Small Cell Cell Biasing

Cell biasing is an important tool to keep the user on the Small cells when in the presence of the
Macro. By ensuring that the users are served by the Small cells, it improves the area capacity. Cell
biasing [also referred to as range extension (RE)] is accomplished through the use of cell individual offset
parameters (specifically, a combination of cellIndOffServ and cellIndOffNeigh parameters) and can be
used to increase the effective area of a cell. For example, cell biasing can be used to force traffic to stay
on the Small cell longer, delaying handover to the Macro cell. This makes the site appear to be slightly
larger, which improves the number of users on the Small cell.
Also, as more users are served by the Small cell, this results in improved user experience for the users
remaining on the Macro cell (less competition for the resources and also, the average Macro SINR is
improved as lower SINR users are now served by the Small cell). However, the impact to the Small cell
average throughput is minimal since the majority of the users are close to the site. The following
simulation results show an example of this.
The following figure shows the improvement in the Macro cell throughput with the use of 3 dB range
extension (RE).
Figure 1: Cell Biasing Impact on Macro Cell Throughput

The simulation results below show that the Small cell throughput is minimally impacted by a 3 dB range
extension.
 Figure 2: Cell Biasing Impact on Small Cell Throughput

Some Small cell trials have used biasing to mitigate some of the strong Macro dominance areas. In
addition, power adjustments (reduced Macro Tx power settings and/or increased Small cell power
settings) were also tested.
Biasing was implemented in areas where subscribers would experience a rapid or high quantity of ping-
pong handovers within a short segment of time between the Macro and Small cell, especially in areas
where the Small cells were in direct line-of-sight or in close vicinity of the Macro. The goal was to keep
the subscriber on the Small cell for a longer time, delaying the handover to the Macro. This was done by
placing a bias on the Macro signal strengths to make it appear weaker than the Small cell signal
strengths. This in turn delayed or prevented the subscriber handover request to the Macro from the
Small cell. In conjunction, biasing was implemented on the Macro controller to make Small cell signal
strengths appear stronger. By making the Small cell signal strengths appear stronger, the handover
request from the Macro into the Small cell coverage area occurred sooner.
Results from trials have shown that a 5 dB of bias was sufficient in many areas to reduce ping-ponging
between the Small cell and the Macro. The trials also showed that up to a 5 dB of bias did not impact
key performance indicators, such as attach or handover success rate.
However, the trials also showed that significantly higher levels of biasing are needed to overcome
extreme cases of Macro dominance (10 dB or more of bias was required in some areas to increase the
small cell coverage). Biasing levels at that order of magnitude require advanced interference mitigation
features, such as eICIC. The eICIC feature, which is introduced in RL70 and RL55, is designed to reduce
inter-cell interference from macro cells to micro cells by introducing so-called “almost blank subframes”
(ABS) in the macro cell.
Therefore, in cases without eICIC, a 3-5 dB cell bias (range extension) is recommended to minimize
issues such as handover ping-ponging between Macro and Small cells. Cell biasing can be used in a
small cluster of Small cells to minimize handover to the Macro. It should be noted that range
extension causes a slight decrease (~4%) in area aggregate throughput.
Further details regarding Small cell handover planning with respect to cell biasing and the associated
parameters can be found in Section Error: Reference source not found.
1.1 Impact of Antenna Placement

Coverage can be impacted by the physical orientation of the Small cell unit with respect to the pole on
which it’s mounted. This is because the Small cell unit can use integrated Omni antennas and the
mounting pole can affect the antenna coverage. The pole shadowing should be accounted for in the
system design and RF planning process. In addition to impacting the coverage, the pole can also impact
the MIMO performance as well.
Small cells trials have shown that the mounting pole can negatively impact the effective antenna pattern
by 7 to 10 dB. This impact is the largest in areas where the pole is located between the user and the
Small cell antenna. Note that these trials were done with pre-commercial Small cell units. Commercial
units have Omni antennas that are separated by an additional 80 mm.
Based on these trial results, it is recommended that the Small cell units be installed so as to minimize
the impact of the mounting pole. For example, orient the Small cell unit towards the higher
concentration of users, so that fewer users are in the area that is more shadowed by the mounting pole.
In some cases, directional antennas may be helpful in covering a specific area.
1.1.1 Antenna Placement Test Results

Studies show the impact that the mounting pole can have on the antenna pattern. For example, the
following test result figures from an antenna vendor show the impact of a
4.5 inch (11.5 cm) diameter pole. These figures show the impact to the antenna pattern in the area in
which the mounting pole was between the antenna and the testing point. An approximate 10 dB front-
to-back ratio can be observed. Please note that these images are specific to a certain antenna and a
certain size pole. They are included here just to illustrate that an antenna pattern is impacted by
nearby structures, such as a pole or lamp post. The results for other antennas and other mounting
structures will not be identical to these.
Figure 3: RF Monopole Horizontal Pattern Right-side Antenna

Right Antenna
 Figure 4: RF Monopole Horizontal Pattern Left-side Antenna

Left Antenna

Nokia also ran studies to determine if similar effects would be observed in the field. For example, in one
trial, the majority of the Small cell units were installed on lamp posts. The diameter of these posts near
the mounting area was about 6.5 inches (16.5 cm). This is a couple inches (or 5 cm) greater than the
antenna vendor’s lab setup as described above.
The diagram below illustrates a top view of the Small cell unit mounted on the pole with the diversity
branch antenna shown on the left and the main branch antenna shown on the right.
Figure 5: Illustration of Antenna Mounting in a Small Cell Trial

Diversity Main
Branch Branch

Data was collected on both branches for stationary and mobile tests. Similar to the lab results, the field
results also showed that the signal level is lower at test locations where the pole was between the Small
cell and the user. Also, as expected, the signal level is observed to be better on the antenna that is
mounted closest to where the data is collected (e.g. if the data is collected nearer to the main branch,
then the main branch signal level will be better than the signal level from the diversity branch).
For example, the following field results show a case where the Small cell unit/antenna is mounted on
the south side of a pole. As can be seen from these signal strength results, the signal is stronger when
traveling south of the pole, since the pole does not impact the results. However, the results show that
the signal is impacted when traveling north of the pole, since the pole is then between the antenna and
the user. Note that these results are based on a pre-commercial version of the product where the Omni
antennas are a little more closely spaced than in the commercial product.
 Figure 6: Impact of the Mounting Pole on the Signal

Unit Mounted on South Side of Pole

Results Driving South

Results Driving North (pole between UE and FZM)

Both the lab and field tests show that there is an impact to the signal level based on the mounting of the
antennas, which in turn impacts the coverage distance. Care should be taken when mounting the
antennas to minimize this impact. For example, in these instances, the antennas should be mounted
towards the area that needs to be covered or that has the most traffic (i.e. minimizing the number of
users that will be located in areas where the pole is between them and the antennas).

1.2 Ground Level Coverage

Coverage analysis is typically done for ground level coverage (i.e. the typical scope for system level
simulations). However, focusing only on ground level coverage can be misleading. In dense urban
areas, it may be necessary to also consider coverage for higher levels, for example in surrounding
buildings.
Small cells are typically located below clutter height (e.g. on lamp posts). This can greatly improve the
coverage at ground level and will also provide some coverage to the lower levels of nearby buildings.
However, although Small cells may capture a good portion of the ground or lower levels of traffic in
dense urban conditions, Macro cells may be required to provide coverage on the higher floors in the
nearby buildings. A coverage analysis for this dense urban area will show the impact of the addition of
these Small cells. However, it typically only shows the coverage at ground level. It is also important to
consider the coverage at higher levels in a dense urban environment. Although the analysis may show
that the ground level may be covered well by the Small cells, the Macro cells may be required to provide
coverage on the higher floors in the nearby buildings.

1.3 Issues with High Density of Small Cells

A high density of Small cells can lead to decreased SINR due to high interference levels. Therefore, as
in the case of Macro cell planning, the placement of Small cells needs to be planned to minimize
interference. Additionally, the introduction of Small cells will place new handover borders within the
region. This will impact handover performance and latency. As in typical cell planning, handover
boundaries should be set to minimize the occurrence of ping-ponging handovers.

1.4 Small Cells in Areas of Low Macro SINR

Areas of low Macro SINR may be good locations to deploy small cells to improve performance.
However, the benefits may depend on the cause of the low Macro SINR. For example, if the low Macro
SINR is caused by a weak signal, then adding a Small cell can be beneficial since it can provide a
dominant server and better coverage. However, if the low SINR is caused by an area of high interference
or an area with few, if any, users, then the addition of a Small cell will not be beneficial. For example,
adding a Small cell to an area of high interference may result in greater interference.

1.5 Co-Channel versus Dedicated Channel

Typically, an operator uses their entire available spectrum and does not have any spectrum in reserve.
However, there may be cases where there is enough available spectrum to allow the Small cells to
operate on a different channel than the Macro cells. The use of dedicated frequencies is most
beneficial when Small cells are being added for capacity reasons. In high capacity areas, there is more
potential for interference since the sites are typically closer together. The use of separate channels will
help to minimize this potential for interference since the Macro cell and Small cell are on different
frequencies so they will not interfere with each other. When using dedicated channels, the handovers
between the Macro and Small cells will be inter-frequency handovers, rather than intra-frequency
handovers.
If there is not enough spectrum to support dedicated frequencies for the Macro and Small cells or if the
Small cells are being added in an area where there is not much potential for interference (e.g. coverage
extension cases), then the same frequency will be used at both the Macro and Small cell. In this case,
the handovers will be intra-frequency handovers.
If a system has enough spectrum to allow for dedicated channels for the Small cells, it will experience
higher throughputs than if the Small cells and Macro cells share the same channels. Small cells that are
deployed on a dedicated frequency do not experience interference from the Macro cell (since it is on a
different frequency). This results in higher DL and UL throughput gains as compared to scenarios where
the Small cell shares a frequency with the Macro. Obviously, these gains are only applicable in scenarios
where the operators have enough available frequency resources to allow for the Small and Macro cells
to use different frequencies.
The following trial results show that significant throughput gains can be seen when using dedicated
channels. In these trial results, when referring to the “Macro Only” scenario, the Macro uses a 20 MHz
channel bandwidth. In the “Macro + Pico (dedicated channel)” case, the Macro and Pico cells use two
adjacent 10 MHz channels. In the “Macro + Pico (partly co-channel)” scenario, the Macro cell uses a 20
MHz channel and the Pico uses a 10 MHz channel that is co-channel with half of the Macro cell.
As can be seen from these results, there is a 120% higher DL throughput gain in the use of dedicated
channels over the partially co-channel case.
Figure 7: Dedicated vs. Co-channel DL Throughput Tests

The figure below shows an increase of over 15% in UL throughput in the case with dedicated channels as
compared to the partially co-channel case.
Figure 8: Dedicated Vs. Co-channel UL Throughput Tests

1.6 Avoid High Speed Traffic

Small cells are not recommended for high speed areas (e.g. highways, railway lines, etc.). In areas
where small cells are added for capacity reasons, the coverage area is small. Trying to accommodate
high speed users in these areas can lead to a higher number of failures. Studies have shown that fast
users typically dominate radio link failures. This is more of a concern in areas where the high speed user
is passing by only an edge of the Small cell, where the coverage from the Small cell will be minimal,
which may impact handovers to/from the nearby Macro cell.