Global TD-LTE Initiative (GTI)
Estimation and Validationof TD-LTE coverage
Network Planning Task ForceTokyo, 25th -26th on Apr 2012

TF Scope•Conclusion review in 2011
•Frequency Reuse 1 has better SE and final THR, less sensitive
to burst increasing system load with the maturity of the network
infrastructures•TD-LTE network can flexibly adapt its DL/UL resource partition tomeet requirements of different traffic models•Objective in 2012
•How to do coverage planning of LTE?
•Estimation of TD‐LTE coverage•TD‐LTE trial results sharing•What are the solutions for problems we faced in coverage?

Influence factors of coverage‐
Survey Results
scenario and percentage
operator
Belltel
CMCC
FarEstone
IburstTatungNextwave
Omantel

38
39
40
41

Dense
urban
2%
19%
2%
5%
2%
2%
5%

Urban Suburban

Rural

Mountain area

Sea area road

53%
49%
9%
40%
2%
3%
15%

13%

50% of Philippines

7%2570 MHz
1880 MHz
2300 MHz2496 MHz

26%
32%
9%
25%
18%
85%
30%

– 2620 MHz– 1920 MHz– 2400 MHz– 2690 MHz

79%
25%
23%
10%
30%

TBD

5%
55%
5%

201215%• Scenario ,frequency band and antennaconfiguration are all important factors whichshould be paid more attention• Different scenario, different shadow
fading margin• Different frequency band, different
penetration loss and antenna gain
• Different antenna configuration, different
antenna gainLink Budget
With the same frequency band(38) and scenario(dense urban), antenna gain andreceive diversity gain are the causes of path loss and limiting channel difference• Antenna configuration:•PDCCH coverage depends on antenna gain: 2 path>4 path>8 path
•PRACH coverage depends on receive diversity gain and antenna gain: 8 path>4 path>2path•Limiting control channel coverage: 4 path>8 path>2path• Comparison between TDD and FDD:
•control channel of TD-LTE(2 path) & LTE FDD(2 path) has the samecoverageTrial Results‐2/8 path antennaCondition• Test environment: urban,hBS = 30 ~ 40m,ISD = 500m /dense urban, hBS = 20 ~30m,ISD = 300m
• Network Configuration: band 38 , 20MHz bandwidth, frequency reuse factor=1, 3 sectors/cell• Antenna configuration: 2 path(17.5~18dBi),8 path(16~16.5dBi)• Test method: test UE(always locked in the serving cell PCI) goes straight along the antenna
normal direction

Results
downlink

8 path2 path

0 50% 70% 0 50% 70% 0 50% 70% 0 50% 70%
Vendor A

uplink8 path2 path

0 50% 70% 0 50% 70% 0 70% 0 50% 70%
Vendor A
Vendor BC
Vendor D

Random access

8 path2 path

0 50% 70% 0 50% 70%
Vendor B
Vendor C

0 50% 70%
Vendor DConclusion• With same type of antenna, the coverage of UL¥DL (call drop point)is close to each other; thecoverage of random access point is nearer than them
• From call drop point of view, Compared to 2 antenna, DL coverage gain of 8 antenna is 13.21%,ULcoverage gain of 8 antenna is 20.71%(coverage gain=(D8-D2)/D2)• From edge data rate at 5Mbps point of view, Compared to 2 antenna, DL coverage gain of 8antenna is 39%,UL coverage gain of 8 antenna is 44.56%

Trial results‐ penetration lossCondition• Goal : to get reserved margin from outdoor to indoor at different band
• Method :by testing outdoor and indoor signal strength at either side of different materials on thesame horizon level• Materials: glass (window), bearing wall, multilayered wall (indoor, far away from window)• Configuration: frequency reuse factor=1, 3 sectors/cell, Bandwidth=20MHz, Dense urban area,(different band result got from present network under the same sites with LTE)

Results
Frequencymaterials
Glass(Window)
Glass screen wall
Concrete wall
multilayered wall

900MHz

1800MHz

2GHz

2.6GHz

0
N/A
12.61
28

N/A
6.24
N/A
N/A

97.18
15.18
35

10
10.61
19.90
43Conclusion• Penetration loss variance will be influenced by materials and frequency band variance. Thethicker material is , the larger penetration loss variance between different frequency band.
Usually, penetration loss under 2.6GHz will be higher 4~15dB than 2GHz except glass windowSummary•Link budget analysis•Control channel coverage of 4&8 path antenna is better than 2 path antenna•At the access point, edge data rate of 8 path antenna is the best (DL:5Mbps,UL:128kbps)•Control channel of TD-LTE(2 path) & LTE FDD(2 path) has the same coverage•Coverage performance evaluation•Coverage distance•Call drop point: 13% longer than 2 path antenna in down link and 21% longer inup link in average•Data rate at 5Mbps : Compared to 2 antenna, DL coverage gain of 8 antenna is39%,UL coverage gain of 8 antenna is 44.56%•Penetration loss under 2.6GHz will be higher 4~15dB than 2GHz except glasswindow

Thank you!

Annex 1 - propagation model(1)HATA propagation modelAnnex 1 - propagation model(2)Cost 231 HATA propagation loss modelAnnex 2 ‐ Scenario Definitions
Scenario

Description
Complex wireless transmission environment, average height of buildings
is above 40 meters， density of large building is higher than 35%.TypicalDense urban
area is CBD， most users here have larger demand on voice、 dataservice and higher QOS requirements
Average height of buildings is less than 40 meters， density of building isUrban
between 8%~35%.Typical area is residential area, service requirement
here is lower than dense urban
Average height of buildings is less than 20 meters， density of building isSuburban
between 3%~8%.Typical area is park、 industrial area and blocks,
service requirement here is close to urban area
Open area, average height of buildings is less than 20 meters， density
Ruralof building is less than 3%.Typical area is village with small population.
Service requirement here is small as well
Terrain and signal strength change greatly and variously, Service
Mountain area
requirement here is small but necessary for life saving

GTI Taskforce
Multi-Antenna Solutions &Specifications
ReportCMCC

TF Lead: Ma Xin
Date: 16,April

Basic TF information•TF:–•

Background：––•

D1: multi-antenna key performance evaluations & trial
D2: multi-antenna tech solutions
D3: specifications of multi-antenna product series

Progress since last meeting:
–
–
–

•

Common requirements for TDD multi antenna products
Solutions for compact antenna & co-site antenna requirements
Aligned multi-antenna field trials and key performance evaluation
Push more antenna and equipment vendors to build a strong multi antenna products industry

Deliverables–––•

In GTI, we have researched the basic multi-antenna beamforming algorithm and achieved theconclusion: BF is very important feature in TDD system to improve network performance
In this new TF, we would like to focus on the multi-antenna products and solutions during theprocedure of commercial applications

Scope &objectives:––––•

Multi-Antenna Solutions & Specifications (Ab. MASS)

Finished the survey to GTI members
Invited 6 antenna vendors to join TF-MASS
Continue the research on solutions of compact antenna & co-site antenna

Next steps：––

Release research of antenna solutions
Start the antenna performance research and evaluation

3 main targets of TF:MASS
What MASS will do…

Have you meet the challenges in…?
T1:
Evaluation of different antenna
tech:2/4/8path,esp. performance inreal network

Deployments in complicatednetwork environments: space
limitation ,co-site, etc.

Antenna products selection:-How to find and choose antenna
with good quality-Key performance evaluation andaligned multi-antenna field trials-Recommendation in diff. scenarios
T2:-Solutions from global operating
experience-Platform to share information
T3:-Specification/guideline with widely
antenna vendors participationmulti-antenna performance introduction andcomparisonBasic performance test of 8 path antenna• Interference suppression in cell edge: 39% gain due to beamforming(8path,TM2/7comparison)•Beamforming gain: 4~11 dB (depends on the environments)•MIMO & Beamforming: mode adaption performs best

2/8 path antenna comparison
8 path antenna supporting TM2/3/7 performs better than 2 path antenna•Coverage distance: 13% longer than 2 path antenna in down link and 21%
longer in up link in average•Coverage rate: both satisfied requirements (up to 95%)
•Throughput in Single UE: 48% gain in down link and 22% gain in up link inaverage VS. 2 path antenna; higher gain (downlink/Uplink:39%/45%) in celledge• 8 path antenna will be a good solution for primary outdoor coverage• 2 path antenna will be appropriate for low cost/high speed coverage

Cost comparison•hardware cost: 8Vs.2=1.8•Site num:8 VS.2=0.48(In5Mbps,DL average coverage gain
is 39% in cell edge to 2 ant.)•8 path antenna benefit thenetwork deployment with fewersite amount req.

Multi-antenna design requirement•Multi-band：• Support super-wide band: 1800~2690MHz• 8 path dual-polar design (verified in 3Gnetwork)•Multi-mode：• Support BF&MIMO（2×2、4×2、8×2）• Support 2G/3G/4G•Integrated:• Less antenna connectors（up to 80% less）• Combined with RET tech•Compact design• Easier installation• Much smaller size
• Recommended solution in urban/dense urban
area

Compactdesign

Common specification for multi-antenna product will enlarge the antenna industry
scale and reduce the product costs dramatically !

Work plan
UpdateJan/FebWorkshop

Feb 23-24
Barcelonard3 Workshop•Discussandapprove
the workplan•Collect therequiremen
tsMar/Aprl
3rd Week ofApril, Japan
TF Seminar•Updatethe TF
progress

May/JunJuly/Aug

June
Shanghaith4 Workshop•Share thesurvey
results•Presentthesolutions ofmultiantenna•Discuss
the draft ofspec•Discussalignedtrials(TBD)

Sept/Oct
Oct.
Dubai/India
5th Workshop•Specsdiscussion•Release
specs•Releaseshared trial
info/performance
evaluation

Nov/Dec

Work plan
-output
Jan/Feb

Mar/AprlMain
activities

Survey onReq.

Multi antennaevaluation(T1)

Multi antenna SpecSpecsolutions(T2) discussion(T3) discussion(T3)Date

End of Feb

Mid April

June

By:

Email/call

F2F meeting

F2Fmeeting
Conf. call F2F meeting Conf. call/demonstration

Surveyresults

D1:evluation& trial

Output:May/JunD2:solutions

July/AugMid Aug

Sept/Oct

Oct

D3:specs

Nov/Dec

Nov

Final release