1. LRTC 3.4 – 3.8 GHz Ericsson input PT1 XO 29 – 31/10 2012
Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS
7/4/
LRTC 3.4 – 3.8 GHz Ericsson input PT1 XO 29 – 31/
© Ericsson AB 2012 1 1

2. Introduction
The results in this contribution are preliminary and depend on parameters that may need to be modified.
In some cases new system/deployment parameters are proposed to reflect realistic scenarios.

3. Contents
BS – BS macro, micro, pico and femto MCL analysis (baseline BEM) & proposals for modifications to mobile system/deployment parameters
BS – BS simulation analysis
BS – UE analysis, initial work
Proposed further work

4. BS – BS MCL analysis LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS
Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
7/4/
BS – BS MCL analysis
© Ericsson AB 2012 4 4 4

5. ECC decision on FQ Arr & BS-BS
FREQUENCY ARR FOR THE MHZ BAND BASED ON TDD
3400 MHz
3600 MHz 5
FREQUENCY ARR FOR THE MHz BAND BASED ON FDD
FREQUENCY ARR FOR THE MHz BAND BASED ON TDD

6. BS – BS interference scenarios and general considerations
Bands 22 (FDD) / 42 (TDD)
Band 43
3400 MHz
3600 MHz
3800 MHz 5
Uplink
Duplex Gap
Downlink
3410 MHz
3490 MHz
3510 MHz
3590 MHz 5
Size of arrows do not represent magnitude of interference!
Fq arr with TDD only (3.4 – 3.8 GHz) will not introduce any new scenarios.
Interference from FDD DL to FDD UL is resolved by specs for FDD technologies.
Note ”guard band” 3590 – 3600 GHz and additional spurious emission requirements in 3GPP specs for band 22 into band 43 and vice versa (applied in Europe), roughly -50 dBm/MHz, 20 dB lower than normal spurious. What about additional receiver requirements?
In case of TDD system synchronization and aligned UL/DL configurations, there is no interference (relaxation of requirements due to agreement between operators), so only unsynch/non-alignment needs to be considered for BS-BS interference within bands 42 and 43.

7. Parameter set #1 (draft report)
MACRO
MICRO
PICO
FEMTO
Tx Power
46 dBm
37 dBm
24 dBm
20 dBm
Antenna Height
30 m
6 m
3 m
1 m
Antenna Gain
17 dBi
9 dBi
0 dBi
Feeder Loss
0 dB
Noise Figure
5 dB
13 dB
Antenna Tilt Loss
3dB M-M Actual angle o/w
3D omni
ACLR
45 dB
43 dB
COMMON PARAMETERS
Propagation Model
Free Space
Frequency
3.5 GHz
Bandwidth
10 MHz
I/N Objective
- 6 dB
Penetration Loss for NLOS
18 dB
Direct Horizontal Distance
MACRO
MICRO
PICO
FEMTO
70 m
30 m
20 m
15 m
5 m

8. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED Isolation – db
Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS
7/4/
ADDITIONAL REQUIRED Isolation – db
Rows represent the aggressing BS
Columns represent the victim BS
Additional Required Isolation: The amount of isolation required to meet the I/N criteria of -6 dB
MACRO
MICRO
PICO LOS
PICO NLOS
Femto NLOS
53.77
32.69
12.86
-3.30
46.131
47.653
33.152
15.152
22.131
26.152
18.694
0.694
Pico NLOS
4.13
8.152
0.131
4.15
-3.305
© Ericsson AB 2012 8 8

9. OUT OF BLOCK EIRP – dbm/10 MHz
Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS
7/4/
OUT OF BLOCK EIRP – dbm/10 MHz
MACRO
MICRO
PICO LOS
PICO NLOS
Femto NLOS
-38.77
-38.98
-19.72
-3.55
-22.69
-21.69
Pico NLOS
-3.69
-3.053
-29.15
© Ericsson AB 2012 9 9

10. consideration of parameters and scenarios
Co-sited macro base stations (antenna isolation < isolation from 70 m horizontal separation)?
Possibly unrealistic BEM
Solved by operator coordination instead of tighter BEM?
Noise figure for micro base stations
Propose 8 dB (from 3GPP)
Micro base station power and antenna gain
Currently worst worst case?
Propose 35 dBm and 6 dBi (F.1336 omni peak)
Other configurations to be handled by coordination
Distance between micro and pico base stations
pico: perhaps 10 meters more realistic?
micro: 20 m worst worst case? 40 – 50 m instead? However what if located at intersection, or small city square?
Distances between all combinations of macro, micro and pico base stations are needed, see proposed values above and below.

11. Parameter set #2, proposed modifications
MACRO
MICRO
PICO
FEMTO
Tx Power
46 dBm
35 dBm
24 dBm
20 dBm
Antenna Height
30 m
6 m
3 m
1 m
Antenna Gain
17 dBi
6 dBi
0 dBi
Antenna Type
ITU-R F.1336 Sectorized Peak Gain
ITU-R F.1336
Omni Peak Gain (k=0.7)
Feeder Loss
0 dB
Noise Figure
5 dB
8 dB
13 dB
Antenna Tilt
6 degrees
COMMON PARAMETERS
Propagation Model
Free Space
Frequency
3.5 GHz
Bandwidth
10 MHz
I/N Objective
- 6 dB
Penetration Loss for NLOS
18 dB
Direct Horizontal Distance
MACRO
MICRO
PICO
FEMTO
70 m
30 m
20 m
15 m
5 m & 10 m
5 m

12. ADDITIONAL REQUIRED Isolation – db/10 mhz
Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS
7/4/
ADDITIONAL REQUIRED Isolation – db/10 mhz
Rows represent the aggressing BS
Columns represent the victim BS
Additional Required Isolation: The amount of isolation required to meet the I/N criteria of -6 dB
MACRO
MICRO
PICO LOS
PICO NLOS
Femto NLOS
46.013
15.75
12.866
-5.133
-5.952
9.751
36.65
25.868
7.868
4.036
PICO LOS
-1.133
17.868
18.69 ; 12.67
(5m ; 10m)
0.694 ; -5.32
-0.95 ; -5.74
-0.131
-7.963
-4.95 ; -9.74
© Ericsson AB 2012 12 12

13. OUT OF BLOCK EIRP – dbm/10 MHz
Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS
7/4/
OUT OF BLOCK EIRP – dbm/10 MHz
MACRO
MICRO
PICO LOS
PICO NLOS
Femto NLOS
-34.89
-22.04
-1.726
-1.259
-22.69
-38.65
-21.69 ;
(5m ; 10m)
0.694 ; ;
Pico NLOS
-3.694
-3.053
© Ericsson AB 2012 13 13

14. Macro to Macro
Simulation Results

15.
Deployment Scenario
Offsetted Deployment  System 2 located at cell edge of System 1
Distance (m) 15

16. Simulaton Parameters Parameter Assumption/Value Simulation case
3GPP Case 1
Cellular layout
Hexagonal grid, 19 sites, 3 sectors per site, wrap‑around
Total eNB TX power (Ptotal)
46dBm
Inter-site distance (ISD)
Case 1
500m
Deployment type
Offsetted deployment
System 2 Location
Cell edge of System 1
Distance-dependent Path loss(dB)
eNB-UE
PL= *log10(R),R in km
eNB-eNB
PL= *log10(R),R in km
Shadowing standard deviation
Macro-UE
8 dB
Shadowing correlation
Between sites
0.5
Between cells per site
1.0

17. Simulaton Parameters Parameter Assumption/Value Carrier frequency
2 GHz
Bandwidth
10 MHz
Minimum distance between UE and BS
35m
Deployment area
Urban
BS Height
30 m
Mobile Station Height
1.5 m
Maximum Coupling loss
-70 dB
Antenna pattern for macro eNBs to UEs (horizontal 2D)
= 65 degrees, Am = 20 dB (65 degree horizontal beamwidth)
BS antenna gain (incl. cable loss)
15dBi
UE antenna gain
0 dBi
UE noise figure
9 dB
UE Power
Minimum  -40 dBm, Maximum  23 dBm
Sub-band noise power (DL)
eNB noise figure
5dB PC
Alpha
0.8 P0
(SNR Target + Pnoise)
SNR Target
10 dB

18. Simulation Results
BS- to-BS Interference Scenario

19. Simulation Results
BS- to-BS Interference Scenario

20. BS – UE Simulation study
LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS
Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
7/4/
BS – UE Simulation study
© Ericsson AB 2012 20 20 20

21. External Interference Resource Block Collision (Causing Interference)
Simulation Results
BS- to-UE Interference Scenario
time f
Frequency Resources in the Cells
UE System: 2
External Interference
BS of System 1
BS of System 2
Downlink
Downlink
UE System: 1
- Both UEs Scheduled on Same Resource Block
Desired Signal
Resource Block Collision (Causing Interference)
Signal Causing Interference 21

22. BS – UE interference scenarios and General observations
Bands 22 (FDD) / 42 (TDD)
Band 43
3400 MHz
3600 MHz
3800 MHz 5
Uplink
Duplex Gap
Downlink
3410 MHz
3490 MHz
3510 MHz
3590 MHz 5
The BS – UE interference is identical to that in a standard FDD scenario (BS interfering adjacent channel downlink).
Since current networks (macro, micro, pico, femto?) can be operated without problems, we shouldn’t expect any difficulties in 3.4 – 3.8 GHz either.
However some simulation results won’t hurt, if available.
There will be similar in-block interference scenarios
In some cases BS adjacent channel leakage will be reduced due to BEM requirements from BS-BS interference, UE will be bottleneck.

23. Simulation parameters
Same as for BS – BS simulations.

24.
Simulation Results
BS- to-UE Interference Scenario 24

25.
Simulation Results
BS- to-UE Interference Scenario 25

26. the way forward LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
7/4/
the way forward
© Ericsson AB 2012 26 26 26

27. Further work ”Transitional BEM” and size of ”restricted channel”
Feasibility for equipment, also receiver side
BS-UE: Macro-micro, Macro-pico, micro-pico, and vice versa.
All scenarios?
Work method?
Tools?
Simulation parameters?
LRTC to limit interference to adjacent services: FS
FSS

28. LRTC BEN MCL CALCULATIONS
Pre-PreStudy for RRUS61 B41
7/4/
© Ericsson AB 2012 28 28