LTE Uplink Delay Constraints for

Smart Grid Applications

Spiros Louvros2, member IEEE, Michalis Paraskevas1, 2, Vassilis Triantafyllou2, Agamemnon Baltagiannis3
1
Computer Technology Institute and Press Diophantus (CTIP), Greece
2
Computer and Informatics Engineering Department, Technological Educational Institute of Western Greece
3
University of Patras, Greece

AbstractLTE cell planning requires special constraints in

case of smart grid applications. Cell planners decide about II. BUFFERING BEFORE SCHEDULING DELAY
the cell coverage mostly based on worst radio conditions (cell ESTIMATION
edge) acceptable level of minimum throughput, but not on A generalized queue system is considered, with one
delay constraints which are of extreme importance for smart
single server (MAC scheduler), m channels (RB resources)
grid solutions. In this paper a semi-analytical approach for
in parallel, finite queue length, Poisson packets per
uplink cell planning with delay constraints for smart grid
applications is proposed, using theoretical outputs from
second (although lately has been found that other
analytical mathematical models combined with real distributions fit the packet arrival, Poisson is still a very
measurements from drive test. good approximation) and service time 0. Moreover transit
time effects are neglected on this analysis. In order to have
Keywords - LTE; smart grid; uplink delay queue system in equilibrium we do suppose that per 1 ms
TTI always m > . Define n the probability of existing n
I. INTRODUCTION packets in queue at a given time and pn the probability
that zero packets exist in the queue as long as n packets
Long Term Evolution [LTE] is the evolution of High exist in the server at given time , overall probability
Speed Packet Access [HSPA] cellular networks towards 4G analytical solution n will be [8]:
[1]. Lately, on international literature, there are research
papers and technical reports for LTE applications over
( m )( z z1 )( z z2 ) ( z zm )
smart grid networks [2-4]. However effective EUTRAN
zn = (1)
(1 z1 )(1 z2 ) (1 zm1 ) 1 z m e (1 z )
n
radio delay and latency constraints are never considered so n =0
far on international literature regarding cell planning
algorithms; nevertheless it is extremely important to
include delay constraints into cell planning analysis since To analytically calculate n it is needed to expand the
LTE 3GPP standards and smart grid IEC 61850-5 standards right part of (1) into the Laurent series around z = 0, where
[5] define strict restrictions on radio delays. In this paper n for n = 0, 1, 2,,n will be the coefficients of zn after the
we propose a methodology of correcting initial cell expansion is performed. Consider the case of m = 1 (MAC
coverage planning using delay constraints, based on a semi- scheduler considers each packet as a unique SDU service
analytically evaluated relation among packet transmission input) the numerator is degenerated into a simple
delays, cell edge path losses, MAC retransmissions and real polynomial of order one with one single real root
drive test measurements. MAC scheduler provides uplink
decisions mainly based on RB measurements per resource 1 1

block (RB), required Quality of Service received from core
n =0
n z n

n =0
mz = 0
n =1 (2)
network (Quality Class Identifier QCI) [6] and cell load
conditions including interference and availability on RB ( 0 + 1 z 0 z 1 z ) = 0 z = 1, 0 0
together with fast scheduling [7]. Rest of the paper is
organized in the following way: in section II we present The polynomial expansion coefficients, after expanding
service buffering delay estimation before MAC scheduler the polynomial into Laurent series around z = 0 and
functionality. In section III packet transmission/ substituting / = as the utilization factor, are becoming:
retransmission delays over air interface are considered. In
section IV the proposed cell planning algorithm with
emphasis on smart grid delay constraints is analyzed in
( z ) = nzn =
( 1)( z 1) =
concrete steps, where all calculations are detailed and (1 z )
analytically explained. Finally on section V conclusions are n=0 1 ze
summarized. = (1 ) + ( 1) (1 e ) z + (3)

+ ( 1) ( e ( 1) e 2 ) z 2 + ....
 From expansion the general term is calculated as:
n ( k )n k
n = (1 ) ( 1)
n k
ek
k =1 ( n k )! (4)
n ( k )n k 1
+ (1 ) ( 1) e k
nk
k =1 ( n k 1)!
k n
Average expected delay is calculated as:
W = n n (5)
n =1
Average expected delay is plotted in fig. 1 against
offered load = /, where is the arrival rate of packets at
the buffer and the service rate of packets from buffer to
scheduler system.
III. SCHEDULING TRANSMISSION DELAY ESTIMATION
IP packets will be segmented into many RLC/MAC
Signaling Data Units (SDUs) to be mapped into OFDM RB
and transmitted over air interface. Between user equipment
(UE) and eNodeb each MAC packet is supposed to be
transmitted completely over the air interface before starting
transmission of next MAC packet in a time transmission
interval duration of Ts = 1ms due to Hybrid ARQ (HARQ)
MAC functionality. Moreover multiple consecutive
resource blocks nRB might be selected from MAC scheduler
for uplink transmission, minimizing the transmission
latency and improving the UE throughput. Our analysis will
be based on transmissions of IP packets over RLC/MAC
blocks based on channel conditions [9]. Suppose that an IP
packet of average length MI be fragmented in such a way
that the resulting MAC packets of variable length (due to
link adaptation modulation & coding decisions) Mmac
contain a fixed number of Mover header bits per packet [10].
In such a model MI packet will be segmented into
MI / Mmac total number of RLC/MAC packets with MI +
MI / Mmac Mover total number of transmitted bits.
Considering non-ideal radio channel conditions, in such a
scenario, the transmission time needed to completely
transmit the IP packet will be increased due to eventual
retransmissions and non-scheduling periods of time. It is
important to remember that scheduler link adaptation (LA)
function will decide about non-scheduling periods and
MAC packet sizes based on Quality Class Identifier (QCI)
priorities and uplink measurements. The expected average
whole IP packet transmission time would be:
M I + M I M mac M over
WMac = Ts + ( m + n ) Ts
nAP nRB nTs
Fig. 1. Mean expected buffering delay (ms)
where nTs is the number of transmitted bits per RB
depending on Link Adaptation Modulation Scheme. nRB is
the average allocated number of 180 kHz RB blocks per Ts
transmission interval. nAP is the spatial multiplexing rank
and finally n and m are two integers indicating the average
number of Ts units of time one MAC packet is not
scheduled by scheduler and the average number of
retransmissions one packet should undergo due to channel
conditions respectively.
IV. CELL PLANNING ALGORITHM
In order to include the delay smart grid constraints into
the nominal cell planning procedure, design steps should be
considered introducing metrics to conclude average delay.
Substituting all these metrics into (6) the average scheduler
delay is estimated. Adding also the expected average
buffering delay the planners have an estimation of the
maximum expected radio delay for a service at cell edge.
Based on IEC 61850-5 [5] standards for Advanced Meter
Infrastructures smart grid applications planners could check
whether they are compliant with RDelay restriction, where
RDelay is the expected cell range due to delay constraints,
(Fig. 2). Following the analysis on nominal cell planning
with strict throughput constraints RThroughput [13] LTE cell
coverage range prediction for outdoor Urban coverage of
95% was roughly estimated to be d = 125 m. We should
follow explicitly the proposed steps for d = 125 m cell
range to validate our analysis on delay constraints. Cell
Planning analysis follows:
A. Path loss evaluation
Cell planners, during nominal cell planning, should
evaluate a cell range RThroughput that fulfills certain
throughput constraints. Following this assumption we
could calculate expected worst scenario pathloss Ltarget. Our
analysis should be based on certain defined pathloss models
for LTE in international literature. A well defined formula
for 2.5 GHz LTE microcell outdoor to outdoor coverage is
(6) [9]:
 39+ 20log ( d [ m ]), 10 m< d 45 m
10
L[ dB ] =
39+ 67log10 ( d [ m ]), d > 45 m
At worst radio conditions (cell edge user at d = 125 m)
[8] pathloss is calculated to be (7) -101.5 dB.
B. Noise floor per RB
Noise NRB per resource block is considered to be the
background wideband noise mostly created by Thermal
Noise Power Density in dB/Hz, calculated from
Boltzmanns constant kB = 1.38 x 10-23 J/0K and the
absolute temperature in Kelvin T = 290 0K to be -174
dB/Hz and for 180 kHz resource block bandwidth it is
calculated as -111.44 dB, [13].
C. Uplink Interference per RB
Interference is considered to be inter-cell interference
from a neighbour cell UE transmitting on the same resource
block on same TTI. It could be calculated either from
mathematical assumptions [15], or simulation results or real
network measurements. From our perspective we do
consider that it is more accurate to have an average
estimation of inter cell interference per resource block at a
given path loss from real drive test measurements. During
drive test for 20 MHz band cell configurations, different
uplink received power levels Pr per RB have been reported
and the appropriate plots of Absolute Interference per RB
vs. cell edge Path Loss Ltarget have been created, Fig. 3. The
analytical mathematical functions after curve fitting are
expressed from up to bottom as:
2 3
480.631+9.850 Lp 0.08 L p + 0.0002 Lp
2 3
292.047 + 4.683 L p 0.0372 Lp + 0.000087 Lp
I [ dBm ] =
264.84 +3.832 Lp 0.03 L2p + 0.000073 L3p
142.8+ 0.2315 Lp + 0.002 L2p 0.00002 L3p
At worst cell conditions we do suppose maximum UE
uplink power of PUE = 31.76 dBm = 1.5 W, an assumption
Fig. 2. IEC 61850-5 standards
(7)
Fig. 3. Absolute Inter-cell Interference
that is validated from most LTE handsets on market.
Considering typical cell bandwidth configuration of 20
MHz, meaning 100 available number of physical resource
blocks, the available power per resource block is 1.5 W /
100 = 0,015 W = 11.76 dBm . Hence the expected received
uplink power per RB on the eNodeB antenna, considering a
typical Kathrein directional antenna gain of 18 dBi, will be
Pr [dBm] = PUE + GR Ltarget = 11.76 dBm + 18 dBi 101.5
= - 71.74 dBm. From (8) and figure 3 for Pr =< -100 dBm
estimated interference is considered to be IRB = -119.6
dBm.
D. Uplink estimation at cell edge
An adequate cell planning restriction is to select
specific SINR target 0,target higher than expected eNB
receiver sensitivity. The eNB receiver sensitivity, SeNodeB, is
defined as the minimum uplink received power on base
station required to correctly decode uplink RB with 10-10 bit
error rate [13]:
(8)
figure + RBBW + 0,t arg et (9)
SeNodeB [dB] = NTPDF + N eNodeB
where NTPDF is the thermal noise power density,
calculated analytically from Statistical Physics Boltzmanns
constant kB = 1.38 x 10-23 J/0K and absolute temperature in
Kelvin T = 290 0K , to be - 174 dB/Hz. N eNodeB
figure is the
eNodeB noise figure which defines a degradation of SNR
due to RF components in an RF signal chain (2 dB for
uplink) [13,14] and RBBW is the resource block bandwidth
of 180kHz .Substituting into (9) we get SeNodeB = -119.44 +
0,target dB. Considering a pre-selected link budget at cell
edge from (7), then a specific required SINR target could
be calculated as [13] and [15]:
Lt arg et [dB] = PTUE , RB
SeNodeB M LNF LBL
,s
(10)
0,t arg et = 144.45 Lt arg et M LNF LBL

Fig. 4. BER measurments, TU3 model
where MLNF is the log-normal fading margin, given by
Jakes formula, for 95% coverage calculated to be 6 dB for
Dense outdoor, 8.4 dB for Urban indoor or 10 dB for Dense
Urban Indoor [8]. LBL is body loss which could be
considered either as 2 dB for handset palm-top or 0 dB for
lap-top [8]. Target 0,target is considered extremely important
since it will affect the decision upon selection of the
number of resource elements on uplink scheduling and
MAC link adaptation software module. Expected uplink
target at cell edge distance (10) is estimated to be target =
34.95 dB
E. Average number of uplink RB
Based on the target 0,target on cell edge, the number of
allocated resource blocks nRB is calculated considering
uniform power distribution of nominal UE power PUE over
all transmitted resource blocks. This is an assumption
which is validated for most LTE handsets on the market
[11]. Following basic link budget reasoning:
PUE
received
PUE , RB ( Lt arg et nRB )
0,t arg et = = 1 p
noise +int erference ( N RB + I RB )
(11)
PUE
ceiling nRB =
Lpath ( N RB + I RB ) 0,t arg et
The average number of uplink allocated RBs is
estimated to be ceiling[nRB] = 19, where ceiling[x] is the
function selecting the maximum integer number x from an
analytical calculation.
F. Transmitted bits per RB
Number of transmitted bits per RB nTs could be easily
calculated considering the worst case of cell edge UEs. In
such a case MAC scheduler [10], [14] will allocate QPSK
modulation (2 bits per symbol) with TX diversity, thus nAP
= 1 in (6). One sub-frame contains 14 X 12 = 168 resource
elements (RE) and two OFMD symbols (24 RE) of the
subframe are allocated for sounding reference signals.
Available user plane bits per RB in (6) is considered to be
nTs = (168-24) x 2 = 288 bits/ ms.
G. MAC scheduling subframe intervals
During drive test on cell edge for 20 MHz bandwidth, an
FTP file of 3Mbyte = 24 Mbits was downloaded from an
intranet Teledrom AB server. Considering UE to be ideally
scheduled every subframe by MAC scheduler without
retransmissions, then according to the estimated number of
transmitted bits per RB on cell edge, nTs = 288 bits/ ms, the
expected max rate for cell edge user should be n RB 288
kbps. Then minimum downloading time should be
24Mbits/( n RB 288 kbps). From drive test the reported
average total downloading session service time, considering
non ideal conditions with initial transmissions,
retransmissions and non-scheduled periods, was estimated
to be 4.425 s. This means that the non-ideal contribution on
latency of retransmissions m and non-scheduled time
periods n is (m + n)Ts = (4.425 24Mbits/( n RB 288
kbps)) s = (4.425 24Mbits/(19 288 kbps)) s = 0,039 s.
H. Average number of HARQ MAC retransmissions m
The average number of retransmissions m is a function
of the physical packet error rate. Let p be the packet non
successful probability (error probability). Non successful
probability is related to the MAC packet length Mmac and
the bit error probability pb as [9]:
p = 1 (1 pb ) M mac (12)
During nominal cell planning, target and consequently
bit error probability pb have very low values, hence the
average number of retransmissions is approximated as [9]:
m
1
= (1 pb ) mac (1 + M mac pb ) ,
M
pb = 1 (13)
From (13) it is obvious that retransmissions depend
explicitly on the bit error probability pb and on the average
size of the MAC packet Mmac. To calculate pb most
researchers rely on simulations. In our paper instead we did
initiated drive test measurements in an urban environment
which is highly dispersive using a test e-NB of Teledrom
AB with a rooftop car antenna to remove car penetration
losses. Real data have been collected using TEMS
investigation Data Collection software and statistical
counters have been reported using Operation &
Maintenance GUI Ericsson tools. An LTE UE category 4
with typical characteristics of max uplink bit rate = 50
Mbps, uplink higher supported modulation 16 QAM with
spatial multiplexing 22 or QPSK with TX diversity has
been used [11]. In Fig.4 BER vs. blocking probability has
been plotted. Test drive was compliant with the Typical
Urban channel model (TU3 model, 3Km/h) requirements
[12]. Throughout the drive test the average Eb/N0 has been
reported to be equal to 30 dB, indicating thus a relative
good quality. From Fig. 4 Eb/N0 = 30dB corresponds to an
approximate pb of 0.06. Ericsson statistical counter
pmUeThpVolUl in units of [kbits] measures uplink MAC
SDU volume and finally Ericsson counter
pmUeThpTimeUl in units [ms] provides the period of
MAC volume measurements in ms. From TEMS
investigation, during drive test, MAC reported
measurements have been calculated to be pmUeThpVolUl
= 345282 kbits and pmUeThpTimeUl = 900000 ms = 900
sec = 15 min. Hence pmUeThpVolUl/ pmUeThpTimeUl
= 383.6 bits/1ms which provides average Mmac = 384 bits
per TTI interval of Ts = 1 ms. Substituting into (13) pb =
0,06 and Mmac = 384 bits results into average m = 24.
Following previous analysis (m + n)Ts = 0,039 s (24 +
n) = 39 n = 15.
I. Average MI and Mover estimation
Average MI and Mmac bits on (6) could be estimated from
drive test, following network statistics on Operation &
Maintenance SubSystem OSS for Ericsson test eNB on
Teledrom AB test equipment. Ericsson counter
PmPdcpVolUlDrb in units [kbits] measures total uplink
volume (PDCP Signaling Data Units SDU) in an
established Data Radio Bearer per measurement period,
providing a good estimate of MI. RLC/MAC overhead on
LTE is considered to be Mover = 20 bytes [15]. Following
drive test reported statistics PmPdcpVolUlDrb = 545627
kbits per measurement period of 15 minutes = 900000 ms.
Consequently MI = PmPdcpVolUlDrb/900000ms= 607
bits/ms. Consequently MI / Mmac = 2. Overall delay in the
uplink transmission will be the contribution of MAC layer
delays (6) and PDCP buffer input delays (5). Substituting
previous analysis into (6) the final MAC delay will be:
M I + M I M mac M over
WMac = Ts + ( m + n ) Ts =
nAP nRB nTs
607bits + 2 160bits
ms + 39ms = 42.22ms
288
Adding also (5) the worst case of a loaded handset
service of = 0.8 then average buffer delay will be W = 6
ms, contributing to total average delay of 42.22 ms + 6 ms
= 48.22 ms. Following Fig. 2 it is obvious that, for all types
of smart grid signaling messages, outdoor LTE cell
coverage range of d = 125 m [8] fulfills delay constraints.
V. CONCLUSIONS
In general case planners should always reconsider the
cell range to minimize delay. To minimize delay, Wmac
should be minimized and from (14) it is obvious that the
highest contribution to MAC delay is produced by MAC
scheduler delay which is a function of Signal to Noise and
Interference ratio .
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The related activities that led to these results were
funded by National Funds (CTI: Technical Consultant of
MoE 2014, Work package: Study of use of "clean"
network access technologies in a school environment).
Also, authors would like to express their gratitude to P.
Kostopoulos, C.E.O. of Teledrom AB, Sweden, for its
prompt support on setting up LTE eNB for the Drive Test.
REFERENCES
[1] 3GPP TR 25.913, Feasibility Study of Evolved UTRA and
UTRAN, Rel-9, 2009.
[2] A. Aggarwal, S. Kunta, and P. Verma, A proposed communication
infrastructure for the smart grid, in Innocative Smart Grid
Technologies (ISGT), 2010, 2010
[3] Y. Xu, Latency and Bandwidth Analysis of LTE for a Smart Grid.
Master Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
XR-EE-RT 2011:018. 2011.
[4] P. Cheng, L. Wang, B. Zhen and S. Wang, "Feasibility study of
applying LTE to smart grid," in proc. of Smart Grid Modeling and
Simulation (SGMS), 2011 IEEE First International Workshop,
Brussels, Oct 2011.
[5] IEC, IEC 61850-5: Communication requirements for functions and
device models, 2002
[6] 3GPP TS 23.203, Policing and Charging Control Architecture,
Rel-11, V11.4.0, 2011
[7] A. Pokhariyal, T. E. Kolding, and P. E. Mongensen, Performance
of Downlink Frequency Domain Packet Scheduling for the UTRAN
Long Term Evolution, IEEE 17th International Symposium on
Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pp. 1-5,
September 2006.
[8] Spiros Louvros and Michael Paraskevas, Analytical Average
Throughput and Delay Estimations forLTE Uplink Cell Edge
Users, Special Issue, Elsevier Computer & Electrical Engineering
(CEE), volume 40, issue 5, pp. 1552 1563, July 2014
[9] S. Louvros, A.C. Iossifides, K. Aggelis, A. Baltagiannis, G.
Economou, A Semi-Analytical Macroscopic MAC Layer Model
for LTE Uplink, Proc. Of 5th IFIP International Conference on
New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS 2012), May
2012.
[10] 3GPP TS 36.321, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-
(14) UTRA); Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification
(Release 8), V8.1.0, 2008.
[11] 3GPP TS 36.306, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-
UTRA) User Equipment (UE) Radio Access Capabilities, Rel-8,
V8.0.0, 2007
[12] 3GPP TR 45.050, Background for Radio Freequency (RF)
Requirements, Rel-10, V10.0.0, 2011
[13] S. Louvros, K.Angelis , A.Baltagiannis, LTE Cell Coverage
Planning Algorithm Optimizing User Cell Throughput,
Proceedings of 11th IEEE International Conference on
Telecommunications (ConTEL 2011), pp. 51-58, June 2011
[14] Beniero T., Redana S., Hamalainen J., Raaf B., Effect on relaying
on coverage on 3GPP LTE-advanced IEEE Vehicular Technology
Conference, 2009. (VTC), pp. 1-5, April 26-29 2009.
[15] Abdul Basid, Syed, Dimensioning of LTE Network. Description of
Models and Tools, Coverage and Capacity Estimation of 3GPP
Long Term Evolution, Master Thesis, Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Helsinki University of Technology,
February 20, 2009.