1. Evaluation Model for LTE-Advanced
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #53bis 　　　　　　　R
Warsaw, Poland, June 30 – July 4, 2008
Evaluation Model for LTE-Advanced
NTT DoCoMo, Inc.
Agenda item: 12 Document for: Discussion and Decision

2. Contents
At the RAN plenary meeting in Prague, target values for Case 1 were agreed
Average spectrum efficiency, i.e., capacity, and cell-edge user throughput for each antenna configuration
Propose
Necessity of modified Case 1 with wider bandwidth
Simulation assumptions for respective radio environments including traffic models and simulation methodologies

3. Necessity of Modified Case 1 with Wider Bandwidth
Case 1 with 10 MHz bandwidth is necessary to clarify the gains of technologies applied to LTE-Advanced
Moreover, performance evaluations for low rate services such as VoIP are to be conducted in Case 1
Modified Case 1 with wider bandwidth
However, transmission bandwidth for Base coverage urban environment in ITU-R is wider than 20 MHz
In addition, performance of high rate service should be evaluated under assumptions relevant to deployment of LTE-Advanced
Hence, modified case 1 with wider transmission bandwidth should be added to Case 1 as Basic urban environment
Target values in modified Case 1 are the same or slightly modified considering increasing frequency diversity

4. Traffic Models (1)
In LTE-Advanced, finite buffer models should be considered in addition to infinite buffer, i.e., full-buffer model for the following reasons
Traffic model with constant offered load (equal served traffic model) is more realistic than full buffer model because it simulates services such as streaming and downloads
Equal served traffic model affects inter-cell interference management, coordinated multi-cell transmission/reception, etc., since interference variation level becomes high in multi-cell operation
Hence, equal served traffic model should be used in addition to full buffer model

5. Traffic Models (2) Required traffic models to evaluate LTE-Advanced
Full buffer model: Simple and full network load model
 Used to assess performance for LTE-Advanced especially in terms of capacity and peak spectrum efficiency
Equal served traffic model: Node B offers the constant served traffic [1]
 Used to assess performance for the same network load especially in terms of cell edge throughput
[1] Ericsson, R

6. Simulation Methodology (1)
In LTE-Advanced, coordinated multi-cell transmission/reception will be more important. Thus, more realistic simulation model considering actual interference variation in multi-cell environment should be considered
Possible simulation models including those used in LTE are listed in the next slide
Appropriate simulation methods should be employed according to technologies or performances to be evaluated [2]
[2] Qualcomm, R

7. Simulation Methodology (2)
Link-level
System-level
With single link
With multiple links
Quasi dynamic
Dynamic
Techniques or performance to be evaluated
Comparison of techniques assuming single UE in a single cell
Comparison of techniques assuming multiple UEs or/and in multi-cells
Multi-cell operations considering realistic other-cell interference
Multi-cell operations considering dynamic UE mobility
Other-cell interference
Gaussian
Explicitly modeled for dominant cells and Gaussian for others
Explicitly modeled (time and frequency variations are modeled)
Multiple access interference (MAI)
Explicitly modeled for dominant UEs and Gaussian for others
Path loss
Constant
Time varying
Shadowing
Instantaneous fading
Cell change
N/A
Applied (rarely happens)
Applied (long observation time needed) 7

8. Simulation Assumption for Respective Radio Environments
Subsequent slides show detailed simulation assumptions for respective radio environments as a starting point for discussion, although we need modification according to ITU discussion
The values in “black” represent the agreed values at the Kansas meeting (R )
The values in “red” represent the proposed values
If the agreed value at the Kansas meeting has a range, the value in red after “” represents the proposed value

9. System Simulation Scenario (1) Inter-cell interference
Parameter
Case 1
(Modified Case 1)
Micro
Indoor
Rural/
High speed
Inter-cell interference
Cellular
Isolated
Inter-site distance
500 m
[200 – 300 m]
 200 m
N/A
(larger than Case 1)
 1732 m
Carrier frequency
2 GHz
(3.4 GHz)
3.4 GHz
800 MHz
Bandwidth
10 MHz
(DL Approx. 50 MHz
UL 20 MHz)
Wider than 20 MHz
 DL 100 MHz
UL 40 MHz
(T.B.D.)
 10 MHz
eNB Tx power
46 dBm
(49 dBm)
(lower)
 30 dBm
>= 46 dBm
 46 dBm
Penetration loss
20 dB
 10 dB
UE speed
3 km/h
 3 km/h
(mixed)
 120 km/h

10. System Simulation Scenario (2)
Parameter
Case 1
(Modified Case 1)
Micro
Indoor
Rural/
High speed
Distance-dependent path loss*
L= log10(R)
L = log10(R)
(assuming carrier frequency of 3.4 GHz and antenna height of 10 m)
T.B.D.
L= log10(R)
(assuming carrier frequency of 800 MHz and antenna height of 35 m)
Shadowing standard deviation
8 dB
Correlation distance of Shadowing
50 m
T.B.D
Shadowing correlation
Between cells
0.5 -
Between sectors
1.0
Antenna pattern (horizontal)
(For 3-sector cell sites with fixed antenna patterns)
No sectorization
= 70 degrees, Am = 20 dB
* Path loss L is tentatively derived from the equation in TR ( Macro cell propagation model)
L= 40(1-4x10-3Dhb) Log10(R) -18Log10(Dhb) + 21Log10(f) + 80 dB
where Dhb is the base station antenna height (15 m assumed for Case 1)

11. System Simulation Scenario (3)
Parameter
Case 1
(Modified Case 1)
Micro
Indoor
Rural/
High speed
Channel model
TU early simulations
SCM later simulations
Simple model *** early simulations
SCM-based later simulations
UE power class
24 dBm
Inter-cell Interference Modelling
Explicit modelling -
Minimum distance between UE and cell
>= 35 m
>= 10 m
T.B.D.
UE placement
Uniform
*** Simple model extended to 100 MHz for Micro and Indoor scenarios