LTE RPESS

LTE TDD Coverage Planning - Cell Range

1 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0

Module Objectives

After completing this module, the participant should be able to:

Compare the cell range of LTE TDD with other technologies

3 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0

Coverage Dimensioning

Comparison: LTE TDD vs. other technologies

4 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0

 Comparison: LTE vs. other technologies (1/2)
General and common assumptions
Operating band 2600 MHz Cell Edge Throughput: 1024Kbps DL & 128Kbps UL
Bandwidth 20 MHz Frequency dependent packet scheduling: channel
Cell Load 50% for both UL & DL aware DL and channel unaware in UL
Channel model: Enhanced Pedestrian A 5 Hz Cost 231 Hata 2-slope propagation model with:
Equipment Parameters: Penetration loss: 12dB
eNB Tx Power: 43 dBm Shadowing margin: 7.8dB
UE Tx power 23dBm Antenna height eNB: 30m
Feeder Loss: 0.4dB Antenna height UE: 1.5m
TMA/MHA disabled

LTE TDD LTE FDD

Antenna Gain 14,5 dBi (DL), 0dBi (UL)
Frame Type 2 (TDD), Normal CP
DL/UL configuration 1 (3DL, 2UL)
Subframe format 7
Noise Figures: UE: 7 dB, eNB: 3dB
Antenna Gain 18dBi (DL), 0dBi (UL)
Frame Type 1 FDD, normal CP
Noise Figures: MS: 7 dB, BTS: 2,2dB

CASE A: Equipment 20W Flexi-RRH with 2x2 open CASE A: 20W Flexi RF module, 2x2 open loop TX
loop TX diversity power increase at cell edge 3dB diversity power increase at cell edge 3dB
(TX diversity; no beamforming) CASE B: 40W Flexi RF module, 2x2 open loop TX
CASE B: Equipment 5W transmit power per antenna diversity power increase at cell edge 3dB
with 8 pipe beamforming antenna (total 8x5W=40W),
HBF (hybrid beamforming), beamforming gain= 7.34
dB

5 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0

Comparison MAPL & Cell Range:
TD-LTE vs. LTE FDD (sub-urban)

CASE A: No Beamforming CASE B: Beamforming

TD-LTE LTE FDD TD-LTE LTE FDD
DL1024/UL128 DL1024/UL128 DL1024/UL128 DL1024/UL128
0.99km 1.65km 1.35km 1.65km
128.31 dB 136.12 dB 133.13 dB 136.12 dB

Conclusion
Delta between max. allowable pathloss values:
About 6dB benefit of LTE-FDD as compared Also the antenna gain is lower in LTE TDD
with TD-LTE due to the fact that cell ranges are
calculated so a certain bit rate is achieved at the With beamforming the FDD and TDD there is only
cell edge. Since the transmission is 3dB benefit for LTE FDD
discontinuous in LTE TDD it would be necessary
to transmit with larger bandwidth in TDD than
FDD to achieve similar bit rates
6 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0
 Comparison: LTE vs. other technologies (2/2)
General and common assumptions
Outdoor macro cell layout (cloverleaf)
TMA/MHA disabled
MCS: optimized for highest MAPL/cell range of the
limiting link (UL), DL MCS adapted to match UL
MAPL
Equipment parameters:
TMA/MHA disabled
Feeder Loss 0.5 dB
Channel model: Enhanced Pedestrian A 5 Hz
Cell load: DL 50% / UL 50%
UE power class3
LTE TDD
UE/SS Tx Power 23 dBm
Antenna Gain 18 dBi (UL), 0dBi (DL)
Operating band 2300 MHz
Bandwidth 20 MHz
Equipment 2*20W Flex-RRH
2x2-TX diversity power increase at cell edge 3dB
Frame Type 2 (TDD), Normal CP
DL/UL configuration 1 (3DL, 2UL)
System overhead according to 3GPP 36.211
Noise Figures: UE: 7 dB, eNB: 2.2dB
Diversity: 2Tx-2Rx (DL),1Tx-2Rx (UL)
Frequency reuse 1
7 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0
Interference margin: 1dB (at 50% load)
HARQ enabled
BLER on first transmission = 10%
Propagation model:
COST 231 Hata 2-slope propagation model with
Penetration loss (du,u,su,r): +2dB offset on LTE
clutter [dB]
Clutter correction factor (du,u,su,r): 3, 0, -12, -23 [dB]
Stand. deviation outdoor (du,u,su,r): 9,9,8, 6[dB]
Cell Area Probability (du,u,su,r): 90%
Antenna height NB (du,u,su,r): 30 ,30,35,45m
Antenna height UE/MS: 1.5 m
TDSCDMA
UE/SS Tx Power 24 dBm
Antenna Gain 15.5dBi (UL), 0dBi (DL)
Operating band 2000 MHz
Bandwidth 1.28 MHz,(3 carriers in 5MHz)
Equipment 8-path RRU(5w/path)
8 pipe beam-forming
DL:UL ratio 4:2
Frequency reuse 1x3 for Primary carry
Noise Figures: MS: 7 dB, BTS: 4dB
Beam-forming gain 5dB
8 pipe antenna array normalization gain 9dB
Comparison MAPL & Cell Range:
TD-LTE vs. TDSCDMA (urban)

Urban Urban
TDSCDMA HSDPA TD-LTE TD-LTE TD-LTE
DL384/UL64 DL384/UL64 AMR12.2(VoIP) AMR12.2(VoIP)
0.32km 0.45km 0.33km w/ TTI bundling
121.14 dB 127.79 dB 121.77 dB 0.44km
127.45 dB

TD-LTE
TDSCDMA AMR12.2
DL4096/UL384 0.49km
0.32 km 129.15 dB
121.19 dB

Conclusion
Delta between max. allowable pathloss values:
Similar coverage between
TDSCDMA(DL384/UL64)
with TD-LTE(DL4096/UL384
About 6 dB benefit of TD-LTE(DL384/UL64)
compare with TDSCDMA HSDPA due to lower
TD-LTE SINR requirement at cell edge
8 Nokia Siemens Networks RA41207bEN40GLA0
Delta between max. cell range:
0.16km weakness of TD-LTE VoIP
w/o TTI bunding compare with TDSCDMA
AMR12.2 in Urban (the DL328/UL328 bear for TD-
LTE VoIP leads to smaller cell range of LTE VoIP)
Similar cell range of of TD-LTE VoIP
w/ TTI bunding compare with TDSCDMA AMR12.2
due to gain of TTI bundling