1.

Introduction

The initial planning of any Radio Access Network begins with a Radio Link Budget. As the name
suggests, a link budget is simply the accounting of all of the gains and losses from the transmitter,
through the medium (free space, cable, waveguide, fiber, etc.) to the receiver in a telecommunication
system. In this page, we will briefly discuss link budget calculations for LTE.

2. LTE Radio Link Budgeting

2.1. Typical Parameter Values

signal attenuation g between the
mobile and the base station antenna. The maximum path loss allows the maximum
cell range to be estimated with a suitable propagation model. The cell range gives the
number of base station sites required to cover the target geographical area.The
following table shows typical (practical) parameter values used for doing an LTE Radio
Link Budget.
The link budget calculations estimate the maximum allowed

Parameter

Typical Value

Base Station maximum transmission power. A typical value for macro cell
base station is 20-69 W at the antenna connector.

43 48 dBm

Base Station Antenna Gain

Manufacturer
Dependent

Cable loss between the base station antenna connector and the antenna.
The cable loss value depends on the cable length, cable thickness and
frequency band. Many installations today use RF heads where the power
amplifiers are close to the antenna making the cable loss very small.

1 6 dB

Base Station EIRP, Calculated as A + B - C

UE RF noise figure. Depends on the frequency band. Duplex separation and

on the allocated bandwidth.

6 11 dB

Terminal noise can be calculated as:

-104.5 dBm for 50

K (Boltzmann constant) x T (290K) x bandwidth.

resource blocks (9
MHz)

The bandwidth depends on bit rate, which defines the number of resource
blocks. We assume 50 resource blocks, equal 9 MHz, transmission for 1
Mbps downlink.

Calculated as E + F

Signal-to-noise ratio from link simulations or measurements. The value

depends on the modulation and coding schemes, which again depend on the
data rate and the number of resource blocks allocated.

Calculated as G + H

Interference margin accounts for the increase in the terminal noise level
caused by the other cell. If we assume a minimum G-factor of -4 dB, that
corresponds to 10*Log10(1+10^(4/10)) = 5.5 dB interference margin.

3 8 dB

Control channel overhead includes the overhead from reference signals,

10 25 % =

PBCH, PDCCH and PHICH.

0.4 1.0 dB

UE antenna gain.

Manufacturer
Dependent

Body loss

Device Dependent

-9 to -7 dB

2.2. Uplink Budget

The table below shows an example LTE link budget for the uplink from [1], assuming a
64 kbps data rate and two resource block allocation (giving a 360 kHz transmission
bandwidth). The UE terminal power is assumed to be 24 dBm (without any body loss for
a data connection). It is assumed that the eNode B receiver has a noise figure of 2.0
dB, and the required Signal to Noise and Interference Ratio (SINR) has been taken from
link level simulations performed in [1]. An interference margin of 2.0 dB is assumed. A
cable loss of 2 dB is considered, which is compensated by assuming a masthead
amplifier (MHA) that introduces a gain of 2.0 dB. An RX antenna gain of 18.0 is
assumed considering a 3-sector macro-cell (with 65-degree antennas). In conclusion
the maximum allowed path loss becomes 163.4 dB.
Uplink Link Budget for 64 kbps with dual-antenna receiver base station

Data rate (kbps)

64

Transmitter UE
a

Max. TX power (dBm)

24.0

TX antenna gain (dBi)

0.0

Body loss (dB)

0.0

EIRP (dBm)

24.0 = a + b + c

Receiver eNode B
e

Node B noise figure (dB)

2.0

Thermal noise (dBm)

-118.4 = k(Boltzmann) * T(290K)* B(360kHz)

Receiver noise floor (dBm)

-116.4 = e + f

SINR (dB)

-7.0 From Simulations performed in [1]

Receiver sensitivity (dBm)

-123.4 = g + h

Interference Margin (dB)

2.0

Cable Loss (dB)

2.0

RX antenna gain (dBi)

18.0

MHA gain (dB)

2.0

Maximum path loss

163.4 = d i j k + l - m

The table below shows an example LTE link budget

2.3. Downlink Budget

The table below shows an example LTE link budget for the downlink from [1], assuming
a 1 Mbps data rate (assuming antenna diversity) and 10 MHz bandwidth. The eNode B
power is assumed to be 46 dBm, a value typical among most manufacturers. Again the
SINR value is taken from link level simulations performed in [1]. A 3 dB interference
margin and a 1 dB control channel overhead are assumed, and the maximum allowed
path loss becomes 165.5 dB.
Downlink Link Budget for 1 Mbps with dual-antenna receiver terminal

Data rate (Mbps)

Transmitter eNode B

HS-DSCH power (dBm)

46.0

TX antenna gain (dBi)

18.0

Cable loss (dB)

2.0

EIRP (dBm)

62.0 = a + b + c

Receiver UE
e

UE noise figure (dB)

7.0

Thermal noise (dBm)

-104.5 = k(Boltzmann) * T(290K)* B(360kHz)

Receiver noise floor (dBm)

-97.5 = e + f

SINR (dB)

-10.0 From Simulations performed in [1]

Receiver sensitivity (dBm)

-107.5 = g + h

Interference Margin (dB)

3.0

Control Channel Overhead (dB)

1.0

RX antenna gain (dBi)

0.0

Body Loss (dB)

0.0

Maximum path loss

165.5 = d i j k + l - m

The table below shows an example LTE link budget

2.4. Propagation (Path Loss) Models

A propagation model describes the average signal propagation, and it converts the maximum
allowed propagation loss to the maximum cell range. It depends on:

Environment : urban, rural, dense urban, suburban, open, forest, sea

Distance

Frequency

atmospheric conditions

Indoor/outdoor

Common examples include Free space, WalfishIkegami, OkumuraHata, LongleyRice, Lee and
Young's models. The most commonly used model in urban environments is the Okumura-Hata model as
described below:
For Urban Areas:
For Small and Medium-sized cities:
For Large cities:
where:

2.5. Mapping of Path Losses to Cell Sizes

For a path loss of 164 dB, based on the assumptions shown in the table below the
following cell ranges can be attained with LTE. The cell range is shown for 900, 1800,
2100 and 2500 MHz frequency bands.
Assumptions

OkumuraHata parameter

Urban
Indoor

Suburban
Indoor

Rural
Indoor

Rural
outdoor
fixed

Base station antenna height (m)

30

50

80

80

Mobile antenna height (m)

1.5

1.5

1.5

Mobile antenna gain (dBi) 0

0.0

0.0

0.0

5.0

Slow fading standard deviation (dB)

8.0

8.0

8.0

8.0

Location probability (%)

95

95

95

95

Correction factor (dB)

-5

-15

-15

Indoor loss (dB)

20

15

Slow fading margin (dB)

8.8

8.8

8.8

8.8

Cell Size in Km

2.6. Comparison to Other Radio Access Technologies

In comparison to other Radio Access Technologies such as GSM or UMTS, LTE does not provide a
significant increase in cell size or path loss measurements, however, the data rate (services) provided is
much superior. In contrast to HSPA link budgets, the LTE Link budgets show up to roughly

2 dB higher values, which is mainly a result of low interference margins that can be
achieved with orthogonal modulation. For a detailed comparison please refer to LTE
Link Budget Comparison

2. Uplink Budget Comparison

The following table based on [1],[2] compares the uplink budget for LTE, HSPA and GSM

RAN Technology
Data rate (kbps)

GSM

HSPA

LTE

12.2

64

64

Transmitter UE
a

Max. TX power (dBm)

33

23

23

TX antenna gain (dBi)

Body loss (dB)

EIRP (dBm)

30

23

23

Receiver BTS/Node B/eNode

B
e

Node B noise figure (dB)

Thermal noise (dBm)

-108.2

-118.4

Receiver noise floor (dBm)

-106.2

-116.4

SINR (dB)

-17.3

-7

Receiver sensitivity (dBm)

-114

-123.4

-123.4

Interference Margin (dB)

Cable Loss (dB)

RX antenna gain (dBi)

18

18

18

Fast fade margin (dB)

1.8

Soft handover gain (dB)

162

161.6

163.4

Maximum path loss

The uplink link budget has some differences in comparison to HSPA: specifically the smaller interference
margin, no macro diversity gain (Soft handover gain) and no fast fading margin. As can be seen from the
table above the link budget was calculated for 64 kbps uplink, which is cannot be classified as a high
enough data rate for true broadband service. To guarantee higher data rates for LTE, a low frequency
deployment may be required in addition to additional sites, active antenna solutions or local area
solutions.

2. Downlink Budget Comparison

The following table based on [1],[2] compares the downlink budget for LTE, HSPA and GSM

RAN Technology

GSM

Data rate (kbps)

Transmitter
eNode B

BTS/Node

HSPA

LTE

12.2

1024

1024

B,

Max. TX power (dBm)

44.5

46

46

TX antenna gain (dBi)

18

18

18

Cable loss (dB)

EIRP (dBm)

60.5

62

62

Receiver UE
e

UE noise figure (dB)

Thermal noise (dBm)

-119.7

-108.2

-104.5

Receiver noise floor (dBm)

-101.2

-97.5

SINR (dB)

-5.2

-9

Receiver sensitivity (dBm)

-104

-106.4

-106.4

Interference Margin (dB)

Control channel overhead (%)

20

20

RX antenna gain (dBi)

Body loss (dB)

161.5

163.4

163.5

Maximum path loss

The LTE link budget in downlink has several similarities with HSPA and the maximum path loss is similar.
The link budgets show that LTE can be deployed using existing GSM and HSPA sites assuming that the
same frequency is used for LTE as for GSM and HSPA. LTE itself does not provide any major boost in the
coverage. That is because the transmission power levels and the RF noise figures are also similar in
GSM and HSPA technologies, and the link performance at low data rates is not much different in LTE than
in HSPA.
After initial link budget estimations, the next phase is the RF Planning of the LTE Radio Access Network
(RAN). RF Planning is a complex and iterative process that includes but is not limited to a number of
stages. Each of these stages is defined below in detail.

Introduction

In the context of mobile and cellular communication systems, RF Planning is the process of assigning
frequencies, transmitter locations and parameters of a wireless communications system to provide
sufficient coverage and capacity for the services required (e.g. mobile telephony). The RF plan of a
cellular communication system revolves around two principal objectives; Coverage and Capacity
Coverage relates to the geographical footprint within the system that has sufficient RF signal strength to
provide for a call/data session. Capacity relates to the capability of the system to sustain a given number
of subscribers. In 3GPP LTE systems, both capacity and coverage are interrelated. To improve quality
some coverage, capacity has to be sacrificed, while to improve capacity, coverage will have to be
sacrificed. The LTE RF planning process mainly consists four phases:

Phase 1: Initial RF Link Budget

The first level of the RF planning process is a budgetary level. It uses the RF link budget along with a
statistical propagation model (e.g. Hata, COST-231 Hata or Erceg-Greenstein) to approximate the
coverage area of the planned sites and to eventually determine how many sites are required for the
particular RF communication system. The statistical propagation model does not include terrain effects
and has a slope and intercept value for each type of environment (Rural, Urban, Suburban, etc.). This
fairly simplistic approach allows for a quick analysis of the number of sites that may be required to cover a
certain area. Following is a typical list of outputs produced at this stage:

Estimated Number of Sites

Phase 2:
Detailed RF Propagation

Modelling

The second level of the RF Planning process relies a more detailed propagation model. Automatic
planning tools are often employed in this phase to perform detailed predictions. The propagation model
takes into account the characteristics of the selected antenna, the terrain, and the land use and land
clutter surrounding each site. Since these factors are considered, this propagation model provides a
better estimate of the coverage of the sites than the initial statistical propagation model. Thus, its use, in
conjunction with the RF link budget, produces a more accurate determination of the number of sites
required. Following is a typical list of outputs produced at this stage:

Number of Sites and Site Locations (and Height)

Antenna Directions and Downtilts

Neighbour Cell Lists for each site

Mobility (Handover and Cell Reselection) Parameters for each site.

Frequency Plan

Detailed Coverage Predictions (e.g. Signal Strength (RSRP), Signal Quality (RSRQ) Best CINR,
Best Server Areas, Uplink and Downlink Throughput)

The following figure shows a typical coverage prediction out (All Sites coverage by Signal Strength).

Figure 1: Sites Coverage by Signal Strength

Phase 3: Fine Tuninig and Optimisation

The third phase of the RF planning process incorporates further detail into the RF plan. This stage
includes items such as collecting drive data to be used to tune or calibrate the propagation prediction
model, predicting the available data throughput at each site, fine tuning of parameter settings (e.g.
antenna orientation, downtilting, frequency plan). This process is required in the deployment of the
system or in determining service contract based coverage. Following is a typical list of outputs produced
at this stage:

A final List of Sites and Site Locations (and Height)

Optimised Antenna Directions and Downtilts

An optimised Neighbour Cell Lists for each site

Mobility (Handover and Cell Reselection) Parameters for each site.

An optimised Frequency Plan

Detailed Coverage Predictions (e.g. Signal Strength (RSRP), Signal Quality (RSRQ) Best
CINR, Best Server Areas, Uplink and Downlink Throughput)

Phase 4: Continuous Optimisation

The final phase of the RF planning process involves continuous optimisation of the RF plan to
accommodate for changes in the environment or additional service requirements (e.g. additional coverage
or capacity). This phase starts from initial network deployment and involves collecting measurement data
on a regular basis that could be via drive testing or centralised collection. The data is then used to plan
new sites or to optimize the parameter settings (e.g. antenna orientation, downtilting, frequency plan) of
existing sites.