cost 231 Hata 2-slope propagation model with:
• Equipment Parameters: – Penetration loss: 12dB
– eNB Tx Power: 43 dBm – Shadowing margin: 7.8dB
– UE Tx power 23dBm – Antenna height eNB: 30m
– Feeder Loss: 0.4dB – Antenna height UE: 1.5m
– TMA/MHA disabled
LTE TDD LTE FDD
- Antenna Gain 14,5 dBi (DL), 0dBi (UL) • Antenna Gain 18dBi (DL), 0dBi (UL)
- Frame Type 2 (TDD), Normal CP • Frame Type 1 FDD, normal CP
• Noise Figures: MS: 7 dB, BTS: 2,2dB
• DL/UL configuration 1 (3DL, 2UL)
• Subframe format 7
• CASE A: 20W Flexi RF module, 2x2 open loop TX diversity power
- Noise Figures: UE: 7 dB, eNB: 3dB increase at cell edge 3dB
• CASE B: 40W Flexi RF module, 2x2 open loop TX diversity power
increase at cell edge 3dB
- CASE A: Equipment 20W Flexi-RRH with 2x2 open loop TX diversity
power increase at cell edge 3dB (TX diversity; no beamforming)
- CASE B: Equipment 5W transmit power per antenna with 8 pipe
beamforming antenna (total 8x5W=40W), HBF (hybrid beamforming),
beamforming gain= 7.34 dB

8 RA41207EN60GLA0 ©2014 Nokia Solutions and Networks. All rights reserved.

Comparison MAPL & Cell Range: TD-LTE vs. LTE FDD (sub-urban)

• CASE A: No Beamforming CASE B: Beamforming

TD-LTE LTE FDD TD-LTE LTE FDD
DL1024/UL128 DL1024/UL128 DL1024/UL128 DL1024/UL128
0.99km 1.65km 1.35km 1.65km
128.31 dB 136.12 dB 133.13 dB 136.12 dB

Conclusion
 Delta between max. allowable pathloss values:
About 6dB benefit of LTE-FDD as compared with TD-LTE →Also the antenna gain is lower in LTE TDD
due to the fact that cell ranges are calculated so a certain bit
rate is achieved at the cell edge. Since the transmission is With beamforming the FDD and TDD there is only 3dB benefit for LTE
discontinuous in LTE TDD it would be necessary to transmit FDD
with larger bandwidth in TDD than FDD to achieve similar bit
rates

9 RA41207EN60GLA0 ©2014 Nokia Solutions and Networks. All rights reserved.

Comparison: LTE vs. other technologies
General and common assumptions
• Outdoor macro cell layout (cloverleaf) • Interference margin: 1dB (at 50% load)
• TMA/MHA disabled • HARQ enabled
• MCS: optimized for highest MAPL/cell range of the limiting link (UL), • BLER on first transmission = 10%
DL MCS adapted to match UL MAPL • Propagation model:
• Equipment parameters: – COST 231 Hata 2-slope propagation model with
• TMA/MHA disabled – Penetration loss (du,u,su,r): +2dB offset on LTE clutter [dB]
• Feeder Loss 0.5 dB – Clutter correction factor (du,u,su,r): 3, 0, -12, -23 [dB]
• Channel model: Enhanced Pedestrian A 5 Hz – Stand. deviation outdoor (du,u,su,r): 9,9,8, 6[dB]
• Cell load: DL 50% / UL 50% – Cell Area Probability (du,u,su,r): 90%
• UE power class3 – Antenna height NB (du,u,su,r): 30 ,30,35,45m
– Antenna height UE/MS: 1.5 m
LTE TDD TDSCDMA
•UE/SS Tx Power 23 dBm • UE/SS Tx Power 24 dBm
•Antenna Gain 18 dBi (UL), 0dBi (DL) • Antenna Gain 15.5dBi (UL), 0dBi (DL)
•Operating band 2300 MHz • Operating band 2000 MHz
•Bandwidth 20 MHz • Bandwidth 1.28 MHz,(3 carriers in 5MHz)
•Equipment 2*20W Flex-RRH • Equipment 8-path RRU(5w/path)
•2x2-TX diversity power increase at cell edge 3dB • 8 pipe beam-forming
•Frame Type 2 (TDD), Normal CP • DL:UL ratio 4:2
•DL/UL configuration 1 (3DL, 2UL) • Frequency reuse 1x3 for Primary carry
•System overhead according to 3GPP 36.211 • Noise Figures: MS: 7 dB, BTS: 4dB
•Noise Figures: UE: 7 dB, eNB: 2.2dB • Beam-forming gain 5dB
•Diversity: 2Tx-2Rx (DL),1Tx-2Rx (UL) • 8 pipe antenna array normalization gain 9dB
•Frequency reuse 1

10 RA41207EN60GLA0 ©2014 Nokia Solutions and Networks. All rights reserved.

Comparison MAPL & Cell Range: TD-LTE vs. TDSCDMA (urban)

• Urban Urban
TDSCDMA HSDPA TD-LTE
DL384/UL64 DL384/UL64 TD-LTE TD-LTE
0.32km AMR12.2(VoIP) AMR12.2(VoIP)
0.45km
w/ TTI bundling
121.14 dB 127.79 dB 0.33km
121.77 dB 0.44km
127.45 dB

TD-LTE
DL4096/UL384
TDSCDMA AMR12.2
0.32 km 0.49km
121.19 dB 129.15 dB

Conclusion
 Delta between max. allowable pathloss values:
Similar coverage between TDSCDMA(DL384/UL64)
with TD-LTE(DL4096/UL384
About 6 dB benefit of TD-LTE(DL384/UL64)
compare with TDSCDMA HSDPA due to lower TD-LTE SINR
requirement at cell edge
 Delta between max. cell range:
0.16km weakness of TD-LTE VoIP
w/o TTI bunding compare with TDSCDMA AMR12.2 in Urban (the
DL328/UL328 bear for TD-LTE VoIP leads to smaller cell range of LTE VoIP)
Similar cell range of of TD-LTE VoIP
w/ TTI bunding compare with TDSCDMA AMR12.2 due to gain of TTI
bundling

11 RA41207EN60GLA0 ©2014 Nokia Solutions and Networks. All rights reserved.