This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Preben Mogensen (1,2), Wei Na (1), István Z. Kovács (2), Frank Frederiksen (2) Akhilesh Pokhariyal (1), Klaus I. Pedersen (2), Troels Kolding (2), Klaus Hugl (3), and Markku Kuusela (3) (1) Aalborg University, Denmark (2) Nokia Networks – Aalborg, Denmark (3) Nokia Research Center, Helsinki, Finland
Abstract— In this paper we propose a modification to Shannon capacity bound in order to facilitate accurate benchmarking of UTRAN Long Term Evolution (LTE). The method is generally applicable to wireless communication systems, while we have used LTE air-interface technology as a case study. We introduces an adjusted Shannon capacity formula, where we take into account the system bandwidth efficiency and the SNR efficiency of LTE. Separating these issues, allows for simplified parameter extraction. We show that the bandwidth efficiency can be calculated based on system parameters, while the SNR efficiency is extracted from detailed link level studies including advanced features of MIMO and frequency domain packet scheduling (FDPS). We then use the adjusted Shannon capacity formula combined with G-factor distributions for macro and micro cell scenarios to predict LTE cell spectral efficiency (SE). Such LTE SE predictions are compared to LTE cell SE results generated by system level simulations. The results show an excellent match of less that 5-10% deviation. Index Terms—OFDMA, MIMO, Shannon Capacity, Wireless system and link performance, LTE.
combined with the G-factor distribution to predict LTE cell level spectral efficiency (SE). The G-factor distribution is defined as the average own cell power to the other-cell power plus noise ratio. With OFDMA in a wide system bandwidth this corresponds to the average wideband signal to interference plus noise power ratio (SINR).We compare such predicted LTE cell SE to similar results generated by an advanced quasistatic system level simulator. In the presented study we have used LTE downlink as an example, but the method is general and can be applied to other cellular wireless communications systems with fast link adaptation; e.g. HSPA and WIMAX. The organization of the paper is as follows: In Section II we give a short overview of the LTE performance requirements and continue with a short overview of the LTE air-interface technology. In Section III we propose the modification to the Shannon formulation and discuss how parameters relate to real system parameters. Before drawing conclusions in Section V, we conduct verification benchmarking of the proposed method with system simulations SE results in Section IV. II. LTE AIR INTERFACE TECHNOLOGY FOR DOWNLINK From the radio-interface point of view, clearly ambitious targets have been defined for LTE including : Scalable bandwidth from 1.25 up to 20 MHz, peak data rates up to 100 Mbps and 50 Mbps for downlink and uplink respectively, i.e. a capacity increase of 2-4 times HSPA/Rel. 6. During the Study Item phase of LTE in 3GPP, OFDMA was selected as the air interface solution for downlink and single carrier FDMA (SCFDMA) was selected for uplink . OFDMA/SC-FDMA have several advantages over WCDMA, including high bandwidth scalability, intra-cell orthogonally between users, suitability for simple receiver design even for multi-stream MIMO, and support for FDPS. Furthermore, OFDMA is suitable both for unicast and multicast transmission in DL. Fast link adaptation is facilitated through a large modulation and coding set (MCS) as well as single-stream/multi-stream MIMO transmission modes. The main physical parameters related to LTE downlink and our simulation setup are summarized in Table 1. Only a subset of the available LTE flexibility is considered here (e.g. system bandwidth and set of MCS). Several MIMO multi-antenna configurations are currently being considered for LTE. The default assumption is 2 Tx antennas at the eNodeB and 2 Rx antennas at the eUE, but up to 4 by 4 MIMO antenna configurations are being specified. In this study, we consider the following
In standardization forums, WCDMA has emerged as the most widely adopted third generation air interface technology for mobile communications. Since the first 1999 release of the WCDMA-based universal terrestrial radio access network (UTRAN), new features have been added such as high-speed downlink packet access (HSDPA) in Rel. 5 and high-speed uplink packet access (HSUPA) in Rel. 6. Today, packet optimized WCDMA has reached data rates in excess of 2 Mbps. In order to prepare for future needs, 3GPP initiated a study item (SI) in 2004 on the long term evolution (LTE) of UTRAN, which is clearly aiming beyond what the WCDMA air interface can do with HSDPA in downlink and HSUPA in uplink. The target of this paper is to analyze how the capacity of LTE downlink, including advanced features of frequency domain packet scheduler (FDPS) and multiple-input-multipleoutput (MIMO) Antenna technology, compares to the Shannon capacity bound. And visa versa, to formulate an approach for simplified benchmarking of systems based on the Shannon formulation. In order to benchmark LTE link-level performance versus Shannon capacity bound, we introduce two fitting parameters: the Bandwidth efficiency and the SNR efficiency. In a second step we use the fitted Shannon capacity
1550-2252/$25.00 ©2007 IEEE
we shall discuss its convenient use later in Section II. the noise/interference. the Shannon capacity is : min (nT . Channel model 6-tap Typical Urban Modulation and coding QPSK: 1/6. 3/4 64QAM: 1/2 . A.antenna/reception schemes besides from SISO and SIMO 2Rx maximum ratio combining (MRC): 2x2 space frequency coding (SFC) is Alamouti Space Time Coding applied on groups of two neighboring sub-carriers . non-linear etc). 7 data symbols per sub-frame. we have additional overhead related to common control channels.9. 3/4.814 . 2x2 SFC. as well as the allocated transmit power on that sub-channel. 1/3. This issue also impacts the SNR_eff.93 Pilot overhead 1. As earlier discussed there are also hard restrictions to the maximum spectral efficiency from the supported modulation. the BW occupancy is reduced to 0. 6. In other words. 64QAM. This overhead depends on the number of users to be simultaneously scheduled in a cell. Impairment Link: BW_eff System : BW_eff BW efficiency 0. coding and MIMO modes. . The transport block size in LTE is confined to 1 ms and the actual transport block size depends further on the link adaptation and scheduling decision. Rate 4/5 for the single stream case. Including the additional system level overhead. the LTE bandwidth efficiency of the shared data-channel becomes 57% (54% for MIMO). which is the reason why the pilot overhead is not included in the link performance BW efficiency but only in system BW level efficiency. SNR efficiency Full SNR efficiency is not plausible in LTE due to limited code block length. Parameter Value Carrier frequency 2 GHz System bandwidth 10 MHz OFDM parameters See 3GPP TR 25. It is thus outmost important to consider system BW efficiency when using Shannon to estimate the system performance of LTE. SIMO and. Link and system BW efficiency for LTE downlink with a 10 MHz system BW.715 Common control channels Total 0. HSDPA compliant Turbo Channel estimation Ideal Antenna schemes SISO.9 Cyclic Prefix 0. Furthermore there are performance aspects related to receiver algorithms (linear. BLAST. 2/3. Hence. To represent these loss mechanisms accurately. joint channel coding across antennas and MMSE receiver . 2/3. a non-negligible signaling overhead is related to the dynamic assignment of resources for each 1ms TTI.83 0.9 0. 1/2. System bandwidth efficiency The bandwidth efficiency of LTE is reduced by several Further. see Table 1. The overhead listed in Table 2 corresponds to a simultaneously scheduling in the order of 10 users in 10 MHz.g. at the system level. 1 ms TTI. However. As shown in Table 2. the more essential control signaling overhead in LTE is related to the shared control channel: To support fast frequency domain link adaptation and scheduling. Due to requirements to Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio (ACLR) and practical filter implementation.94 Dedicated & N. For general MIMO with perfect transmitted knowledge. the value for SNR_eff in Eq. 4/5 Encoding scheme Rel. LTE downlink physical layer parameters. we use a modified Shannon capacity formula: S(bits/s/Hz) = BW _ eff ⋅η ⋅ log 2 (1 + SNR / SNR _ eff ) (3) Here BW_eff adjusts for the system bandwidth (BW) efficiency of LTE and SNR_eff adjusts for the SNR implementation efficiency of LTE. (3). 0. 2/3 set (MCS) 16QAM: 1/2 . such as synchronization and broadcast channels. 2x2 V-BLAST with equal power allocation across transmit antennas. 6 (CLM1) with 2 bit feedback per antenna weight (feed-back weights is optimized per 2 resource blocks.0 0. Otherwise the estimated results will be approx.93 0. the extracted link-level bandwidth efficiency is about 83%. short cyclic prefix. The factor η is a correction factor which nominally should be equal to one. and closed loop mode 1 in Rel. The overhead of the cyclic prefix is approximately 7% and the overhead of pilot assisted channel estimation is approximately 6% for single antenna transmission . The Shannon Capacity bound in Eq (1) can not be reached in practice due to several implementation issues. a factor of x2 off from reality! B. which give almost full FDPS gain . However.57 III. Table 2. SHANNON CAPACITY FITTING Recall the SISO Shannon capacity formula for the theoretical channel spectral efficiency as a function of SNR: (1) S max (bits/s/Hz) = log 2 (1 + SNR ) This formula is valid for infinite delay and infinite code block size in an AWGN channel . e. CLM1 Speed 10 km/h issues listed in Table 2.a.nR ) (2) S max (bits/s/Hz) = log 2 (1 + SNRk ) ∑ k =1 Here nT and nR denote the number of transmit and receive antennas respectively and SNRk denotes the resulting SNR of the kth spatial sub-channel which is influenced by the eigenvalue. It should be noticed that we in the study have used ideal channel estimation. 1235 . we extract by using curve fitting to link-level simulation results. For dual antenna transmission the overhead is approximately doubled to 11%. Furthermore we upper limit S according to the hard spectral efficiency given by MCS.B. the SNR efficiency is much more complicated to analytically compute than the bandwidth efficiency. Table 1.
5 4 SE [bit/s/Hz/cell] 3. 0 -5 0 5 The above discussion raises a choice of what approach to use for predicting system performance with the modified Shannon formula. LTE SE as function of G-factor (in dB) including curves for best Shannon fit.g. For all figures in this paper.83 obtained from Table 2. For SISO it can be observed that the best Shannon fit parameters 1236 . 1. An example from Fig. The results are provided for the aforementioned antenna schemes listed in Table 1 and for the Typical Urban (TU) and AWGN channels. For AWGN. Only valid for high G-factor 15 A W GN S IS O_TU S IM O_TU S FC_TU CLM1_TU SNR_eff [dB] 10 5 Fig. but it is still a convenient approach to map the link efficiency to system level analysis as shall be shown in Section IV. the bandwidth efficiency should relate to the physical system parameters (η=1) and SNR efficiency should be extracted in details versus the UE operating conditions. MIMO Tx Rx Diversity Array Effective Schemes Ant.83. η=0. From approx -2dB to 2dB we get best performance. which provides maximum frequency diversity. On the other hand the block size is so small that it starts to severely decrease the coding efficiency i. As can be seen.5 3 2. Here the encoding block size is sufficiently large and the coding rate is still very low (e. at lower G-factor than -2dB. we extract the best value for SNR_eff using the setting for BW_eff of 0. we achieve a visibly almost perfect fit to the link simulation results. the latter approach somewhat violates the main idea of basing the analysis on pure physical effects and the modified Shannon formula.25~1dB provides the best fit to the link adaptation curve. where the performance is degraded by the frequency selective fading over the OFDM symbols.75. the array gain.6dB 1 CLM1 (2x2) 2 1 -3dB 2 BLAST (2x2. there is nevertheless a minor discrepancy in both ends of the G-factor dynamic range. For the SISO channel.6) Shannon(0. and hence the SNR_eff increases significantly. the Shannon fitting parameters are indicated in parenthesis as (BW_eff*η. Turbo-decoding performance reduces significantly with the higher variability. 1. Keeping a physical entry point. It is shown later that we can circumvent this G-factor dependency on the parameters by using the fudge factor η. 5 4. 3 we show the SE results versus G-factor from LTE link level studies and the best Shannon fit. Gain mechanisms of various LTE DL antenna configurations. 1. increase in SNR_eff. 2. and effective number of spatial streams for the antenna configurations. Eq (3).e. Ant. the dependency is much more pronounced for TU channel.83 and look at the optimal extracted SNR_eff versus G-factor. For higher G-factor than approx 2dB. Now. The reason for this is that the SNR_eff is not constant but changes with G-factor. We can observe that LTE is performing less than 1. While for AWGN there is almost no dependency. In the fitting.5 1 0. It should be noted that the analytical array gain is explicitly considered when extracting SNR_eff for the best Shannon fit. SNR_eff). However.5 0 -5 0 5 10 15 20 G-Factor [dB] 2 LTE AWGN Shannon(0. Of course. 2 LMMSE)* *: the array gain of -3dB can be theoretically up to 0dB if ideal nonlinear interference cancellation receiver is used. 2. Table 3. 1.75) and SNR_eff =1. In Fig.6~2 dB off from the Shannon capacity bound.83. The ‘stair’ steps in the AWGN curve correspond to each of the MCS defined in Table 1. Order Gain Spatial (dB) streams 1 1 1 0dB 1 SISO (1x1) 1 2 2 3dB 1 SIMO (1x2) 2 2 4 3dB 1 SFC (2x2) 2 2 4 4. The results for the SNR_eff vs. we are considering the fixed setting of the BW_eff of 0. Using the G-factor dependent SNR_eff by introducing BW_eff*η.5 1. we have also shown above that the required variability on the SNR_eff may be artificially moved outside of the log2() expression and be multiplied with the bandwidth efficiency (η<1) for best fit over the complete G-factor range.25) steadily increases due to using higher order modulation and higher coding rates. the SNR_eff 10 15 20 25 G-factor [dB ] Fig. Bandwidth efficiency is set to 0. 1/3). the coding rate is very low and provides essential frequency diversity.9 (BW_eff*η=0.The simulation and fitting results for an AWGN channel are shown in Fig. 2. Extracted SNR efficiency versus G-factor for different schemes and channel conditions. G-factor are given in Fig. In Table 3 we list the analytical diversity order. We have shown the simulated link adaptation curve for LTE assuming the MCS steps given in Table 1.
0000 bit/s/Hz 4.62. over the cell area.are significantly worsened compared to AWGN: the BW_eff *η has reduced from 0. To map these results to system level performance.0000 0.1. 5-6 dB for 2x2 SFC.66.0000 0. it can also be observed that the combined array & diversity gain of 1x2 SIMO is approx 4-5 dB over SISO. C. and approximately 7-8 dB for 2x2 CLM1.5000 0. Assuming uniform user distribution. The mach is not perfect but sufficiently close for practical purpose.2) 0dB 1 SISO (0. The mapping from the Shannon SE curves and G-factor distribution to cell capacity can be written as: Cell _ SE = ∞ −∞ ∫ SE (G) * PDF (G )dG . A significant gain from FDPS over RR can be identified. The distributions are obtained by deploying Macro Cell and Micro Cell hexagonal cellular layouts according to .83. (3). we have captured the performance of LTE in terms of the link SE versus G-factor including essential features such as multi-antenna and multi-user scheduling gains.56.0.8) Shannon(0.0000 1. From Fig. 8. 1.67. SIMO(1x2). but changing from 1 to 2 spatial streams according to Table 3.5000 2.0000 LTE SISO LTE SIMO LTE SFC LTE BLAST LTE CLM1 Shannon(0. as it does not consider receiver 1237 .8) (0.66. IV. For BLAST.56.0000 3.56. 0.1) G>10: Shannon(0.5000 4.9) na 3dB 3dB 4. while TDPS provides relatively less gain due to a large system bandwidth relative to the coherence bandwidth. Using Eq.0000 Fig.0000 4. 3. The probability density function of G is obtained from Figure 5.0000 2. (3).5000 SE [bit/s/Hz] 3.0000 -10 -5 0 5 G-Factor [dB] 10 15 20 LTE SIMO RR LTE SIMO (FDPS) LTE SIMO (TDPS) Shannon(0.6dB -3dB 1 1 1 2 5. In terms of cell SE.1. (4) where the SE as a function of G SE(G) is computed from Eq. For reference purpose we also show the Shannon fit for AWGN. The best Shannon fit curves are plotted with parameters (BW_eff*η. It is assumed that all users have equal session times (e.0000 2. 4. The gain of FDPS over RR of 4.75. 1.78) Shannon(0. Table 4.83 to 0. 1.0. this assumption is conservative. 1.95) (0. time-domain (TDPS). (3) (also applying a hard limitation on maximum SE due to MCS limitations).56 (η=0. “Shannon(0. LTE SE for 1x2 MRC with round robin (RR). the obtained G-factors for the LTE capacity evaluation are plotted in Figure 5.0000 1. SE for SISO(1x1). the gain from diversity order 2 is approx 1-2 dB and approx. FDPS also reduces the SNR variability across the OFDM symbol to one user.0000 -10 -5 0 5 10 G-factor [dB] 15 20 25 30 2x2 CLM1 2x2 BLAST* Fig.83. 1. 220.127.116.11.8) Shannon(0. see Table 4.0000 3. which improves the Turbodecoding performance and hence the SNR_eff.78) (0.6) (0.4) (0.25) 3dB 1 AWGN (SIMO) (0.5-5 dB comes from the user selection diversity providing an “array gain” since each UE is allocated only on the best 1/UDO of the bandwidth on average.4) Shannon(0.2) (0. In the previous Sections.62) SIMO 2x2 SFC (0.65. Eq. infinite buffer assumption). 4 shows the SIMO link performance of LTE for Round Robin (RR) and time-domain packet scheduling (TDPS) based on the proportional fair (PF) principle  plus the PF-based FDPS . 2) 5.0. PDF(G). 2) Shannon(0. SNR_eff).1.62.0000 6. Explicit Spatial RR FDPS Array gain streams (0.62. The user diversity order (UDO) is 10 for TDPS and FDPS.5000 1. 1. as a function of G-Factor. 3. Summary of best Shannon fit parameters (BW_eff*η.56. we need to consider the G-factor distribution.6) and the SNR_eff parameter is increased from 1. 2-3 dB for diversity order 4. and time/frequency-domain packet scheduling (FDPS). SNR_eff).6)”.6~2dB dB to 2~3dB. we selected to model the performance as two curves: For G < 10 we use SFC fitting parameters and for G>10 we use the SISO fitting parameters. Fast packet scheduling Fast Time and Frequency Domain Packet Scheduling (FDPS) is a feature in LTE to obtain multi-user diversity . (3) for multi-cell scenario presumes further that other-cell interference can be modeled as AWGN.75. 0.25) (0. Comparing these results to Table 3. Eq.67. Simultaneously. The parameters for the best Shannon fit curves for the different considered antenna schemes in combination with RR and FDPS combinations are summarized in Table 4.1.g.6) 7. BLAST (2x2) and CLM1(2x2).62. SFC (2x2). Fig. LTE SYSTEM CAPACITY ESTIMATION.
V.2RX BLAST (RR)    Fig.57/0. V7.68 in order to account for the same system-level overhead. “Performance of Downlink Frequency Domain Packet Scheduling For the UTRAN Long Term Evolution. “Collected Papers”.2 1 0. 6 shows the Cell SE computed from Eq. results from Eq. Helsinki. T. Techn. 2 1. P. E. N.Sep. Mogensen. labeled “Link results”. The system simulator includes the same advanced features of FDPS and MIMO techniques as discussed in Section III. see Table 2. on Vehic.. Pokhariyal. Teletar.8 0. It can be observed from Fig. . 6.6 1.83=0.E. we also scale the BW_eff in the best Shannon fit (by a factor 0.structure with the capability to cancel or reject other-cell interference. TR 25. This was done for both AWGN. C.. Effective SNR mapping for modeling frame error rates in multiple-state channels. TR 25. 6.. Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications. pp. 3GPP TSG RAN#28. “Capacity of multi-antenna Gaussian channels. labeled “Shannon fit” compared to results from a semi-static system level simulator. Comparison of cell Spectral Efficiency from “Shannon Fit” parameters. both when using “Shannon fit” and “Link results”. Shannon. Wei.0.8 1. Tdoc RP-050384 3GPP. (4). 6 that there is very good match between the cell SE results from the system simulator and the  1238 . Such as: Higher order sectorization (change G-Factor distribution). B. 2) SISO (RR) 1TX-2RX (RR) 1TX-2RX (FDPS) TX scheme 2TX-2RX SFC (RR) 2TX.. The results for Macro cell scenario case #1 are almost fits within +/.814. 1993 E. The system simulator uses EESM mapping of subcarrier SINR to compute effective SINR per transport block  and we have modeled an MMSE receiver and Maximal Ratio Combining (MRC) to avoid the interference cancellation issue.0 (2006-06). For generation of the cell SE results.6 0. IEEE press. C.4 SE [bps/Hz] 1.” The 17th Annual IEEE International Symposium on Personal. A. Ericsson. the Shannon fit method can be applied to fast prediction of the cell SE including various features and aspects not considered in the paper. “Baseline E-UTRA Downlink Spectral Efficiency Evaluation. vol. Fig.913 version 2.0 `` Requirements for Evolved UTRA and UTRAN ''. E. REFERENCES    3GPP technical Report.” European Trans. Canada. results from semi-static “system simulations” and using the raw link simulation results. labeled “System Simulator”. 5.5%. 2006. (4). etc. The link-level results show that LTE DL with ideal channel estimation performs only approx 2dB from Shannon Capacity in AWGN. Edit by Sloane & Wyner. “Physical Layer Aspects for Evolved UTRA”. 1999. Thus. June 1-3. For comparison we also show the SE results when using the raw link simulation results rather than the Shannon fit.-Dec. whereas we observed up to 10% difference for the micro-cell scenario (not shown in the plot). 585–595.2 0 System simulation Shannon fit (Table 4) Link results (Fig. Nov.” IEEE Conf. A. 3GPP2-C30-20030429-010.1. Priyanto. and for the TU channel including features of advanced antenna techniques and fast time and frequency domain packet scheduling (FDPS). 2006. Fig. Canada. 2005. Pokhariyal.4 0. Kolding. Quebec. Telecommun. CONCLUSIONS In this paper we have assessed the performance of LTE DL including the effects of system bandwidth efficiency and the SNR efficiency. or to include loss from real channel estimation (change of Shannon fit parameter). Macro cell case#1 . Rom. We show that FDPS compensates for the fading loss by providing multi-user diversity gain. whereas the deviation between Shannon and LTE become much larger for a TU fading channel even for the SIMO case. Montreal. Sep. G-factor CDFs for different evaluation scenarios for DL LTE. E. We furthermore demonstrate that cell capacity results can be accurately estimated from the suggested modified Shannon formula and a G-Factor distribution according to a certain cellular scenario.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.