LINK BUDGET OF cdma2000 1xEV-DO WIRELESS INTERNET ACCESS SYSTEM

Peter J. Black and Qiang Wu QUALCOMM Incorporated, 5775 Morehouse Drive, San Diego, CA 92121 Abstract - This paper presents the analysis and simulation results for a 1xEV-DO link budget. The traditional fixed rate CDMA link budget calculation has been extended to include link adaptation and multi-user diversity gains. The main conclusion is that 1xEV-DO provides a link budget advantage over IS-95-A of approximately 10 dB on the forward link and 1.5 dB on the reverse link. Keywords Link budget, cell coverage, rate adaptation, multi-user diversity, 1xEV-DO, IS-856, cdma2000. I. INTRODUCTION The cdma2000 1xEV-DO standard, also known as IS-856 [1], is developed to provide spectrally efficient packet data services for wide area wireless Internet access. Due to the asymmetric characteristic of this type of services, the forward link is the more critical link. By utilizing technologies such as virtual soft handoff, rate control, hybrid-ARQ and multi-user diversity, the 1xEV-DO system achieves a spectral efficiency of approximately 1bit/chip/sector on the forward link for a mix of mobile/portable users [2]. An additional advantage of the efficient waveform designs is the improved link budget or cell coverage, which will be investigated in this paper. A link budget determines the maximum allowable path loss of a given communication link. For wireless systems, it is simply the difference between the transmitter EIRP and the receiver sensitivity, plus receiver antenna gain and less fade margin, building penetration loss and body (or cable) loss (all in decibel scale). Given a certain transmitter power and antenna gain, one observes certain maximum radiation intensity. The transmitter EIRP is the effective input power to a hypothetical isotropic antenna that achieves such radiation intensity in any direction. It is a function of transmitter power, transmitter antenna gain and cable (or body) loss. In other words, the transmitter EIRP is calculated as follows,
Transmitter EIRP (dBm) = Transmitter Power (dBm) + Tx Antenna Gain (dBi) - Cable (or Body) Loss (dB)

The required Ior/No or average Eb/No is a common measure of modem efficiency, which will be discussed in the following sections (Standard CDMA terms and conventions have been used, for definitions refer to [3]).

II.

FORWARD TRAFFIC CHANNEL LINK BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS

This section summarizes the assumptions and method used to derive the required Ior/No to achieve a certain forward link user throughput for a given geometry and under worst-case fading conditions. A. Geometry A mobile at the edge of one base station's coverage is very likely to be also covered by a neighboring base station. As such the model assumes 2-way soft handoff with equal path loss from the two candidate serving base stations. The cochannel interference is represented by a third cell 6dB down. Therefore, the total noise and interference power spectrum density is No+1.25Ior. Total sector throughput is simulated versus Ior/No based on the above geometry. Given that the total sector throughput assumes 100% of the available time slots, the single user throughput is derived from scaling the sector throughput by the serving fraction for the user. B. Forward Link User Throughput For the IS-95-A Code Division Multiplex approach at the fixed data rate of 9.6kbps, the traffic channel power on average is typically not allowed to exceed 12.7dB of the BTS power (average traffic channel gain). The forward link budget calculation for IS-95-A assumes 2-way power combined soft handoff, thus, the effective traffic channel power normalized to a single serving sector is 9.7dB of the BTS power (equivalent to 10.72%). Assuming 30% of power dedicated to pilot, paging and sync channel overhead this is equivalent to 15.3% of the available traffic channel power. Given the 1xEV-DO forward traffic channel is variable rate, time division multiplexed and uses selection diversity soft handoff, a fair link budget comparison would be for the same average user throughput of 9.6kbps and with the same serving fraction of the traffic channel time slots. In a 1xEV-DO system, taking into account the control channel overhead, 15.3% of the available traffic channel slots is equivalent to 14.3% of the total serving slots. All results are presented as aggregate sector throughput, which assumes 100% of serving slots are utilized, therefore the user throughput is calculated as 14.3% of the sector throughput.

The receiver sensitivity denotes the minimum signal level at the antenna connector required to close the communication link at a given data rate and under the worstcase fading channel, i.e.,
Receiver Sensitivity (dBm) = Thermal Noise (dBm/Hz) + (Ior/No)req(dB) + Bandwidth(dB-Hz)

It can also be expressed as,

Receiver Sensitivity (dBm) = Thermal Noise (dBm/Hz) + (Eb/No)req(dB) + Data Rate(dB-Hz)

0-7803-7589-0/02/$17.00 2002 IEEE

PIMRC 2002

C. Fading Channel For the purpose of the link budget calculation, only the worst-case fading channel that corresponds to the highest required Ior/No is of interest. The following ITU channel models are simulated: Pedestrian A and B, Vehicular A, and Rice [4]. D. Multi-user Diversity Gain The single user simulations assume 100% of the serving time is dedicated to one user. An N user simulation, with all the users at the same geometry, is also run to take into account the multi-user diversity gain achieved through packet scheduling [2] serving of users at local peaks in SINR subject to fairness criterion. In all cases sector throughput versus Ior/No is plotted. For a given user throughput, the difference between the required Ior/No for the single user case and the N user case indicates the gain achieved by multi-user diversity. The multi-user network simulation is limited to the case of N=4 users (The multiuser gain increases with the number of simultaneous active users. The link budget comparison assumes 14.3% or 1/7 of the serving slots. The choice of N=4 yields a conservative multi-user gain estimate). E. Rx Diversity Gain For mobiles with dual receive antennas the receive diversity gain is included. An N dual-antenna user simulation, with all the users at the same geometry, is run to take into account receive diversity gain. For a given user throughput, the difference between the required Ior/No for N single-antenna user case and the required Ior/No per antenna for N dual-antenna user case indicates the gain achieved by receive diversity. F. Example: Multi-user and Rx Diversity Gain The forward link sector throughput vs. Ior/No for a single user with single antenna is shown in Fig. 2.1, for N=4 users with single antenna is shown in Fig. 2.2, and for N=4 users with dual antennas is shown in Fig. 2.3. The worst case fading condition occurs in the PedA 3km/hr channel for single user case and in the VehA 30km/hr channel for the multi-user case. The worst case is found from Figs. 2.1-2.3 as the rightmost curve for a sector throughput of 67.1 kbps. This corresponds to a user throughput of 9.6 kbps assuming a 14.3% fraction of serving time. The corresponding required Ior/No per antenna are -5.0dB, -7.0dB and -11.6dB for single user link, N-user network and N-user network with dual receive antennas, respectively. As a result, the multi-user diversity gain equals 2.0dB and the receive diversity gain equals 4.6dB (excluding multi-user diversity gain). III. FORWARD CONTROL CHANNEL LINK BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
1000

Geometry: {Ior, Ior, 0.25Ior}, Single Antenna, 1 User

Sector Throughput (kbps)

100

channel 1 (PedA, 1 path, 3kmph) channel 2 (PedB, 3 paths, 10kmph) channel 3 (VehA, 2 paths, 30kmph) channel 4 (PedA, 1 path, 120kmph) channel 5 (Rice, K=10dB, 0.826kmph)

10 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Ior/No

Fig. 2.1 Single User Link Simulations

Geometry: {Ior, Ior, 0.25Ior}, Single Antenna, 4 Users
1000

Sector Throughput (kbps)

100 channel 1 (PedA, 1 path, 3kmph) channel 2 (PedB, 3 paths, 10kmph) channel 3 (VehA, 2 paths, 30kmph) channel 4 (PedA, 1 path, 120kmph) channel 5 (Rice, K=10dB, 0.826kmph)

10 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Ior/No

Fig. 2.2 N-user Network Simulations (N=4)

Geometry: {Ior, Ior, 0.25Ior}, Dual Antenna, 4 Users
10000

Sector Throughput (kbps)

1000

100

channel 1 channel 2 channel 3 channel 4 channel 5

(PedA, 1 path, 3kmph) (PedB, 3 paths, 10kmph) (VehA, 2 paths, 30kmph) (PedA, 1 path, 120kmph) (Rice, K=10dB, 0.826kmph)

10 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8

Ior/No per antenna

Fig. 2.3 N-user Network Simulations with Dual Receive Antenna Diversity (N=4) In this section, we derive the required Ior/No to ensure a reliable Forward Control Channel transmitted at a fixed data

rate of 38.4kbps or 76.8kbps. The same geometry as specified in Section 2 is used and a packet error rate of 2% is targeted under the worst case fading condition. Since the Control Channel is a broadcast channel the multi-user diversity gain does not apply. Figs. 3.1 and 3.2 show the Forward Control Channel PER versus Ior/No at 38.4kbps for single antenna case and dual antenna case, respectively. Figs. 3.3 and 3.4 show the Forward Control Channel PER versus Ior/No at 76.8kbps for single antenna case and dual antenna case, respectively. In Figs. 3.1 and 3.2, only the worst-case channels at 3km/hr are shown. For 38.4kbps, the worst case occurs in PedA 3km/hr for single antenna case and PedB 3km/hr for dual antenna case. The required Ior/Nos are 4.0dB and -8.0dB, respectively. As a result, for the Control Channel transmitted at 38.4kbps the Rx diversity gain equals 12.0dB. Since the assumed geometry sets a limit on Ior/Nt equal to Ior/1.25Ior, the Control Channel transmitted at 76.8kbps cannot achieve a 2% PER for single antenna and the worst channel condition of PedA 3km/hr. For the Control Channel operating at 76.8kbps in the dual antenna case, the required Ior/No for 2% PER is -4.5 dB under the worst-case channel of PedA 3km/hr. For the single antenna case, given the worst case channel condition and an Ior/No of 4.0 dB, the Control Channel achieves a 2% PER at 38.4kbps, and a 6% PER at 76.8kbps.
Geometry: {Ior, Ior, 0.25Ior}, Single Antenna, Fixed Rate at 38.4kbps

Geometry: {Ior, Ior, 0.25Ior}, Dual Antenna, Fixed Rate at 38.4kbps

1

PedA 3kmph
0.1

PedB 3kmph

PER
0.01 0.001 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Ior/No per antenna

Fig. 3.2 Dual Receive Antenna, 38.4 kbps

Geometry: {Ior, Ior, 0.25Ior}, Single Antenna, Fixed Rate 76.8kbps
1

0.1

PER
0.01

PedA 3kmph PedB 3kmph 120kmph 1pth

0.001 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Ior/No
PedA 3kmph PedB 3kmph

Fig. 3.3 Single Receive Antenna, 76.8kbps

Geometry: {Ior, Ior, 0.25Ior}, Dual Antenna, Fixed Rate at 76.8kbps

0.1

PER

0.01

PedA 3kmph PedB 3kmph

0.1

120kmph 1pth

0.001 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

Ior/No

PER
0.01

Fig. 3.1 Single Receive Antenna, 38.4kbps IV. REVERSE TRAFFIC CHANNEL LINK BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS
0.001 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4

Ior/No per antenna

In this section, we derive the required average Eb/No to ensure reliable operation of the Reverse Traffic Channel under 50% system load, worst-case fading channel, and a target PER of 2%. A. Dual Receive Antennas Dual receive antennas at the base station receiver is assumed. For the link budget calculation, the required average Eb/No per antenna is the parameter of interest. Therefore, in the following sections the average Eb/No refers to the average Eb/No per antenna.

Fig. 3.4 Dual Receive Antenna, 76.8kbps B. % Power for the Data Channel The Reverse Traffic Data Channel of the 1xEV-DO system transmits at a fraction of the total transmitter power. For the purpose of link budget calculation, the data channelEb/No is scaled by 1/ to obtain the totalEb/No. SuchEb/No is the ratio of the total energy (including pilot,

DRC and ACK) received per information bit to the thermal noise power spectrum density. C. System Load The requiredEb/No is obtained assuming no system load, which is defined by Io/(No+Io). The effective system load is included through a system load margin, which is calculated by -10Log10 (1-system load). In IS-95-A link budget calculations it is customary to assume a 50% system load. D. No Power Control A link budget derives the maximum allowable path loss for which link closure can occur. In this case it is assumed that a mobile unit is transmitting at the maximum power level, effectively disabling the effects of power control. E. 2-way Soft Handoff A mobile at the cell edge is very likely covered by a neighboring base station, in which case the 1xEV-DO system would place such a mobile in soft handoff. Since the reverse link employs selection diversity on a frame-byframe basis, it combats not only shadowing but also multipath fading. A reconstructed frame in the switching center is in error only if both reverse link frames are in error. Thus, the requiredEb/No is determined by noting where the product of the two reverse link PERs is at the specified operating point. As an example, if the overall target PER is 2%, each link can have 14% PER. This effect provides a significant gain in slow speed conditions. F. Differential Fade Margin The 14% target PER calculation explicitly assumes the two soft handoff links are equally balanced. Such an assumption maximizes the selection diversity gain on the two multi-path fading processes. However, the standard 4.1dB selection soft handoff gain [5] for shadowing only guarantees the better link and implicitly allows a differential between the links. As a result, the soft handoff gain is overstated relative to the equal path requiredEb/No. The differential path loss can be included in the soft handoff gain by defining the outage criterion as the set of pairs ofEb/No for each link such that the product of the link PERs is equal to the target. For the worse case PedA curve shown in Fig. 4.1 and given a 0.5 correlation between the shadowing process for each link, the required fade margin is increased by 2.1dB. This reduction is referred to as the differential fade margin. Fig. 4.1 shows the Reverse Traffic Channel PER versus pilotEc/Nt (or pilotEc/No at no system load in which situation Nt = No). The worst case occurs in the PedA 3km/hr channel. In this case, the required pilotEc/No is 22.5 dB. This assumes a 9.6 kbps link, a 14% PER, no power control and no system load. We can derive the totalEb/No per antenna as:
DataGain DRCGain ACKGain E b E c, p W = + 10 log + 10 log1 + 10 10 + 10 10 + 10 10 N0 N0 R

All the gains in the above equation define the relative power levels of the corresponding channels to the pilot channel. We will assume DataGain = 3.75 dB for 9.6kbps, DRCGain = -3.0 dB (with DRCLength = 4 slots under the soft handoff geometry assumed) and ACKGain = 4.0 dB [2]. Using these gain values and pilotEc/No = -22.5 dB in the above equation returns a totalEb/No = 6.6 dB, which is required to achieve a 2% effective PER at the data rate of 9.6kbps under no system load. With careful selection of the data to pilot channel gains all reverse link data rates achieve similar PER for the same value of pilotEc/Nt and therefore Fig. 4.1 can be applied to all reverse link data rates. Table 4.1 shows the required totalEb/No for each reverse link data rate, assuming once again an unloaded system and a 2% PER. As observed, higher data rates come with lower relative overhead of the Pilot, DRC and ACK Channels, and thus result in lower required totalEb/No under the same required data channelEb/No. In the case of 153.6kbps, the higherEb/No is due to the reduced coding gain provided by the Rate 1/2 vs. the Rate 1/4 code used in all the lower rates.
10
0

9.6 kbps, r=1/4, Traffic Gain = 3.75 dB, No Power Control, 2 RX Antennas PED. A 3km/h, 10% PER =>21.4dB PED. B 3km/h, 10% PER =>21.8dB VEH. A 120km/h, 10% PER =>24.1dB VEH. B 120km/h, 10% PER =>23.6dB

10

PER
10
2

10 25

24

23

22

21 20 19 18 Avg. Pilot Ec/Nt per Antenna, dB

17

16

15

Fig 4.1 Reverse Traffic Channel PER at fixed data rate of 9.6kps with power control off
Table 4.1 The required totalEb/No @ no system load Data Rate (bps) 9,600 19,200 38,400 76,800 153,600 DataGain (dB) 3.75 6.75 9.75 13.25 18.5 Required total 6.62 4.98 3.84 3.55 5.27 Eb/No per antenna (dB)

V.

LINK BUDGET CALCULATION

The link budget for a 1xEV-DO system is derived and compared with that of an IS-95-A system under the condition of equal effective served rate. Since service providers may want to deploy 1xEV-DO systems using the same network plans as IS-95-A but on a separate carrier frequency, it is also of interest to derive the 1xEV-DO forward user throughput under an IS-95-A link budget.

The Forward Traffic Channel and Control Channel in 1xEV-DO find their counterparts in IS-95-A as the Forward Traffic Channel and Paging Channel. In the following we show the link budgets for both traffic channels and control (paging) channels for both systems. A. Comparison between 1xEV-DO and IS-95-A Forward Traffic Channel Link Budgets From Tables 5.1 and 5.2 we find that the 1xEV-DO link budget for the Forward Traffic channel is 147.7 dB for the single antenna case and 152.3 dB for the dual antenna case. This is derived assuming a 9.6 kbps user throughput, 14.3% serving fraction of time, and 90% probability of cell edge coverage. The corresponding value for an IS-95 traffic channel is found in Table 5.3 to be 138.2 dB, in which case we again assume 90% edge coverage, 9.6 kbps, and an effective traffic channel gain of 9.7 dB. 1xEV-DO provides approximately 10 dB link budget gain over IS-95-A on the forward link. Under the IS-95-A link budget (138.2 dB), a 1xEV-DO single receive antenna terminal would achieve a long-term average forward user throughput of 32.2kbps or equivalently a short-term average burst rate of 225kbps. The 1xEV-DO dual receive antenna terminals would achieve long-term average forward user throughput of 70.8kbps or equivalent short-term burst rate of 495kbps. B. Comparison between 1xEV-DO and IS-95-A Control/Paging Channel Link Budgets From Table 5.3, we can conclude that with 20% of the transmitter power allocated to the Paging Channel and a 10% target PER, the IS-95-A Paging Channel link budget is 134.2 dB, 4 dB lower than that of the IS-95-A Forward Traffic Channel. While for the 1xEV-DO Control Channel, under the IS95-A Forward Traffic Channel link budget, 2% PER is ensured at receiver for 38.4kpbs and 76.8kbps with dual receive antenna diversity. With single receive antenna, for the Control Channel transmitted at 38.4kbps and 76.8kbps, a 3% PER and a 7% PER are ensured, respectively, under the IS-95-A Forward Traffic Channel link budget. C. Comparison between 1xEV-DO and IS-95-A Reverse Link Budgets From table 5.4, we conclude that for 90% cell edge coverage and data rates 9.6kbps and 19.2kbps, the 1xEVDO reverse link budgets are 135.3dB and 133.9dB, respectively. While for IS-95-A, for 90% cell edge coverage of the data rate at 9.6kpbs, the reverse link budget is 133.9 dB. 1xEV-DO provides approximately 1.5 dB link budget gain over IS-95-A on the reverse link. The service providers can plan an 1xEV-DO network for adequate coverage of reverse link data rate at 19.2kpbs and still achieve the same link budget as that of an IS-95-A network which only has adequate coverage of reverse link data rate at 9.6kbps.

D. Fwd/Rev Average Burst Rate vs. Path Loss Fig. 5.1 shows the 1xEV-DO forward link average burst rate and reverse link data rate achievable for 90% cell edge coverage vs. path loss. For the forward link, single and dual receive antenna cases are presented. For the reverse link, system load margins of 3dB and 5dB are shown. While planning the networks, service providers can optimize the system load by trading off the reverse link capacity and cell coverage. Based on Fig. 5.1, one can easily obtain the maximum path loss, based on the minimum required reverse link data rate, and then find the forward link average burst rate that can be achieved under that path loss. For example, if one wants to support at least 19.2kbps on the reverse link for 90% cell coverage under a system load margin of 5dB, the maximum allowable path loss is 131.9 dB. For the single receiver antenna case this corresponds to a forward link average burst rate over 260kbps, while for a dual receiver antenna case, it corresponds to a forward link average burst rate over 600kbps. VI. CONCLUSION

In this paper, we presented the analysis and simulation results for the link budgets of a cdma2000 1xEV-DO system. It is shown that 1xEV-DO has link budget advantages over IS-95-A of approximately 10 dB on the forward link and 1.5 dB on the reverse link. The 1xEV-DO forward link provides the link budget gain over IS-95-A from the following sources: 1) Coding gain of 2.0 dB: 1xEV-DO uses turbo-code as opposed to convolutional code in IS-95-A; 2) Variable rate gain of 7.0 dB: 1xEV-DO uses rate control and ARQ as opposed to power control in IS-95-A forward link; 3) Multi-user diversity gain of 2.0 dB: 1xEV-DO uses proportional fair scheduling algorithm that exploits multi-user diversity. At the same time, 1xEV-DO loses 1.5 dB of soft handoff gain because 1xEV-DO uses selection diversity soft handoff as opposed to the power combined diversity soft handoff of IS95-A. These factors contribute to approximately 10 dB forward link budget gain for 1xEV-DO over IS-95-A.
Fwd/Rev Link Burst Rate vs. Path Loss
1000

Burst Rate (kbps)

100

10

Fwd. Link, Single Antenna Fwd. Link, Dual Antenna Rev. Link, Dual Antenna, System Load=3dB Rev. Link, Dual Antenna, System Load=5dB

1 125

130

135

140

145

150

155

Path Loss (dB)

Fig. 5.1 Fwd/Rev Link Burst Rate vs. Path Loss for 1xEV-DO

Table 5.1. 1xEV-DO Forward Link Budget for Single Antenna Terminal
Average Throughput (or data rate) (bps) Average Burst Rate (bps) Serving Time Fraction (%) Bandwidth (Hz) Bandwidth (dB-Hz) BTS Tx Power (Watts) BTS Tx Power (dBm) BTS Antenna Gain (dBi) BTS Cable Loss (dB) BTS EIRP (dBm) MS Rx Antenna Gain (dBi) Body Loss (dB) Noise Figure (dB) Thermal Noise (dBm/Hz) Target PER (%) (Ior/No)req Per Antenna (dB) Multi-user Diversity Gain (dB) Rx Diversity Gain (dB) MS Receiver Sensitivity (dBm) Log-normal Std. Deviation (dB) Log-normal Fade Margin (dB) 2 Soft Handoff Gain (dB) Building Penetration Loss (dB) Maximum Pass Loss (dB) Traffic 9,600 67,100 14.3 1228.8k 60.9 15.0 41.8 17.0 3.0 55.8 0.0 1 3.0 9.0 -165.0 2 -7.0 2.0 N/A -111.1 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 147.7 Traffic 32,175 225,000 14.3 1228.8k 60.9 15.0 41.8 17.0 3.0 55.8 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 2 2.5 1.0 N/A -101.6 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 138.2 Control 38,400 N/A N/A 1228.8k 60.9 15.0 41.8 17.0 3.0 55.8 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 2 4.0 N/A N/A -100.1 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 136.7 Control 76,800 N/A N/A 1228.8k 60.9 15.0 41.8 17.0 3.0 55.8 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 6 4.0 N/A N/A -100.1 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 136.7 Equation

Table 5.3 IS-95-A Forward Link Budget

Data Rate (bps) Data Rate (dB-Hz) BTS Tx Power (Watts) BTS Tx Power (dBm) Max. % Power for Each Channel Max. Power Allocated per CH (Watts) Max. Power Allocated per CH (dBm) BTS Antenna Gain (dBi) BTS Cable Loss (dB) BTS EIRP per TCH (dBm) MS Rx Antenna Gain (dBi) Body Loss (dB) Noise Figure (dB) Thermal Noise (dBm/Hz) Target PER (%) (Eb/No)req for Single Antenna (dB) MS Receiver Sensitivity (dBm) Log-normal Std. Deviation (dB) Log-normal Fade Margin (dB) Soft Handoff Gain (dB) Building Penetration Loss (dB) Maximum Pass Loss (dB) Traffic 9,600 39.8 15.0 41.8 5.3 0.8 29.0 17.0 3.0 43.0 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 3 12.35 -112.9 8 10.3 5.6 10.0 138.2 Paging 9,600 39.8 15.0 41.8 20 3.0 34.8 17.0 3.0 48.8 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 10 20.6 -104.6 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 134.2 Equation A

A B C D E=B+C-D F G H I = -174.0 + H J

B C D E=B+C-D F G H I=-174.0+G J K=I+J+A L M N O=E-K+F-G-L+M-N

K=I+J+A L M N O=E-K+FG-L+M-N

Table 5.4 1xEV-DO and IS-95-A Reverse Link Budgets

Data Rate (bps) Data Rate (dB-Hz) MS Tx Power (mWatts) MS Tx Power (dBm) MS Antenna Gain (dBi) Body Loss (dB) MS EIRP for Data Channel (dBm) BTS Rx Antenna Gain (dBi) BTS Cable Loss (dB) BTS Noise Figure (dB) BTS Thermal Noise (dBm/Hz) Target PER (%) Total (Eb/No)req per Antenna @ no system load (dB) System Load Margin (dB) BTS Receiver Sensitivity (dBm) Log-normal Std. Deviation Log-normal Fade Margin (dB) Soft Handoff Gain (dB) Differential Fade Margin (dB) Building Penetration Loss (dB) Maximum Path Loss (dB) EV-DO 9,600 39.8 200 23.0 6 0.0 3.0 20.0 17.0 3.0 5.0 -169.0 2 6.6 3.0 -119.6 8 10.3 4.1 2.1 10.0 135.3 EV-DO 19,200 42.8 200 23.0 0.0 3.0 20.0 17.0 3.0 5.0 -169.0 2 5.0 3.0 -118.2 8 10.3 4.1 2.1 10.0 133.9 IS-95 9,600 39.8 200 23.0 0.0 3.0 20.0 17.0 3.0 5.0 -169.0 3 8.0 3.0 -118.2 8 10.3 4.1 2.1 10.0 133.9 Equation A B C D E=B+C-D F G H I=-174.0+H J K L=I+J+K+A M N O P Q=E-L+F-GM+N-O-P

Table 5.2. 1xEV-DO Forward Link Budget for Dual Antenna Terminal
Average Throughput (or data rate) (bps) Average Burst Rate (bps) Serving Time Fraction (%) Bandwidth (Hz) Bandwidth (dB-Hz) BTS Tx Power (Watts) BTS Tx Power (dBm) BTS Antenna Gain (dBi) BTS Cable Loss (dB) BTS EIRP (dBm) MS Rx Antenna Gain (dBi) Body Loss (dB) Noise Figure (dB) Thermal Noise (dBm/Hz) Target PER (%) (Ior/No)req Per Antenna (dB) Multi-user Diversity Gain (dB) Rx Diversity Gain (dB) MS Receiver Sensitivity (dBm) Log-normal Std. Deviation (dB) Log-normal Fade Margin (dB) Soft Handoff Gain (dB) Building Penetration Loss (dB) Maximum Pass Loss (dB) Traffic 9,600 67,100 14.3 1228.8k 60.9 15.0 41.8 17.0 3.0 55.8 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 2 -11.6 2.0 4.6 -115.7 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 152.3 Traffic 70,785 495,000 14.3 1228.8k 60.9 15.0 41.8 17.0 3.0 55.8 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 2 2.5 3 N/A 4 -101.6 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 138.2 Control 38,400 N/A N/A 1228.8k 60.9 15.0 41.8 17.0 3.0 55.8 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 2 -8.0 N/A 12.0 -112.1 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 148.7 Control 76,800 N/A N/A 1228.8k 60.9 15.0 41.8 17.0 3.0 55.8 0.0 3.0 9.0 -165.0 2 -4.5 N/A -108.6 8 10.3 4.1 10.0 145.2 K=I+J+A L M N O=E-K+FG-L+M-N Equation

A B C D E=B+C-D F G H I = -174.0 + H J

REFERENCES
[1] 3 Generation Partnership Project 2 (3GPP2) "cdma2000 High Rate Packet Data Air Interface Specification", C.S20024 v2.0 October 2000. [2] P. J. Black, et. al. Capacity simulation of cdma2000 1xEV wireless internet access system, IEEE MWCN 2001, pp. 9096, August 2001. [3] TIA/EIA-98-C Recommended Minimum Performance Standards for Dual-Mode Spread Spectrum Mobile Stations. [4] Rec.ITU-R M.1225 Guidelines for Evaluation of Radio Transmission Technologies for IMT-2000. [5] A. J. Viterbi, et. al. Soft handoff extends CDMA cell coverage and increase reverse link capacity, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 12, No. 8, pp. 12811288, October 1994.
5 Assume 2-way soft handoff with two received signals having the same power spectrum density. No third cell interference, i.e., Ioc=0. So it is better geometry than what we assumed for 1xEV-DO link budget calculation. Also, the required average Eb/No is obtained assuming 3% target FER, a looser constraint than the 2% target PER assumed in 1xEV-DO. 6 Non hand-held terminals may yield higher antenna gain. The comparison here assumes mobile handset.
rd

ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors thank Mehmet Gurelli and Eduardo Esteves for their assistance providing the simulation and Roberto Padovani for his comments that led to improvements in this paper.
1 For non hand-held terminals, e.g., wireless data modems, the body loss can be assumed to be zero. 2 The 1xEV-DO forward link uses selection diversity when in handoff. More specifically, the mobile selects a base station that has the best signal level as its serving base station. For selection diversity soft handoff, it is shown that the required fade margin is 6.2dB, which leads to a soft handoff gain is 4.1dB compared with the required fade margin of 10.3dB for hard handoff [5]. 3 Due to the assumed geometry, the average throughput of 70.8kbps cannot be

achieved for single antenna terminals, thus multi-user diversity gain we defined cannot be derived for this case. 4 Due to the same reason above, the Rx diversity gain is .