LTE Outdoor Small Cell Practical Deployment

Considerations
IWPC Workshop – Stockholm, Sweden

Rob Cameron • September 19th, 2013

1
LTE Small Cell Considerations

The information presented here was gathered in

a joint effort by The University of Texas at Austin
and CommScope, Inc.

2
Poisson Point Process (PPP)

o # of points in an area of size S: Poisson variable with mean λS

o Given N points in certain area, locations independent

o Superposition of independent PPPs is again a PPP

3
Poisson Point Process (PPP)

• White Paper discussing PPP

• J. G. Andrews, Senior Member, IEEE, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti,
Member, IEEE, “A Tractable Approach to Coverage and Rate in Cellular
Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, Vol. 59, No. 11,
Nov. 2011
• University of Texas has developed their own propagation tool
• Based on PPP
• Result defines the „lower‟ bound of predictions or is „pessimistic‟

4
Comparison of Topology

• Poisson Point Processes (PPP )

• BSs are random and modeled as PPP
• BSs Density: l BS/Area
• UE is located at the origin point

• Traditional Grid Model

• BSs are not random, have hexagon layout
• BSs Density: l  2 9 3R2 BS/Area, R is cell
radius
• UE is located randomly in the network

5
Performance Comparison

o Performance of fixed grid model is an upper bound

o Performance of PPP model is a lower bound
Figure is from J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate
in networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59, no.11, pp. 3122-3134, Nov. 2011.

6
Our System Model

• Contains macro-cell BS and small-cell BS

• Base stations are modeled as PPP
• User located at the origin point

small-cell BS
main macro-cell BS
beam

7
Macro Cell Antenna Model

• Horizontal gain 90 0 dB Bh = 65, Fh = 25 dB

120 60

   2  -10 dB

Gh     min 12   , Fh 
150 30
-20 dB

  Bh  
180 0

Horizontal angle Front back ratio 210 330

relative the main
beam 240 300

Horizontal 270

half power • We use sectored antenna

beam-width with 65 degree horizontal
HPBW and 25 dB FBR for
macro cell BSs.

8
Macro Cell Antenna Model

• Vertical gain
Bv = 7, Fv = 18 dB, tilt = 10
-90 0 dB
-60 -60
-5 dB

-30 -10 dB -30

-15 dB

0 0

30 30

60 60
90

vertical pattern we use vertical pattern from CommScope

9
Small Cell Antenna Model

• Dipole antennas: Gh    0 dB
-3 dB
– 1 element
2.15 dBi 78°

-3 dB
– 2 elements

+3 dB 39°

-3 dB

– 4 elements

+6 dB 19.5°
-3 dB

10
Small Cell Antenna Model

• Dipole antennas:
Gv   Bv  78  10 log10 cos 2.75   tilt 
Gv   Bv 39  10 log10 cos11.73   tilt 
Gv   Bv 19.5  10 log10 cos 47.64   tilt 
Bv = 78 Bv = 78
-90 0 dB -90 0 dB
Bv = 39 Bv = 39
-60 -60 -60 -60
-10 dB Bv = 19.5 -10 dB Bv = 19.5

-30 -20 dB -30 -30 -20 dB -30

-30 dB -30 dB

0 0 0 0

30 30 30 30

tilt = 8 degree tilt = 16 degree

60 60 60 60
90 90

11
Small Cell Antenna Model

• Real 2-elements dipole antenna: Gh    0 dB

– Vertical pattern: • Dimensions:

• Length: 635.0 mm | 25.0 in
• Outer Diameter: 38.1 mm | 1.5 in
• Net Weight : 1.8 kg | 4.0 lb

12
Small Cell Antenna Model

– Horizontal pattern:
90 quasi omni
0 dB
120 60
-10 dB

150 -20 dB 30

-30 dB

180 0

210 330

240 300
270

Horizontal pattern we will use: Horizontal pattern from CommScope

Generate using 3 sectored antenna with 73 (Red and Blue lines denote the +/-
degree horizontal HPBW and 25 dB FBR. slants of the dual pol antenna)
13
Small Cell Antenna Model

– Vertical pattern of quasi-omni antenna:

    tilt 
2

Gv    max  12   , Fv 
  Bv  
Bv = 14, Fv = 16 dB, tilt = 8 Bv = 14, Fv = 16 dB, tilt = 16
-90 0 dB -90 0 dB
-60 -60 -60 -60
-5 dB -5 dB

-30 -10 dB -30 -30 -10 dB -30

-15 dB -15 dB

0 0 0 0

30 30 30 30

60 60 60 60
90 90

Vertical pattern we use: 14 degree vertical HPBW, 16 dB SLL

14
Small Cell Antenna Model

o Study focus

• Determine impact of vertical directivity

• Determine impact of vertical antenna pattern

Horizon Horizon
8° 16°
main main
6𝑚 beam 6𝑚 beam

42.69 𝑚 20.92 𝑚

15
Simulation Settings

Parameter Value Parameter Value

Power of macro cell BS 20 W Power of small cell BS 2W

Macro cell BS density 2.05/km2 Height of small cell BS 6m

Height of macro cell BS 30 m Gm of dipole small cell

2.15 dBi
antenna with 78° HPBW
HPBWh of macro cell 65°
Gm of dipole small cell
5.15 dBi
FBRh of macro cell 25 dB antenna with 39° HPBW

Downtilt of macro cell 10° Gm of dipole small cell

8.15 dBi
antenna with 19.5° HPBW
HPBWv of macro cell 7°
Gm of Real 2-elements
5.15 dBi
dipole small cell antenna
SLLv of macro cell 18 dB
Gm of quasi omni small cell
Gm of macro cell BS 18 dBi 10.2 dBi
antenna

16
Simulation Settings

Parameter Value

HPBWv of quasi omni small cell antenna 14°

SLLv of quasi omni small cell antenna 16 dB

Downtilt of small cell 8° and 16°

Attenuation coefficient γ -40 dB

Building density to macro-cell BS density ratio ρ 15

Average building height 15 m

Average building length 25 m

17
 Simulation Results

Comparison of coverage probability performance of different small cell

antenna pattern, θtilt = 8°, λ2 = 15 λ1
1

0.55
0.9
• With down tilt, the quasi
0.5 omni antenna performs
0.8
better.
tilt = 8 degree
Coverage Probability

0.7 0.45

0.6 0.4
4 5 6

0.5 Dipole omni, B v = 78

Dipole omni, B v = 39
0.4 Dipole omni, B v = 19.5
Quasi omni antenna
0.3 Real 2-elements dipole
Macro tier network
0.2
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
SIR threshold in dB

18
 Simulation Results

Comparison of coverage probability performance of different small cell

antenna pattern, θtilt = 16°, λ2 = 15 λ1
1

0.9
• With down tilt, the quasi

0.8
omni antenna performs
better.
tilt = 16 degree
Coverage Probability

0.7 • Coverage probability

increases with the
0.6 decrease in antenna
beam-width.
0.5 Dipole omni, B v = 78
Dipole omni, B v = 39
0.4 Dipole omni, B v = 19.5
Quasi omni antenna
0.3 Real 2-elements dipole
Macro tier network
0.2
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10
SIR threshold in dB

19
Simulation Results

Comparison of Area of Spectral Efficiency (ASE) of different small cell antenna

pattern with λ2 =15 λ1
Area spectral efficiency (bps/Hz/km2)
Cases
No tilt 8° tilt 16° tilt
1-tier network contains only
14.66 14.66 14.66
macro tier BSs
Dipole
61.30 -- --
HPBWv = 78°
Dipole
60.20 62.28 65.25
HPBWv = 39°
2-tier Real 2 elements
58.41 61.80 69.29
network dipole
Dipole
52.84 62.67 74.35
HPBWv = 19.5°
Quasi-omni
47.94 62.91 82.00
HPBWv = 14°

20
Simulation Results

Comparison of average area throughput with λ2 =15 λ1 and 20 MHz bandwidth

Average Area Throughput (Gbps/km2)

Cases
No tilt 8° tilt 16° tilt
1-tier network contains only
0.29 0.29 0.29
macro tier BSs
Dipole
1.23 -- --
HPBWv = 78°
Dipole
1.20 1.25 1.30
HPBWv = 39°
2-tier Real 2 elements
1.17 1.24 1.39
network dipole
Dipole
1.06 1.25 1.49
HPBWv = 19.5°
Quasi-omni
0.96 1.26 1.64
HPBWv = 14°

21
Simulation Results

Throughput gain over 2 elements no tilt dipole, λ2 =15 λ1

Throughput Gain
Cases
No tilt 8° tilt 16° tilt
Dipole
1.83% -- --
HPBWv = 78°
Dipole
0 3.46% 8.39%
HPBWv = 39°
Real 2 elements
-2.97% 2.66% 15.10%
dipole
Dipole
-12.23% 4.10% 23.50%
HPBWv = 19.5°
Quasi-omni
-20.37% 4.50% 36.21%
HPBWv = 14°

22
 Summary

o Impact of down tilt

• Both coverage probability and ASE of the heterogeneous network are
improved with the introduction of small cell BS antenna down tilt.
• Both coverage probability and ASE increase when the down tilt of small
cell BS antennas increases.

o Impact of vertical beam-width

• With no small cell BS antenna down tilt, ASE decreases as the vertical
beam-width of small cell BS antenna decreases.
• With small cell BS antenna down tilt, both coverage probability and
ASE increase when the vertical beam-width of small cell BS antenna
decreases.

23
How can we help you?

24