Use of MHA On UMTS PDF

CoE Radio Access
OrangeTechnical Project 9
USE OF MHA
ON UMTS
VERSION 1.0
COMPANY CONFIDENTIAL
Object, short description :
Approved by : Level :
Date :
N. of pages : Ref : COE_PROJECT_9
History :
Version Date Authors Comments
1.0 21 Aug. 2002 Benoit Graves, Henk Tubbe First Released version
Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 1/26 -

CoE Radio Access
Table of contents
1 Executive Summary 3
1.1 Scope & Overview 3
1.2 Conclusions & recommendations 3
2 General physical description 4
3 Noise Figure calculation 4
3.1 Friis formula 4
3.2 Noise Factor improvement 5
4. Effect of external noise on the link budget with MHA 7
4.1 Case without MHA 9
4.2 Case with MHA 9
4.3 Comparison between 2 cases 10
5. Practical examples of external noise 11
5.1 Spurious emission / inter-modulation 11
5.2 Adjacent interference / Dead Zone 12
5.3 External noise due to repeaters 14
5.4 Blocking 15
6. Coverage and Capacity impacts 17
6.1 Increase of UL coverage / data-rate 17
6.2 Increase of UL capacity 18
6.3 Loss of DL capacity 19
6.3.1 Decrease of max output power 19
6.3.2 Maximum Average Pathloss 19
6.3.3 Common Channel setting 20
6.4 Note on feeder types 22
7. Strategy of non-homogeneous MHA use 23
7.1 Introduction 23
7.2 Theoretical analysis 23
7.3 Parcell 3G simulations 24
7.4 Conclusion on non-homogeneous use 26
8. Conclusion 26
9. References 26

CoE Radio Access
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Scope & Overview
The goal of this document is to describe the concepts and issues regarding the use of MHAs on a
UMTS network. The content will be focused on the radio issues; the O&M aspects will not be tackled
in the present document.
1.2 Conclusions & recommendations
The main interest of designing MHAs on the network is to improve the coverage and
possibly reduce the number of sites. In this document, different scenarios have been
assessed. Typically with 3 dB of feeder loss, we can expect a 3 dB sensitivity improvement.
MHAs can induce a slight loss of DL capacity as well as an important gain in UL capacity.
MHAs do not require higher protection against external noise such as spurious emissions,
inter-modulation, adjacent interference or desensitisation due to repeaters. Nevertheless,
its improvement would be lower if a disturbance was encountered.
MHAs can even give better protection against blocking through its severe filtering
capabilities.
Optimum improvement is experienced when MHAs are designed homogeneously on all

sites.

CoE Radio Access
2 General physical description

The MHA is an active element that increases the sensitivity of the reception chain. The way to
accomplish this is to reduce the global Noise Factor (NF) of the reception chain. On the downlink
direction, the insertion loss of the unit is typically less than 0.4 dB.
Antenna
Gain=12dB
NF=2dB DL Insertion loss = 0.4 dB
Duplexer
Uplink
Downlink
Duplexer
Node B
Figure 1: Physical description of a typical MHA.
3 Noise Figure calculation
3.1 Friis formula
Sin Sout
Reception chain Demodulator
Nin Nout
Figure 2: Reception chain model
Any reception chain not only amplifies or attenuates the signal (depending on the elements that
form it) but also introduces noise. This yields in a difference between the S/N in and the S/N out.

CoE Radio Access
This difference is called Noise Factor (NF) and is defined as:
(S N )
NF =
(S N ) (always 1)
in
out
Equation 1: Noise Factor definition
Knowing that any element of a reception chain can be defined by its noise factor (NF) and its gain (G),
the NF of a chain of n elements can be obtained as:
NF2 1 NF 1
NFTotal = NF1 + + K + n 1 n
Gi
G1
i
Equation 2: Noise Factor calculation for a chain of elements, known as Friis formula
3.2 Noise Factor improvement

As we have seen in the previous paragraphs, every single element of a chain contributes to the global
noise factor of the chain. It has also been said that the introduction of an MHA can improve the
performances of the reception chain by decreasing the global Noise Factor. In this paragraph we
calculate this benefit to evaluate the convenience of the installation of an MHA on a Node B site.
In Figure 3 we see the elements forming the reception chain of a Node B site without MHA. As we can
observe, every single element is defined by its NF an its G.
G Node B
G cable
Cable * Node B
NF cable
NF Node B
* Includes top and bottom jumpers

Figure 3: Elements of a reception chain without MHA
Using Equation 2 and knowing that the NF of a passive element equals:

NF = L = 1
G
Equation 3: Noise Factor of a passive element
The NF of the chain yields:

NFNodeB 1
NFTotal = NFcable + = L cable NFNodeB
G cable
The same calculation can be made for a reception chain with MHA (c.f. Figure 4).

CoE Radio Access
GMHA GNode B
Gt_jump Gcable
Top
Jumper
MHA Cable * Node B
NF t_jump NFcable
NF MHA NFNode B
* Includes jumper between feeder and
MHA and bottom jumper
Figure 4: Elements of a reception chain with MHA

MHA
The noise factor of the chain in

Figure 4 equals:

Lcable 1 NFNodeB 1
NFTotal = Lt _ jump NFMHA + +
G MHA G MHA
Lcable
Lcable NFNodeB 1
NFTotal = Lt _ jump NFMHA +
G MHA
The standard values for these variables are:
Element Lt_jump NFMHA GMHA Lcable NFNode B

Value (dB) 0,3 2 12 Depends on length 3,0
Remarks:
Losses Top Jumper = 1 m*1/2_Flex + 2 connectors = 1*18/100 + 2*0,05 = 0,28
NF_MHA: typical value 1.7 dB, guaranteed value: 2 dB (over temperature range)
The chart below shows the improvement on the Link Budget thanks to the use of MHAs.
As seen, the greater the cable losses, the greater the interest of using an MHA.

CoE Radio Access
Gain with MHA / cable loss
12.0
10.0
8.0
NF with MHA
dBm
6.0 NF without MHA

Link Budget gain with MHA
4.0
2.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Cable loss (dB)
4. Effect of external noise on the link budget with MHA

The goal of this part is to explain the theoretical effect on the link budget of an external disturbance,
such as adjacent interference or noise generated by a repeater.
Let us first have the general understanding of the effect:
N rec : Noise from the receiver system, which equals thermal noise multiplied by NF_total.
Hence N rec with MHA < N rec without MHA.
N ext : External noise
Total received noise can be expressed as:
N total = N rec + N ext

Hence if N ext >> N rec , then N total N ext
We have to assess the term external in-band noise:

It is the resultant noise from all external sources other than MAI from own system users. It will emanate
from spurious generated by UEs and BSs of other systems (GSM, TDD, other FDD operators, etc) plus
the effects of blocking from carrier energy from other systems (especially in co-located site-sharing and
micro/pico cell environments).

CoE Radio Access
Two conclusions can be made:
1) As the external in-band noise increases, the internal system noise generated by the receiver,
becomes neglegible compared to the external noise.
As a consequence, the higher the external spectral in-band noise, the less beneficial an MHA
becomes.
High levels of external in-band noise will be most likely in micro/pico cell environments where the
MCL between BSs and UEs is much lower than in the macro-case. Here deployment of MHAs
will not be needed because the link budget doesnt require such high sensitivity.
2) N total with MHA < N total without MHA

An external disturbance is never worse with a MHA.
Sensitivity with Noise Increase
ANTENNA
Sens_In
MHA
FEEDER
S_node_b
NODE B
Values:
Sens_In = sensitivity defined between the antenna and the reception chain.
Sens_Node_B = Sensitivity defined at the Input of the Node B
S, N: Signal and Noise between the antenna and the reception chain. Case without MHA.
S, N: Signal and Noise between the antenna and the reception chain. Case with MHA.

CoE Radio Access
k: Boltzmann constant
T: noise temperature
B: receiver bandwidth
N rec : noise from the receiver
N ext : external noise
When comparing sensitivities with and without MHA, we refer to the equivalent sensitivity BEFORE the
reception chain (i.e. at the antenna input). That is on the drawing: Sens_In.
4.1 Case without MHA

The noise received at the antenna input is:
N Total = N rec + N ext = (kTB NFsystem ) + N ext

NFNodeB 1
= kTB ( NFcable + ) + N ext = (kTB Lcable NFNodeB ) + N ext
Gcable
The sensitivity at the antenna input is:

Sens _ In = (S / N )min N Total = ( Eb Bit _ rate / N 0 Bandwidth) N Total
Sens _ In = ( Eb / N 0 ) 1 / Spreading _ gain N Total
With: Spreading_ gain = chip rate / user bit rate = spreading factor x coding gain
4.2 Case with MHA

The expression with the MHA is almost identical as above, except for N total.
BEWARE that the Noise and Sensitivity are both expressed at the antenna input and not at the Node B
input.
If we refer to the part 2.3, we have:

Lcable NFNodeB 1
NFSystem = Lt _ jump NFMHA +
G MHA
Then:
Lcable NFNodeB 1
N Total = kTB Lt _ jump NFMHA + + N ext
G MHA
The sensitivity has the same expression as without MHA, the only change is N total.

CoE Radio Access
4.3 Comparison between 2 cases
The difference between sensitivities equals the difference between noises:

Sens_In(with MHA) Sens_In(without MHA) = N(with MHA) N(without MHA)
Referring to the same MHA figures as before and 3 dB of cable losses, here are computed values
showing the effect of different external noise levels on the total noise received by the system:
Total noise with Total noise without Noise_with_MHA -

Noise level (dBm)
MHA (dBm) MHA (dBm) Noise_without_MHA (dB)
-160.0 -104.58 -101.16 -3.42
-155.0 -104.58 -101.16 -3.42
-150.0 -104.58 -101.16 -3.42
-145.0 -104.58 -101.16 -3.42
-140.0 -104.58 -101.16 -3.42
-135.0 -104.57 -101.15 -3.42
-130.0 -104.57 -101.15 -3.42
-125.0 -104.54 -101.14 -3.40
-120.0 -104.46 -101.10 -3.36
-115.0 -104.20 -100.98 -3.22
-110.0 -103.48 -100.62 -2.86
-105.0 -101.77 -99.66 -2.12
-101.2 -99.56 -98.17 -1.39
-100.0 -98.70 -97.53 -1.17
-95.0 -94.55 -94.06 -0.49
-90.0 -89.85 -89.68 -0.17
-85.0 -84.95 -84.90 -0.06
-80.0 -79.98 -79.97 -0.02
-75.0 -75.00 -74.99 -0.01
Noise_with_MHA - Noise_without_MHA (dB)
0.00
-140.0 -130.0 -120.0 -110.0 -100.0 -90.0 -80.0 -70.0 -60.0 -50.0 -40.0
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
Difference (dB)
-2.00
-2.50
-3.00
-3.50
-4.00
Noise level (dBm)

CoE Radio Access
Sensitivity for Speech with and without MHA / Noise level
-60.00
-160.0 -140.0 -120.0 -100.0 -80.0 -60.0 -40.0
-70.00
Sens_In(without MHA)
Speech
Sens_In(without MHA)
Speech
-80.00
-90.00
-100.00
-110.00
-120.00
-130.00
Noise level
CONCLUSION:
The benefit of the MHA decreases as the external noise increases and in the worst case the sensitivity of
the total system with MHA equals the one without MHA. Even if the MHA amplifies the noise, the
sensitivity with the MHA never gets worse than the one without MHA. The reason is that the useful
WCDMA signal is also amplified with the same gain as the noise.
5. Practical examples of external noise

5.1 Spurious emission / inter-modulation
We will focus our attention on the case of spurious emissions. For inter-modulation the results are
similar.
Defining:
{spurious}dBm : Noise level received by spurious emissions at the antenna input
{isolation}dB : Required path loss between the spurious emitter and the receiver antenna input
{mha _ improvement}dB : Gain on the link budget with the use of MHA
Co-siting rules will state:
{isolation}dB > {spurious}dBm {N rec }dBm + {m arg in}dB
With:
{N rec }dBm = 10 log(kT0 B ) + {NFsystem }dB

CoE Radio Access
The additional margin is set for a given desensitisation. Commonly we use 10 dB of margin,
corresponding to 0.4 dB of desensitisation. The relationship between the margin and the desensitisation
is:
{desensitisation}dB = 10 log(1 + 10 {m arg in} dB / 10
)
A clear consequence is that as the NF with MHA is better than the NF without MHA, the isolation
required to avoid spurious emission disturbance at the NodeB receiver is higher in the case with MHA.
There are 2 possibilities for the operator:

1) Increasing the isolation requirement:
If we compare the effect of spurious emissions with and without MHA on the receiver system:
{isolation_ with _ mha}dB {isolation_ without _ mha}dB = {mha _ improvement}dB

In other words if the mha_improvement = 3 dB, the isolation requirement increases by 3 dB.
2) Keeping the same isolation and allowing a higher desensitisation or a smaller MHA improvement
In this case:
{desensitisation}dB = 10 log(1 + 10 {m arg inmha _ improvement}dB / 10
)
In other words: if the margin is 10 dB and the mha_improvement 3 dB, the desensitisation with MHA
reaches 0.8 dB instead of 0.4 dB. The MHA improvement on the link budget is reduced from 3 dB to 2.6
dB.
5.2 Adjacent interference / Dead Zone
Referring to several documents on Dead Zone (FTR&D/DMR/URF/01.0326/JPD & FTR&D/DMR/IIM/

01.0368/BS, Frequency block choice V0.9), we can formulate the adjacent interference in UL as:
PUE 1
I adj _ ul = .
CL A ACIRUL
1 1 1
with: = +
ACIRUL ACLRUE ACS BS
Definitions:
ACIR: Adjacent Carrier Interference Ratio
ACLR: Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio
ACS: Adjacent Channel Selectivity
CL: Coupling Loss between the interferer UE and the antenna input
Pue: UE power

CoE Radio Access
In the case of MHA, the adjacent interference can be expressed as:
PUE 1 P 1 G MHA _ adj

I adj _ ul = + UE
CL A ACLRUL CL A ACS BS G MHA
1 1 1 G MHA _ adj
or = +
ACIRUL ACLRUE ACS BS G MHA
Case 1: use of a MHA with 60 MHz of bandwidth
In this case, adjacent frequencies are amplified at the same level as in-band frequency, hence:
G MHA _ adj = G MHA
PUE 1 P 1
I adj _ ul = . + UE .
CL A ACLRUE CL A ACS BS
the formula is strictly identical to the one without MHA.
Then the analysis is similar to the one with any external noise, which means that with the same
radio configuration (interferer UE at the same location), we will have a slightly higher desensitisation or a
smaller link budget improvement with the MHA.
Which means that the Dead Zone area is slightly larger with fullband 60 MHz MHAs.
By dead zone area, we mean the area where the interferer UE may disturb a NodeB at a certain
desensitisation level.
Actually if the mha_improvement on the link budget is 3 dB, the Max CL for the adjacent interferer is
3 dB higher.
Case 2: use of a MHA with 15 MHz of bandwidth
Theoretically, I adj _ ul is slightly lower as G MHA _ adj < G MHA (the MHA filters adjacent frequencies)
Numerical application:
For the 15 MHz MHA, we will take the Orange Group RFQ MHA specifications:
G MHA _ adj
= -3 dB at +/- 5 MHz
G MHA
Case 1: 3GPP standards give at +/- 5 MHz

o ACLRUE =33 dB
o ACS BS = 45 dB
Then:
ACIR (60 MHz MHA) = 32.73 dB
-> The dead zone area is reduced by 0.13 dB with the 15 MHz MHA.

CoE Radio Access
Case 2: if we consider more optimistic figures for the UE (ex: ACLRUE =42 dB)

The dead zone area is reduced by 0.8 dB with the 15 MHz MHA.
5.3 External noise due to repeaters
Path Loss (donor antenna + air interface + Node B

Repeater
site antenna) + MHA
NFrep
PL
NFTotal
Grep
In any receiver system, with or without MHA, a repeater within the cell coverage may yield a
desensitisation at the Node B level, which depends on the external noise received from the repeater.
Considering the same model as before, we have:
Where: N ext = kTB NFrep G rep / PL
The desensitisation can be expressed as:
N ( with _ rep ) N N ext

Desensitisation = = 1 + ext = 1 +
N (without _ rep ) N rec kTB NFsystem
As NFsystem (with MHA) < NFsystem (without MHA), then:
Desensitisation( with _ MHA) > Desensitisation( without _ MHA)
When integrating a repeater within the coverage of cell with MHA, the desensitisation of the NodeB will
be higher than if this cell had no MHA installed. Nevertheless, cell coverage will still be better than if the
cell had no MHA installed.

CoE Radio Access
5.4 Blocking
The case of blocking differs from the previous external noise model, as blocking is an out-of-band
disturbance.
First of all, the MHA itself has blocking requirements linked to the saturation of its amplifier.
The maximum possible input power at the MHA amplifier is dictated by its 1 dB output compression
value. The higher this value, the higher input power the amplifier in the MHA can handle before going
into 1dB compression of the output signal.
Let us take an example:

System Blocking level = Max Input
Signal +- Filter Rejection = 53 dBm
Duplex Filter
Max Input Signal = -7 dBm
Gmha=12 dB
LNA
1 dB comp point = 7 dBm
Node B Blocking = 16 dBm
Node B
1. UMTS level Blocking at Node B = 16 dBm (by GSM900/GSM1800/UMTS) rel. 2000 compliant
As the 1 dB output compression point defined in the Group MHA RFQ [2] is 7 dBm, the 16 dBm
blocking level cannot be reached at the NodeB.
Hence the limiting element could be the LNA in the MHA unit.
For the MHA amplifier: Max_input_signal = 1 dB compression point Gmha = 7 12 = - 5 dBm.

As the duplex filter rejects the out-of-band signals, a higher maximum level can be allowed at the
MHA input.

CoE Radio Access
Its value is given by:
System_Blocking_level(f) = Max_input_signal + Rejection(f)
(f being the frequency)
Let us take the Orange Group RFQ MHA specifications:

Rejection of GSM900 (DL): > 60 dB
Rejection of GSM1800 (DL): > 60 dB
Rejection of UMTS FDD (DL): > 70 dB
In the worst case (GSM1800), the blocking level of the MHA is:
System_Blocking_level = -5 + 60 = 55 dBm.
This value is far above the Node B blocking value, hence blocking from other operators shall not be
an issue. Moreover, blocking from co-locating GSM equipment should not occur since a received
signal of 55 dBm is extremely high compared to the the given maximum output power of the
GSM/DCS BTS.
2. UMTS Node-B receiver Blocking desensitisation issue

The in-band receiver blocking performance of the BS is 52 dBm in adjacent channel and 40 dBm
for a 10 MHz offset. At these levels the 3GPP standard allows 6 dB desensitisation. This in-band
performance is achieved by IF filtering in the BS receiver since the RF front end is indeed wide-band
(ie 1920 1980 MHz).
The out-of-band blocking performance is increased simply because it is possible to add RF filtering
that reduces the interfering signal levels to the same value as the in-band value. Eg if the filter adds
60 dB rejection at a particular out-of-band frequency then the blocking level at that frequency would
be 60 dB greater than the in-band blocking level (say 40 + 60 = + 20 dBm) To put it another way
the out of signal at + 20 dBm would cause the same desensitisation (= 6 dB) as an in-band signal at
10 MHz offset at a level of 40 dBm.
In either case (in-band or out-of-band), the level at which the BS is desensitised by 6 dB is 40 dBm
which is 53 dB less than the 1 dB compression point of the LNA. This means that for UMTS
interferers the BS blocking performance is the dominant parameter (not the LNA in MHA) and
that the selectivity provided by the 15 MHz band selective MHA will have a significant impact
on the in-band blocking performance of the MHA/BS combination.
MHA filters add additional rejection within the UMTS band (substantially improving in-band blocking)
and will also add some extra out-of-band making the total system out-of-band blocking even better.
3. Case of TDD rejection:

As the TDD band is closer to the FDD UL band, a lower rejection can be reached. In the worst case, if
the TDD band is adjacent to the FDD band, the rejection will only be between 0 and 3 dB
Nevertheless numerous uncertainties remain on the TDD use, its standard is not defined and it is not
clear today that TDD sites will be co-located with FDD sites. Furthermore, studies concerning TDD/FDD
co-siting need to be conducted in the future to confirm if the MHA specifications provide sufficient
rejection to TDD.

CoE Radio Access
6. Coverage and Capacity impacts

6.1 Increase of UL coverage / data-rate
For each service, the use of MHAs results in a better link budget in UL, hence a better coverage
when the system is limited by the Uplink.
With standard MHA figures we reach the following improvements depending on cable losses:
o Cable losses = 3 dB -> mha_improvement = 3.2 dB
o Cable losses = 4 dB -> mha_improvement = 4.1 dB
The improvement on link budget can be understood with different views:
o Same service, same indoor -> larger cell range.

In this case we can design the network with a larger inter-site distance and reduce the
number of sites.
The impact in terms of dimensioning will be different for each operator. Coverage targets,
operational constraints such as site re-use, propagation model and predictions will lead to
totally different dimensioning results.
However two main situations may be encountered:
1) Greenfield operator.
In this case, the intersite distance can be reflecting the increase of cell range due to the
improved uplink link budget. In terms of dimensioning, reduction of the number of sites is
optimum. With MHA, from 30 to 40% fewer sites could be needed.
2) Existing GSM network

Re-using GSM sites for the UMTS network infers less flexibility than in the case of a
Greenfield operator. As the existing inter-site distance would very unlikely match the
calculated one, dimensioning would be more a question of adding more or less sites to fill
up coverage holes.
In this case, the reduction of the number of sites may vary drastically from one
operator to another. Dimensioning based on a simulation tool is highly
recommended to obtain a realistic estimation.
Basic figures would give 10 to 50% fewer sites with MHAs on all sites.
o Same service, same inter-site distances -> better indoor.

In this case we plan the network with the same sites as without MHA and we will have a
deeper indoor penetration for each service (for instance from 15 dB to 19 dB).
o Same indoor, same inter-site distances -> better data-rate.

At a defined location the UE will be able to reach higher bit-rates thanks to the MHA. Typically
if only 144 kbits/s were available, the MHA will make possible 384 kbits/s (there is around 4
dB difference between 144 and 384 link budgets).
High data rate services will probably take a greater benefit from the extension of coverage than
low data-rate. Usual traffic distributions as function of path loss have a bell-like shape,
(Gaussian distribution) with a larger density of traffic at average path loss. This is not true when a
hot-spot is located at cell edge, however on most mature networks this case rarely occurs.
In other words a smaller part of mobiles would be found at large path loss (e.g. where only
Speech is provided) than at lower path loss (e.g. where 384 is provided). Hence a 3 dB extension
of coverage will probably mean a potential to reach more 384 users than Speech users.

CoE Radio Access
When the cell coverage is limited by the Downlink, the MHA does not improve the link budget.
However it seems important to stress a few points on DL limited cells:
o A cell coverage would probably be limited in DL only during Busy Hours. At low load the
cell will still be limited by the UL. Hence the MHA could be useless for 30 minutes and
then useful for 23 hours and 30 minutes
o Except if designed as a hot-spot site, a cell limited by DL will unlikely be suitable and will
require a capacity upgrade. Depending on vendor features, additional frequency, TX-
diversity or high-power Power Amplifier can be added to cope with the increase of cell
load. If so the cell will be UL limited again.
6.2 Increase of UL capacity
MHA can either increase UL coverage or increase UL capacity. To be precise MHA can improve both
simultaneously but at lower levels. The next chart displays the dual effect of MHA:
Impact of MHA on UL coverage and capacity

145
140
+ 3 dB UL coverage
135
Path Loss (dB)
130
+ 52 % UL capacity
125
120
With MHA : 1,050 kbps

115
Without MHA : 690 kbps
110
- 200.00 400.00 600.00 800.00 1,000.00 1,200.00 1,400.00
Throughput (kbps)
Uplink Capacity LCD384 without MHA Uplink Capacity LCD384 With MHA
For a given maximum path loss in the cell, more UEs can be admitted if the cell has a MHA than no
MHA. In other words if the cell load limit of the cell without MHA was 50%, the maximum cell load
with a MHA can increase up to 70-75%.
This UL capacity gain has been assumed considering no noise level increase, however there will be
an increase of noise degrading the UL capacity gain. This effect needs to be investigated during
Orange Engineering Network Tests.

CoE Radio Access
6.3 Loss of DL capacity
6.3.1 Decrease of max output power
There is slight reduction of the station max output power (given at the antenna input) due to the
insertion of the MHA. Actually there are 2 losses:
o MHA Insertion Loss (typically 0.4 dB)
o Top jumper losses (between the antenna and the MHA). With 1m of flex (18 dB
loss/100m) + 2 connectors (0.05 dB loss each), the loss is: 0.28 dB
Hence the global loss in DL is around 0.7 dB. Impact on capacity loss is low:
in the following example with mono-service Speech, the DL capacity loss is around 3%.
Impact of the MHA insertion loss on DL capacity
160
20W_1_Carrier_No_TxDiv Downlink N Users Speech
20W_1_Carrier_No_TxDiv Downlink N Users Speech 83.10%

150
Gain
63.10%
140
Path Loss (dB)
130 43.10%
120 23.10%
110 3.10%
-3.17%
100 -16.90%
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00
Throughput (Kbps)
6.3.2 Maximum Average Pathloss
There is slight increase of the max average pathloss of the cell.

As the UL cell range is larger than without MHA, there will be a higher probability to have high path
losses in the cell, which infers a loss of DL capacity.
For mobiles within the coverage area without MHA, adding a MHA does not modify the DL power
needed for the DL (except compensation for the insertion/jumper loss).
For mobiles located in the extra UL coverage provided by the MHA, the corresponding DL level
required to reach the mobile in DL is higher than the highest required when without MHA. In other

CoE Radio Access
words, the Max path loss being higher (e.g. +3 dB), the DL level required for the very edge of the
cell is Max_DL_Power + 3 dB.
However, the traffic part on the edge of the cell is usually low, it is therefore very unlikely that the
average path loss is increased by 3 dB. A more realistic value could be around 1 dB. Only when
a high traffic area is reached thanks to the MHA gain, the DL capacity loss could be a concern.
Following chart: example of DL capacity loss with 1 dB increase of average path loss (taken for
mono-service Speech). Note that results are similar with other mono-services or with a multi-
service distribution.
160
150
Path Loss (dB)
140
Av. Path Loss = + 1 dB
130
DL Capacity loss = -3,5%
120
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00 800.00
Mono-service - Speach : Throughput (Kbps)
6.3.3 Common Channel setting
Referring to [1] the required common channel power levels can be calculated as a function of:
Orthogonality factor (set to 0.4)
Interference factor (set to 2)
Max BS power (43 dBm without MHA, 42.3 dBm with MHA)
Maximum Path Loss (set to 140 dB without MHA, 143 dB with MHA)
The following tables show the requested Common Channel power with and without MHA:

CoE Radio Access
Common channels without MHA

CPICH P-CCPCH S-CCPCH SCH PICH AICH
Orth Factor 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
I_inter/I_intra 2 2 2 2 2 2
No (dBm) -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100
C/I (dB) -15 -17 -17 -17 -20 -20
P_Node_B (dBm) 43 43 43 43 43 43
Max PL (dB) 140 140 140 140 140 140
P_Channel (W) 1.81 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.58 0.58
P_Channel (dBm) 32.57 30.59 30.59 30.59 27.61 27.61
P_Channel (%) 9.06% 5.74% 5.74% 5.74% 2.89% 2.89%
Activity factor 1.00 0.90 0.25 0.10 1.00 0.80
Total CCH power (W) 4.28
Total CCH power (dBm) 36.31
CCH power share 21.44%
Common channels with MHA

CPICH P-CCPCH S-CCPCH SCH PICH AICH
Orth Factor 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
I_inter/I_intra 2 2 2 2 2 2
No (dBm) -100 -100 -100 -100 -100 -100
C/I (dB) -15 -17 -17 -17 -20 -20
P_Node_B (dBm) 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3 42.3
Max PL (dB) 143 143 143 143 143 143
P_Channel (W) 1.90 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.60 0.60
P_Channel (dBm) 32.78 30.80 30.80 30.80 27.82 27.82
P_Channel (%) 11.16% 7.08% 7.08% 7.08% 3.56% 3.56%
Activity factor 1.00 0.90 0.25 0.10 1.00 0.80
Total CCH power (W) 4.49
Total CCH power (dBm) 36.52
CCH power share 26.42%
The common channel power is driven by the service with the largest UL coverage, that is to say Speech.
In this example we have taken as Maximum Path Loss for Speech: 140 dB. If the cell has a MHA the UL
coverage for Speech may reach a Max Path Loss of 143 dB. To benefit from this 3 dB extension of UL
coverage the common channel power will need to be increased.
Note however that there is no need to increase the power by 3 dB to match the 3 dB increase of UL
coverage.
With a calculation on all common channels, the following chart (produced by an internal tool) displays the
capacity loss for a given average path loss. In this case (mono-service speech), we would have 8.5%
loss of DL capacity.
Note that the capacity loss is linked to two reasons:

Decrease of the Max output power (from 43 dB to 42.3 dB)

CoE Radio Access
Increase of the common channel power share (from 21.5% to 26.5%)
DL capacity loss with CCH power share increase
160
20W_1_Carrier_No_TxDiv Downlink N Users Speech 18.10%
20W_1_Carrier_No_TxDiv Downlink N Users Speech

13.10%
150
Gain
8.10%
140
3.10%
Path Loss (dB)
-1.90%
130
-6.90%
-8.55%
120 -11.90%
-16.90%
110
-21.90%
100 -26.90%
0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 400.00 500.00 600.00 700.00
Throughput (Kbps)
However, it is not compulsory to tune up the Common Channel power share and the operators
have the choice between 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1
The operator increases the power to balance the extension of coverage for all services.
Then for a 3 dB improvement with MHA, the loss of DL capacity is between 5 and 10%.
Scenario 2
The operator does not tune up the CCH power. Then there is no loss of DL capacity (except the one due
to a lower output power), however the extension of coverage will not be effective for all services;
services with the highest path loss not being overlapped by CCH coverage. For instance, the CCH
power is tuned to match Speech coverage without MHA (i.e. Max PL = 140 dB). In this case, the CCH
coverage will not overlap (or with poorer quality) the extended Speech coverage in the path loss range of
140 to 143 dB.
To summarize:
Speech: no overlap by common channels hence no extension of UL coverage.
LCD 64, 144, 384: still overlap by common channels hence extension of coverage.
6.4 Note on feeder types

Considering the Uplink Budget it would be possible to increase the feeder losses without degrading the
global noise factor, and thus the coverage, since the Noise Factor with MHA is quite steady when related
to feeder losses. Thinner sections of feeders (e.g. 7/8 instead of 11/4) could be used for same feeder
lengths. But in this case we would decrease the DL as well, which means a loss of DL capacity.
Hence we DO NOT recommend modifying the rule on feeder type depending on feeder lengths.

CoE Radio Access
7. Strategy of non-homogeneous MHA use

7.1 Introduction
As seen MHAs will provide an improvement on the UL coverage on all sites.
Nevertheless some sites get a more significant benefit than others.
Possible reasons are:
Feeder losses are low (1 dB), then the improvement in terms of link budget is low (1.4 dB)
Coverage without MHA is strong and the extension area has a very low traffic. This can be
the case when the inter-site distances are short.
These considerations could lead to the choice of designing MHAs only for specific sites and build a non-
homogeneous network, some sites being with MHA and some others without MHA.
However a non-homogeneous design has a negative impact on the MHA performance for sites with
MHAs, and the goal of the following study is to analyse this effect.
7.2 Theoretical analysis

A basic understanding of the non-homogeneous effect can be described as follows:
We will assume:
MHA improvement with Noise Factor calculation is 3 dB.
Cell_A: single cell with a MHA
Cells_N: neighbouring cells, all without MHAs
The effects of using a MHA on cell_A are:

-> Higher Sensitivity for cell_A (- 3dB)
-> Lower MS Power for all MS under cell_A coverage (-3 dB)
-> Higher I_intercell / I_intracell ratio
-> Higher UL load for cell_A
-> Lower sensitivity
for cell_A
The Inter/Intra interference ratio is higher since the UE on the neighbouring cells do not reduce the
power by 3 dB since these cells have no MHA.
However this logic goes the other way around:

On surrounding cells_N
-> Lower MS Power on cell_A (-3 dB)
-> Lower I_intercell / I_intracell ratio for all cells_N
-> Lower UL load for all cells_N
-> Higher Sensitivity
for all cells_N
-> Lower MS Power for all MS under cells_N

-> Lower I_intercell / I_intracell ratio for cell_A
-> Higher UL load for cell_A
-> Higher sensitivity
for cell_A
There is a loop model, the question being the final mha improvement when the balance is
reached.

CoE Radio Access
In order to measure the effect on the final Noise Figure, some simulations have been run with Parcell
3G.
7.3 Parcell 3G simulations

3 different scenarios have been studied with Parcell 3G:
Scenario 1: Dense Urban, high load (80% Uplink), 3 cells only with MHAs (1 site)
Scenario 2 Dense Urban, average load (40% Uplink), 3 cells only with MHAs (1 site)
Scenario 3: Sub-Urban, low load (10% Uplink), 1 cell only with MHA
On all sites, 3 dB feeder losses had been set, except for cells with MHA, where feeder losses were set to
0 dB in order to simulate a 3 dB Noise Figure improvement brought by the MHA.
Two simulations have been run for each scenario:

1rst simulation: all cells without MHA
2nd simulation: additional MHA only on the selected site or cell
Doing this, it is possible to compare the total noise received by each cell in each simulation.
The following charts show the effect in terms of noise (intra, inter and total):
Dense Urban, high UL load (80%).
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
-0.2
-0.4
I_with_MHA - I_without_MHA (dB)
-0.6
Neighbouring cells
-0.8
I_total
I_intra
I_inter
-1
-1.2
-1.4
-1.6
-1.8
3 cells with MHA + Neighbouring cells

CoE Radio Access
Dense Urban, Average UL load (40%)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
-0.5
Neighbouring cells
-1
I_total
I_intra
I_inter
-1.5
-2
-2.5
3 cells with MHA + Neighbouring cells
Sub-Urban, low
load (10%).
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
-0.5
-1
Neighbouring cells
I_total
-1.5 I_intra
I_inter
-2
-2.5
-3
1 cell with MHA + Neighbouring cells without MHA
Theoretically, if no hot-spot effect had been encountered, we would have expected:

For the cell with MHA: I_total_with_MHA - I_total_without_MHA = -3 dB
For the neighbouring cells without MHA: I_total_with_MHA = I_total_without_MHA

CoE Radio Access
However it was not the case:
For the cells with MHA:
o I_total_with_MHA - I_total_without_MHA > -3 dB
o The effect gets stronger with the load of the network:
High load: MHA improvement between 0.8 to 1.6 db (instead of 3 dB)
Average load: MHA improvement down to 2 dB
Low load: MHA improvement around 2.85 dB
For the cells without MHA:

o I_total_with_MHA - I_total_without_MHA > 0 dB for all cells.
The integration of the MHA on a surrounding cell has a positive impact on the
sensitivity of the cells without MHA, due to the fact that their intercell interference
decreases and hence their cell load is reduced.
o The effect gets weaker with the load of the network: the improvement at high load is
smaller than at low load.
High load: improvement between 0 and 0.4 dB
Average load: improvement between 0 and 0.6 dB
Low load: improvement between 0 and 1 dB
7.4 Conclusion on non-homogeneous use

If MHA are designed on specific sites only, a lower gain than the one computed with Friis formula should
be expected. Resulting gain can only be estimated through 3G simulations with a planning tool.
8. Conclusion
The main interest of designing MHAs on the network is to improve the coverage and possibly
reduce the number of sites. Typically with 3 dB of feeder loss, we can expect a 3 dB
improvement.
MHAs can induce a slight loss of DL capacity as well as an important gain in UL capacity.
MHAs do not require higher protection against external noise such as spurious emissions,
inter-modulation, adjacent interference or desensitisation due to repeaters. Nevertheless its
improvement would be lower if a disturbance was encountered.
MHAs can even give better protection against blocking through its severe filtering capabilities.
Optimum improvement is experienced when MHAs are designed homogeneously on all sites.
9. References
[1] UMTS Downlink Dimensioning, version 1.0, July 2001, ref LF00432O by P.Manzano
[2] UMTS MHA Orange Corporate Specification, September 2001

Use of MHA On UMTS PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Use of MHA On UMTS PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CoE Radio Access

Object, short description :

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 1/26 -

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 2/26 -

1.1 Scope & Overview

1.2 Conclusions & recommendations

Optimum improvement is experienced when MHAs are designed homogeneously on all

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 3/26 -

2 General physical description

Figure 1: Physical description of a typical MHA.

3 Noise Figure calculation

3.1 Friis formula

Figure 2: Reception chain model

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 4/26 -

3.2 Noise Factor improvement

* Includes top and bottom jumpers

Using Equation 2 and knowing that the NF of a passive element equals:

The NF of the chain yields:

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 5/26 -

Figure 4: Elements of a reception chain with MHA

The noise factor of the chain in

The standard values for these variables are:

Element Lt_jump NFMHA GMHA Lcable NFNode B

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 6/26 -

Gain with MHA / cable loss

6.0 NF without MHA

4. Effect of external noise on the link budget with MHA

Let us first have the general understanding of the effect:

Total received noise can be expressed as:

N total = N rec + N ext

We have to assess the term external in-band noise:

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 7/26 -

2) N total with MHA < N total without MHA

Sensitivity with Noise Increase

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 8/26 -

4.1 Case without MHA

N Total = N rec + N ext = (kTB NFsystem ) + N ext

The sensitivity at the antenna input is:

4.2 Case with MHA

N Total = N rec + N ext = (kTB NFsystem ) + N ext

If we refer to the part 2.3, we have:

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 9/26 -

4.3 Comparison between 2 cases

The difference between sensitivities equals the difference between noises:

Total noise with Total noise without Noise_with_MHA -

Noise_with_MHA - Noise_without_MHA (dB)

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 10/26 -

Sensitivity for Speech with and without MHA / Noise level

5. Practical examples of external noise

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 11/26 -

There are 2 possibilities for the operator:

{isolation_ with _ mha}dB {isolation_ without _ mha}dB = {mha _ improvement}dB

5.2 Adjacent interference / Dead Zone

Referring to several documents on Dead Zone (FTR&D/DMR/URF/01.0326/JPD & FTR&D/DMR/IIM/

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 12/26 -

PUE 1 P 1 G MHA _ adj

Case 1: use of a MHA with 60 MHz of bandwidth

Case 2: use of a MHA with 15 MHz of bandwidth

Case 1: 3GPP standards give at +/- 5 MHz

Use of MHA for UMTS v1_final.doc - 21/08/02 17:08:00 - 13/26 -

ACIR (60 MHz MHA) = 40.2 dB

5.3 External noise due to repeaters