LTE/LTE A Interference Coordination For Femtocells

Copyright © 2012
DOCOMO Communications Laboratories
Europe GmbH
LTE/LTE‐A Interference Coordination for
Femtocells
BeFEMTO Winter School
February 6‐10 2012
Zubin Bharucha
DOCOMO Euro‐Labs
Munich, Germany
Acknowledgements: Serkan Uygungelen; Nobuhiko Miki (NTT DOCOMO)
Copyright © 2012 DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH Infrastructure Research Group
In a nutshell
• Part 1: Refresh your memory!
– LTE and LTE‐A
– The road to the future
– An overview of ICIC techniques
• Part 2: Femto‐macro interference
– Relevant details of the LTE air interface
– Performance comparison of existing techniques
– Introduction of a novel technique to protect non‐CSG users
• Part 3: Femto‐femto interference
– Network „densification“ and its effects
– Centralized interference mitigation
– Distributed interference mitigation
• Conclusion
Copyright © 2012 DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH Infrastructure Research Group 2
Part 1: Know your LTE‐
A (B,Cs)
What’s so great about LTE?
• LTE System performance
– Long‐term evolution of 3G using 3G LTE‐Advanced
spectrum Smooth introduction of
4G
– Smooth introduction of 4G
~100 MHz bandwidth
• LTE‐Advanced
5~20 MHz bandwidth
– Evolution of LTE: Targets LTE
achievement of sufficiently higher
system performance than that for Long‐term
evolution of 3G
LTE
• Bandwidth: 100 MHz
• Peak throughput: 1 Gbps HSUPA
– Backward compatible with LTE to HSDPA
enable continuous enhancement
and deployment
– Meet or exceed IMT‐Advanced WCDMA Release 99
requirements within the ITU‐R time
plan
2000’s 2010’s
The old and the new
• LTE‐Advanced shall be deployed as an evolution of LTE Rel. 8 with new
bands available
• LTE‐Advanced shall be backwards compatible with LTE Rel. 8
 Smooth and flexible system migration from LTE Rel. 8 to LTE‐Advanced
 An LTE‐A UE works in an LTE cell
 An LTE UE works in an LTE‐A cell
• LTE‐Advanced contains all features of LTE Rel. 8&9 and additional features
for further evolution
Target Performance for LTE‐Advanced
LTE Rel. 8 LTE‐Advanced
DL 300 Mbps 1 Gbps
Peak data rate
UL 75 Mbps 500 Mbps
Peak spectrum efficiency DL 15 30
[bps/Hz] UL 3.75 15
Ant. Config. LTE Rel. 8*1 LTE‐Advanced*2

2‐by‐2 1.69 2.4
DL 4‐by‐2 1.87 2.6
Capacity
4‐by‐4 2.67 3.7
[bps/Hz/cell]
1‐by‐2 0.74 1.2
UL
2‐by‐4 – 2.0
x 1.4‐1.7
2‐by‐2 0.05 0.07
Cell‐edge user DL 4‐by‐2 0.06 0.09
throughput
4‐by‐4 0.08 0.12
[bps/Hz/cell
/user] 1‐by‐2 0.024 0.04
UL
2‐by‐4 – 0.07
* Target peak data rate of 1 Gbps for nomadic/local areas is specified in Circular Letter (CL)
*1 See TR25.912 (Case 1 scenario) *2 See TR36.913 (Case 1 scenario) *3 See ITU‐R M.2135 (Base Coverage Urban scenario)
What’s new in LTE‐A?
• Wider bandwidth (carrier aggregation)
– Improves peak data rate and spectrum flexibility
– Meets ITU‐R requirements for bandwidth (>=40
MHz)
– Spectrum/carrier aggregation based on
component carrier (CC) concept to maintain
backward compatibility and allow smooth
network migration
• Advanced MIMO techniques (covered yesterday)
– Improves peak data rate and cell/cell‐edge
spectrum efficiency
– Meets ITU‐R requirements for DL cell spectrum
efficiency
– SU‐MIMO with up to 8‐layers for DL and 4‐layers
for UL
– MU‐MIMO with enhanced CSI feedback
What’s new in LTE‐A?
• Enhanced inter‐cell interference coordination (eICIC)
– Improves cell‐edge user throughput, coverage, and
deployment flexibility
– Interference coordination for layered cell deployment with
different transmit power levels
– Carrier aggregation can be used for frequency domain
coordination
– Time domain coordination and power control are also to be
introduced
• Relaying
– Improves coverage and cost effective deployment
– Type 1 relay node which can be seen as a Rel. 8 eNB from a
Release 8 LTE terminal
• Coordinated multipoint (CoMP) transmission and reception
– Scope is limited to intra‐eNB CoMP (implementation issue)
– LTE Self Optimizing Network (SON) enhancements
– HNB and HeNB mobility enhancements
HeteroGenius Networks
Motivation Characteristics
•4G networks will be characterized by a high‐density • Wireless backhaul
deployment of low‐power nodes • Open access
• It is essential for these nodes to operate without negatively • Operator‐deployed
affecting the overall performance Major Issues
• Effective backhaul design
• Mitigating relay to macro‐
cell interference
Characteristics
• Wired backhaul Characteristics
• Open access • Wired backhaul
• Operator‐deployed • Closed access
Major Issues • User‐deployed
• Effectively offloading Major Issues
traffic from macro‐cell • Mitigating femto‐to‐macro
• Mitigating interference interference
caused to macro‐cell • Mitigating interference
users between nearby femto‐cells
HeteroGenius Networks
Motivation Characteristics
•4G networks will be characterized by a high‐density • Wireless backhaul
deployment of low‐power nodes • Open access
• It is essential for these nodes to operate without negatively • Operator‐deployed
affecting the overall performance Major Issues
• Effective backhaul design
• Mitigating relay to macro‐
cell interference
Characteristics
• Wired backhaul Characteristics
• Open access • Wired backhaul
• Operator‐deployed • Closed access
Major Issues • User‐deployed
• Effectively offloading Major Issues
traffic from macro‐cell • Mitigating femto‐to‐macro
• Mitigating interference interference
caused to macro‐cell • Mitigating interference
users between nearby femto‐cells
Why do we need interference management
with femtocell deployment?
Significant femto
interference for
nearby macro
UEs!
Overview of ICIC in LTE/LTE‐A
• LTE (Rel‐8/9)
– Only one CC is available
– Make do with what you have and devise interference management
techniques assuming that macro and femtocells use the same CC
– Frequency‐domain ICIC ?
– Time‐domain ICIC within one CC?
• LTE‐Advanced (Rel‐10/11)
– Multiple CCs available in the system
– Frequency‐domain ICIC over multiple CCs is possible
– Time‐domain ICIC within one CC is also possible
– Much greater flexibility for interference management
Sharing is caring
• Fractional frequency reuse (FFR) improves the throughput for UEs close to
the cell boarder
– Protecting UEs close to cell boarder employing frequency reuse
Sharing is caring, but keep us informed
• Relative Narrowband Transmit Power (RNTP) is exchanged between macro

eNBs via a backhaul interface (X2 interface)
– The bitmap indicates whether transmission power of respective RB
exceed the predetermined threshold or not
Rel‐10 ICIC in heterogeneous networks
• To support femtocell deployment effectively, ICIC is necessary
• Different from homogeneous network (macrocell deployments),
– Low power nodes (femto eNBs) must mute (or reduce transmission
power)  Named as “Protected resources” here
– High power nodes (macro eNBs) need not mute
 Named as “Non‐protected resources” here
• Protected/Non‐protected resources are multiplexed in frequency or time‐
domain  Both ICIC techniques are effectively supported in Rel‐10
Frequency-domain ICIC Time-domain ICIC

Frequency Frequency
Carrier Carrier
Carrier #1
#2 #1
Time Time
Cell layer Macro layer Cell layer

Femto layer
Frequency‐domain ICIC for LTE
• Frequency‐domain ICIC for data channel is already supported from Rel‐8/9

employing RNTP, although frequency‐domain ICIC for control channel is
not supported
– Data channel is multiplexed in limited bandwidth, i.e., at RB‐level to
obtain multi‐user diversity in the frequency‐domain
– Control channel is multiplexed in the entire bandwidth to obtain
frequency‐diversity
• Here, control channel means downlink shared control channel (PDCCH)
which sends the assignment information of UEs, and must be decoded
correctly before decoding data channel (more on that later!)
Frequency‐domain ICIC for LTE‐A
• Multiple CCs are employed to perform ICIC for control channel
• In order to indicate the assignment for different carriers, additional bits
(CIF: Carrier Indicator Field) is introduced
Time‐domain ICIC
• In order to apply time‐domain ICIC, femto eNBs must mute specific
subframes to protect UEs connected to macro eNBs
• However, cell‐specific reference signal (CRS) needs to be sent for
handover measurements, etc.
 Known in the 3GPP community as “Almost blank subframes (ABSs)”
• There are issues with CSI measurements on protected and non‐protected
subframes at the macro layer
What else?
• Cell‐specific reference symbol (CRS) interference is a major issue
• Additional mechanisms to cope with the CRS interference are under
discussion
– Non‐zero transmit power ABS
– CRS cancelation at UE
– Transmitter side processing (sending interfering cell lists)
– Etc.
Part 2: A comparison of
state‐of‐the‐art ICIC
techniques
The almighty grid – the LTE frame structure
• A lot of work has been done on data region interference mitigation
• In this work, we focus on the control region because if it cannot be
decoded, the data region (and therefore the whole subframe) is anyway
lost
Introducing the control channels: PCFICH
The control channel is
1/2/3 OFDM symbols
long!
Introducing the control channels: PHICH
OK Mr. UE, I’ve
received your UL
transmissions!
Introducing the control channels: PHICH
OK Mr. UE, I’ve
received your UL
transmissions!
Introducing the control channels: PDCCH
Hey you UE! Here are
your DL and UL
grants: x/y/z RBs!
What the control region really looks like
• The control region contains 3 control channels:
– PCFICH: occurs only on first OFDM symbol; scattered in frequency
domain; indicates size of control region
– PDCCH: spread in time and frequency; carries scheduling information
– PHICH: spread in time and frequency; contains HARQ information
• We focus on the performance of the first two because of differences in
their distribution patterns – the PCFICH has restricted positions in the time
domain, whereas the PDCCH is dispersed in the time and frequency
domains
What is already done
(a) (b) (c)

•No coordination • Femto control •Almost blank subframe
Heavy channel sparseness Only interference from
interference on 2 Interference to reference symbol
OFDM symbols first OFDM symbol Femto data transmission
is lowered is not allowed
Enter my apartment at your own peril!
• 5x5 grid model
• Macro users uniformly distributed
• Trapped macro UEs are the focus of attention
System setup (simulation parameters)
Parameter Value
Avg. 5x5 blocks per sector 4
Avg. macro UEs per sector 10
Inter-site distance 500 m
HeNB activation probability 10%
System bandwidth 10 MHz
eNB transmit power 46 dBm
HeNB transmit power 20 dBm
Wall penetration loss 20 dB
Results (1/3): PDCCH performance for
trapped macro UEs
• Significant improvement over benchmark
• Sparseness also degrades femto‐to‐femto performance (not seen here)
Results (2/3): PHICH performance for
trapped macro UEs
• Macro performance improves
• Femto performance degrades (not seen here)
Results (3/3): PCFICH performance for
trapped macro UEs
• Macro performance improves, but is still not good enough
• Femto performance degrades, but is acceptable (not seen here)
Discussion
• The backward compatible macro‐to‐femto interference mitigation
techniques are good for PDCCH
• However, their performance for the PCFICH is poor
• The next section specifically deals with PCFICH protection for trapped
macro UEs
• Once again, backward compatibility is key!
Things others are doing
• Closed Subscriber Group (CSG) ID manipulation [3GPP TR 36.921].
– The HeNB changes between a default CSG ID (assigned at deployment
time) and a dedicated (operator configured) CSG ID.
– When there is a nearby macro UE, the HeNB uses the dedicated CSG ID
so that the UE can access the HeNB, otherwise it uses the default.
The HeNB needs to be aware of when a macro UE is near it to trigger
CSG ID selection.
Centralized controller is required to ensure that no HeNB uses either
CSG ID for a long time.
Heavy signaling burden.
• Physical Cell Identity (PCI) reservation
– It is possible to reserve a subset of available PCIs for HeNB use
No interference coordination through this approach
We actively change the PCI of the HeNB at startup so that it
causes the lowest collision with the PCFICH of the trapped macro
UE!
Why is the PCFICH so important?
• The PCFICH is important to protect because

– Our past work has shown that it exhibits the worst SINR performance
compared to the other control channels.
– So far it has not been possible to satisfactorily protect the PCFICH from femto‐
cell interference.
– If the PCFICH is incorrectly decoded by the trapped macro UE, the subframe is
lost.
• Further advantages:
Since HeNBs serve a small number of users (with typically a low PDCCH
aggregation level), the control channel is sparse enough to allow for the
rearrangement of PCFICH, PHICH and PDCCH on the femto layer.
This proposal can easily handle PCFICH protection for macro UEs trapped
within the coverage of multiple HeNBs.
How are PCFICH elements physically mapped?
• The 16 PCFICH resource elements are distributed over the entire frequency spectrum.
• The PCFICH always occurs on the first OFDM symbol.
• The location of the PCFICH resource elements undergoes an offset depending on the
physical cell identity (PCI).
x is an integer
And what about the PDCCH?
• The PDCCH search space (which CCEs are used for the PDCCH) of a UE depends on
the C‐RNTI assigned to that UE.
• The order of the CCEs is interleaved – the interleaving pattern is fixed.
• The CCE interleaved order is cyclically shifted, depending on the PCI of the H/eNB.
• This leads to the PDCCH locations being randomized, depending on the PCI.
Illustration only
So we propose…
• The proposal advocates carefully selecting the PCI of HeNBs at start‐up, such that
any interference caused by their control channels to the PCFICH of any trapped
macro UEs is avoided.
– In order for this to be possible, the HeNB needs to identify the eNB that it is
closest to.
• Identifying the eNB means that the HeNB must be aware of the PCI of the eNB
(decoded using synchronization procedure).
Illustration only
What needs to be done
• HeNB identifies most

Identify dominant macro eNB
• HeNB decodes dominant

Decode eNB’s PCI
• HeNB adjusts its own PCI

Adjust to reduce interference
• This procedure can not only protect all the control channels but
also the CRSs
Co‐channel deployment of macro and
femto‐cells
• Stripe model used
• Not all UEs are allowed to connect to a HeNB
For UEs having no access to HeNBs, downlink interference is
significant
• Since the control channel is very important for proper functionality,
how do we protect the control channel of trapped macro UEs?
Overall macro UE performance
Deceivingly small
Improvement!
• Compared to sparseness, this proposal results in an improvement of approximately
2 dB – especially at the low percentiles. This corresponds to the trapped macro
UEs.
• Better performance than ABS configuration (due to better collision avoidance).
Overall macro UE performance with power
control
• All curves shift to the right due to power control
• Femtocell performance is still acceptable (not seen here)
Improvements/advantages
 Enables the aggressor HeNB to continue to transmit data. Not possible with almost
blank subframes
 The proposed technology results in a significant improvement over introducing
sparseness to the control channel.
• Therefore this technology incorporates the benefits of both sparseness and almost
blank subframes.
• Multiple macro UEs can be protected simultaneously.
• No additional hardware is needed.
• No additional signaling is needed.
• This procedure is backwards compliant with Rel.‐8/9 UEs.
• Can be seamlessly combined with power control to boost performance even
further.
Lessons learned
• First study dedicated to control channel performance for LTE
• Impact on vulnerable trapped macro UEs assessed
• Two backward compatible techniques analyzed
• Results show significant performance improvements for PDCCH but not for
PCFICH
• PCFICH protection is further analyzed
• A novel technique employing only PCI manipulation is shown to
significantly improve PCFICH performance without losing the femto
subframe
• A few topics for further work would involve data channel interference
mitigation, power consumption analysis and handover improvements for
legacy systems; new control channel designs for future releases.
Part 3: Femto‐to‐Femto
interference
Femtocells ‐ Overview
FUE‐1
1
2
FBS‐1
MUE
3
macro‐BS
FUE‐2
FBS‐2 1. Between FUE and MBS
2. Between MUE and FBS
3. Between FUE and FBS
 Increase in coverage
 Increase in data rate
Increase in interference
Femtocells ‐ Overview
FUE‐1
1
2
FBS‐1
MUE
3
macro‐BS
FUE‐2
FBS‐2 1. Between FUE and MBS
2. Between MUE and FBS
3. Between FUE and FBS
 Increase in coverage
 Increase in data rate
Increase in interference
 How can we maintain acceptable user experience in dense femtocell
networks?
Carrier Aggregation for LTE‐A
CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC5

100 MHz freq.
• LTE-A makes use of carrier aggregation via the use of

component carriers (CCs)
• Improves peak data rate and spectrum flexibility
• Meets ITU-R requirements for bandwidth (>=40 MHz)
• Backward compatibility is maintained
• Smooth network migration is possible with minimal loss of
service for legacy terminals
How should the cake be eaten?
pow.
B
C 1 2 3 freq.
Component Carrier
A
Interference
 Interference between femtocells is a severe problem in densely deployed networks

 Desired quality of service cannot be achieved for cell edge users
 Resource partitioning is widely used to enhance the performance of cell edge users
 interfering neighbors transmit data on different CCs
 the drawback is that it decreases the network’s overall resource efficiency
 Vast variations of the interference conditions experienced by a BS during its operation

 Dynamic environment
 BSs should use as many resources as possible depending on their interference environment
 flexibility in the amount of assigned resources
How should the cake be eaten?
pow.
B
C 1 2 3 freq.
Component Carrier
A
Interference
 Interference between femtocells is a severe problem in densely deployed networks

 Desired quality of service cannot be achieved for cell edge users
 Resource partitioning is widely used to enhance the performance of cell edge users
 interfering neighbors transmit data on different CCs
 the drawback is that it decreases the network’s overall resource efficiency
 Vast variations of the interference conditions experienced by a BS during its operation

 Dynamic environment
 BSs should use as many resources as possible depending on their interference environment
 flexibility in the amount of assigned resources
Aim
pow.
B
C 1 2 3 freq.
A Desired Signal
Interference
Interference mitigation techniques should:
1. Be dynamic in nature
 resource assignment should be updated according to changes in the radio
environment
2. Achieve high resource utilization
Aim
pow.
B
3
2 C 1 2 3 freq.
1
1
A
1
A Desired Signal
B
Interference
2
3
1. Be dynamic in nature C
 resource assignment should be updated according to changes in the radio 3
environment
3. Be suitable for multi‐user deployments

PCC
 Each user in the same cell experiences different interference conditions
 CC allocation should be done according to the UE measurements
 Primary CC (PCC)
Aim
pow.
B
3
2 C 1 2 3 freq.
1
1 3
A
1 3 SCC
A Desired Signal
B
Interference
2
3
1. Be dynamic in nature
C
 resource assignment should be updated according to changes in the radio
environment 3
3. Be suitable for multi‐user deployments
 Each user in the same cell experiences different interference conditions
PCC
 CC allocation should be done according to the UE measurements
 Primary CC (PCC)
 Secondary CCs (SCC)
4. Be applicable to the networks
 with a central controller ‐ central approach
 without a central controller ‐ distributed approach
5. Be compatible with the LTE‐A systems
Two different approaches
Dynamic interference mitigation by resource partitioning
Central Approach Distributed Approach

Resources are assigned by a central  Resources are assigned autonomously by
controller BSs
 More efficient resource utilization than  Less complexity

the distributed approach
High signaling overhead
Needs extra signaling between the BSs Requires long time period to reach a stable
and the controller resource allocation
High computational complexity at the Low resource efficiency
controller
Central brain
• Interfering neighbor discovery:
B C Interference
Central
controller
 How does the controller assign resources to the BSs?
Central brain

 UE makes measurement
 Identifies its interfering neighbors according to a predefined SINR threshold
Feedback
B C Interference
A,C
A
Central
B controller
A centrally controlled graph based scheme

• BSs send cell IDs of the interfering neighbors to the central controller
Feedback
B C Interference
A,C Backhaul
A A
A, C Central
B controller
A B
A centrally controlled graph based scheme

• BSs send cell IDs of the interfering neighbors to the central controller
• The central controller maps this information into an interference graph where
 Each node corresponds a BS
 An edge connecting two nodes represents the interference between two BSs
Feedback
B C Interference B C
A,C Backhaul
A A
A, C Central
B controller A
A B
So what is graph coloring?
 Graph coloring is a way of coloring the vertices of a graph such that

no two adjacent vertices share the same color
 here, Node  BS; color  CC
25
20
15
10
distance (m)
−5
−10
−15
−20
−25
−20 −10 0 10 20
distance (m)
So what is graph coloring?
 Graph coloring is a way of coloring the vertices of a graph such that

no two adjacent vertices share the same color
 here, Node  BS; color  CC
25 25
1
20 20
3
15 15 6
10 10 2
5
distance (m)
distance (m)
5 5
4
3 3
0 0
2
1
−5 −5
3
−10 −10 3
4 1
−15 −15
3 2
−20 −20 1
−25 −25 4
−20 −10 0 10 20 −20 −10 0 10 20
distance (m) distance (m)
 Resources can be assigned dynamically

One CC per BS is inefficient, as, when the number of CCs increases, a lot of
bandwidth tends to be wasted
Inefficiencies in terms of resource utilization
How can we improve upon this?
pow.
E freq.
D A B
C
F
The recursive step
 Applying the graph coloring algorithm multiple times

 Identify CCs that can be assigned to BSs without causing undue
interference
pow.
E freq. E
D A B D A B
C C
F F
Being clever helps too
pow.
freq.
D A B
Resource efficiency : 5/15
 Identify the CC‐BS pairing which maximizes the resource efficiency
pow.
freq.
E E
D A B D A B
C C
Resource efficiency : 6/15 Resource efficiency : 5/15
 Identify the CC‐BS pairing which maximizes the resource efficiency

 CCs are assigned to BSs by using a cost function
pow.
freq.
E E E
D A B D A B D A B
C C C
Resource efficiency: 6/15 Resource efficiency : 5/15 Resource efficiency : 9/15
Graph based dynamic frequency reuse (GB‐
DFR)
• 1st Step:
 Apply the graph coloring algorithm smin times
– Where smin is the minimum number of CCs that must be allocated to
each BS
– Using the cost function, assign one CC to every BS in each iteration
(gains seen especially when the number of available CCs is high) –
doing so increases the reuse efficiency of the system
• 2nd Step:
 For each CC:
– Using the cost function again, identify the combination of BSs which
maximizes the utilization of this CC (example on slide 65)
• Advantages:
 Dynamic adaptation according to prevailing interference conditions
 Number of assigned CCs per BS is automatically adjusted depending
on the interference conditions
 Very low wastage of resources
 Low complexity and computational cost
Simulation Parameters
• 5x5 grid case
• Downlink only
• Only femto‐femto interference is
considered
Parameter Value
System bandwidth 20 MHz
Traffic model Full buffer
max BS power 10 dBm
Antenna gain 0 dBi
Fading model No fast fading
Activation ratio 0.5
Number of UEs per BS 1
Number of CCs 6 HeNB
SINR threshold 5 dB
UE
Performance Evaluation – CDF of SINR
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Reuse-1
0.1 Conv. Graph Col. (S=6)
GB-DFR (S=6)
0
-10 0 5 10 20 30 40 50
SINR [dB]
Performance Evaluation – CDF of User
Capacity
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Reuse-1
0.1 Conv. Graph Col. (S=6)
GB-DFR (S=6)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
User capacity [Mbps]
BS activation probability versus resource
utilization Probability that an
apartment contains an
active femto BS
100
Conv. Graph Col. (S = 6)
Percentage of Assigned Subbands
90 GB-DFR (S=6)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
BS Activation Probability p
Effect of SINR threshold on performance
12
5th percentile user capacity
5th and 10th Percentile User Capacity
10th percentile user capacity
10
Sweet spot
spots
8
 th= 10dB
 th= 5dB
4  th= 15dB
 th= 0dB
2
 th= 20dB
0
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Average User Capacity [Mbps]
Lessons learned
• Femto‐femto interference is a severe problem in femtocell networks
• Dynamic assignment of resources

– Decreases coverage holes
– Results in high resource utilization
• GB‐DFR attains a significant capacity improvement for cell‐edge UEs, at the

expense of a modest decrease for cell‐centre users
• Next section:
– Extending the GB‐DFR to the networks where BSs serve multiple UEs
– Fully distributed/autonomous approach
Two different approaches (recap)
Dynamic interference mitigation by resource partitioning
Central Approach Distributed Approach

Resources are assigned by a central  Resources are assigned autonomously by
controller BSs
 More efficient resource utilization than  Less complexity

the distributed approach
High signaling overhead
Needs extra signaling between the BSs Requires long time period to reach a stable
and the controller resource allocation
High computational complexity at the Low resource efficiency
controller
The decentralized technique – a summary
• Aim:
– Autonomously assign resources in unplanned wireless networks
– Balance high spatial reuse of radio resources with interference
protection for cell‐edge users
• The proposed method relies on UE measurements
– Dynamic adaptation to the interference conditions faced in random
deployments
• Less signaling overhead compared to existing LTE and LTE‐A signaling
procedures
• Can easily be adapted to work in either the time or the frequency domain
Resource assignment – who gets what?
pow.
1 2 3 freq.
A B
pow.
1 2 3 freq.
A B
C
Potential
interference path
• Dynamic interference environment

 Number and position of neighbors change during the
operation
 Fixed frequency planning is sub‐optimal
pow.
1 2 3 freq.
1 2
A B
A
1
3
B
C 2
Potential 3
interference path C
• Dynamic interference environment
3
operation
 Dynamic assignment of resources!
pow.
3
1 2 3 freq.
1 2
A B
A
1 3
3
B
C 2
Potential 3
interference path C
• Dynamic interference environment 3
operation
 Dynamic assignment of resources!
• Multi‐user deployment
 Users in the same cell experience different interference
conditions
 Resource assignment should depend on UE
measurements to maximize resource utilization
 Classify resources according to their foreseen usages
Not all CCs are created equal
• Reserved CC (RCC): 1
– Allocated to cell edge UEs 1 2
– Protected region A B
Potential
3 interference path
A 1
B
2
C
3
• Banned CC:
– Interfering neighbors are restricted to use Potential
3
the RCC allocated to the victim UE interference path
– This guarantees desired SINR at cell edge C
UEs
A 1 X
B
X2
C
XX3
• Banned CC:
– Interfering neighbors are restricted to use Potential
3
the RCC allocated to the victim UE interference path
– This guarantees desired SINR at cell edge C
UEs
• Auxiliary CC (ACC):
– Allocated to the UEs facing less interference
– Neighbors are not restricted A 1 X3
– Increases resource efficiency, especially, for
the multi‐user deployments B
X2
C
XX3
What is needed to get this to work?
1
1. IDs of interfering BSs (UE  Serving BS)
– Each UE can measure the received 1 2
A B
power from the BSs in its vicinity
– It identifies interfering BS IDs according
to the predefined SINR threshold 3 Potential
interference path
C
A 1
B
2
C
3
1. IDs of interfering BSs (UE  Serving BS)
– Each UE can measure the received
A B
power from the BSs in its vicinity
2, 3
– It identifies interfering BS IDs according 1, 3
to the predefined SINR threshold Potential
interference path
C Feedback from UE
A 1
B
2
C
3
1
2. RCC Indicator (BS  Interfering BS)
to B & C: to A & C:
– Used for preventing interfering Don’t use 1 1 2 Don’t use 2
A B
BSs to use the RCC allocated to
the victim UE
3 Potential
interference path
C RCC indicator
A 1 X
B
X2
C
XX3
3. SINR over each CC (UE  Serving BS)
– Each UE observes different SINR over each CC 1
– These measurements are used to find out which
1 2
CCs are available for transmission (as a RCC or A B
ACC) depending on the predefined SINR threshold
value
3 Potential
interference path
C
A 1 X
B
X2
C
XX3
Received SINR on each CC (cell A):
A B
1 2 3
+ - - + = over threshold
‐ = below threshold
+ + + = banned CC
Potential
interference path
Received SINR on each CC (cell B): C Feedback from UE
1 2 3
- + -
Received SINR on each CC (cell C):
1 2 3 A 1 X
+ + +
B
X2
C
XX3
Received SINR on each CC (cell A):
A B
1 2 3
+ - - + = over threshold
‐ = below threshold
+ + + = banned CC
Potential
interference path
Received SINR on each CC (cell B): C Feedback from UE
1 2 3
- + - next time slot
Received SINR on each CC (cell C):
1 2 3 A 1 X 1 X3
+ + +
B
X2 X2
C
XX3 XX3
Our latest acronym: Dynamic Autonomous
CC Assignment – DACCA
Our latest acronym: Dynamic Autonomous
CC Assignment – DACCA
 Event triggered
CCs configuration is updated
only if there is a change in the
interference environment
 All BSs are synchronized
with a time duration equal to
that of a so‐called ‘time slot’
 Between the starting
instances of two time slots,
the CC configuration remains
undisturbed
Simulation parameters
• 5x5 grid case and downlink direction is investigated
25
• Only interference between femto BSs is considered
20
• Statistics are taken at the end of 10th slot
15
• Three methods are compared:
 BS sniffing 1/4 and 2/4 10
 DACCA 5
0
Parameter Value -5
System bandwidth 40 MHz (4 x 10 MHz)
-10
Traffic model Full buffer
-15
Max. Tx Power per CC 20 dBm
-20
Antenna gain 0 dBi
-25
-20 -10 0 10 20
Shadowing std. dev. 10 dB
Activation ratio 0.2 Femto BS
Number of UEs per BS 4 (closed access) UE

SINR threshold 5 dB
CDF of SINR
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
BS Sniffing (1/4)
0.1 BS Sniffing (2/4)
DACCA
0
-20 -10 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
SINR [dB]
CDF of user capacity
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
BS Sniffing (1/4)
BS Sniffing (2/4)
0.1
DACCA
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
User capacity [Mbps]
Mean cell capacity versus user capacity
9 20%
BS Sniffing (1/4)
8
20% BS Sniffing (2/4)
DACCA
7
User Capacity [Mbps]
6 20% 10%
4 5%
10%
3
2 10%
1
5%
5%
0
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
Mean Cell Capacity[Mbps]
Convergence of the algorithm
80
Percentage of Assigned Resources
70 Percentage of Collisions (SINR<-10dB)
60 Allocated RBs / All RBs
50
Percentage
40
30
20
10
RBs Facing SINR below ‐10dB / Allocated RBs
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time Slot
Effect of SINR threshold
4
5 dB
10 dB
3.5
Cell Edge Capacity [Mbps]
0 dB
2.5
2 -5 dB
15 dB
1.5
50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Average Cell Capacity [Mbps]
Wrap up
• We have had a look at some fairly simple and backward‐compatible femto‐
macro interference mitigation techniques and studied their performance
• We have identified that the control channel is particularly susceptible to
interference – especially since it is so inflexible
• In particular, the most important control channel exhibits the worst
performance
• We have addressed this issue by proposing a clever interference mitigation
technique
• We then consider the case of femto‐femto interference
• We have had a look at an interference mitigation technique which relies
on a central controller
• We have then attempted to remove the central controller and see if that
works (it does)
Where do we go from here?
• Lots of interesting areas for further research
• Femtocells are not going anywhere
• Design of special air interfaces to deal especially with the interference
problem
• New ways of handling handovers
• Clever scheduling strategies with tight macro‐femto cooperation
• Femtocells with cognitive radio?
• MIMO?
• Etc.
Zubin Bharucha
bharucha@docomolab‐euro.com
DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 312 – 80687 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49 (89) 56824‐0 | www.docomolab‐euro.com
Copyright © 2012 DOCOMO Communications Laboratories Europe GmbH Infrastructure Research Group

LTE/LTE A Interference Coordination For Femtocells

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LTE/LTE A Interference Coordination For Femtocells

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Copyright © 2012

Ant. Config. LTE Rel. 8*1 LTE‐Advanced*2

• Relative Narrowband Transmit Power (RNTP) is exchanged between macro

Frequency-domain ICIC Time-domain ICIC

Cell layer Macro layer Cell layer

• Frequency‐domain ICIC for data channel is already supported from Rel‐8/9

(a) (b) (c)

• The PCFICH is important to protect because

• HeNB identifies most

• HeNB decodes dominant

• HeNB adjusts its own PCI

CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC5

• LTE-A makes use of carrier aggregation via the use of

 Interference between femtocells is a severe problem in densely deployed networks

 Vast variations of the interference conditions experienced by a BS during its operation

 Interference between femtocells is a severe problem in densely deployed networks

 Vast variations of the interference conditions experienced by a BS during its operation

2. Achieve high resource utilization

2. Achieve high resource utilization

3. Be suitable for multi‐user deployments

Central Approach Distributed Approach

 More efficient resource utilization than  Less complexity

• Interfering neighbor discovery:

• Interfering neighbor discovery:

• Interfering neighbor discovery:

• Interfering neighbor discovery:

 Graph coloring is a way of coloring the vertices of a graph such that

 Graph coloring is a way of coloring the vertices of a graph such that

 Resources can be assigned dynamically

 Applying the graph coloring algorithm multiple times

 Identify the CC‐BS pairing which maximizes the resource efficiency

 Identify the CC‐BS pairing which maximizes the resource efficiency

Resource efficiency: 6/15 Resource efficiency : 5/15 Resource efficiency : 9/15

• Femto‐femto interference is a severe problem in femtocell networks

• Dynamic assignment of resources

• GB‐DFR attains a significant capacity improvement for cell‐edge UEs, at the

Central Approach Distributed Approach

 More efficient resource utilization than  Less complexity

• Dynamic interference environment

Number of UEs per BS 4 (closed access) UE

You might also like

Ant. Config. LTE Rel. 81 LTE‐Advanced2