ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop onITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on“4G Wireless Systems”
LTE Technology
Session 5 : LTE Technology PerofrmanceEvaluationEvaluation
Speakers M. Lazhar BELHOUCHETM Hakim EBDELLIM. Hakim EBDELLI
Date 27 – 29 January 2010
www.cert.tn1 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Agenda
– Frequency Bands and Typical deployment areas
– Layer 1 Peak Bit Rates
– Terminal Categories
– Reference Sensitivity
– Link Budgets
– Propagation model
– Uplink link budgetUplink link budget
– Downlink link budgets
– Comparison between GSM/HSPA/LTE
– Latency
– LTE Refarming to GSM Spectrum
i i i i
www.cert.tn2
– Capacity Dimensioning
LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Introduction
• Performance evaluation : LTE capabilities from the end user’s and from the operator’s point of viewp p
• The operator is interested in the network efficiency: – how many customers can be served,
– how much data can be provided and how many base station sites are required.
Th d li i f d d• The end user application performance depends on :– available bit rate,
– latency and– latency and
– seamless mobility
www.cert.tn3 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Frequency Bands
www.cert.tn4 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Frequency Bands : Typical deployment areas
• Europe:– Band 7:The 2.6 GHz auctions have been running in a few countries during 2007 and
2008, and continue during 2009/2010.
– Band 8:is currently used mostly by GSM. The band is attractive from a coverage point of view due to the lower propagation losses. The band can be reused for LTE or for HSPA.
– Band 3: is also used by GSM, but in many cases Band 3 is not as heavily used by GSM as Band 8. That makes refarming for LTE simpler.
– Digital dividend
• USA: Bands 4, 12, 13, 14 and 17. Bands 2 and 5 can be used for LTE refarming.
• Japan : Bands 1, 9, 11 and 18.
• LTE deployments globally will use several different frequency bands from the start.
www.cert.tn5 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONLTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
www.cert.tn6 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Layer 1 Peak Bit Rates
sSubCarrierofNumberHzbits
msSubFramepersymbolsofNumbersMbratebitPeak *)(*
1]/[ =
• control and reference signal overheads:– PDCCH: takes one symbol out of 14 symbols. That is the minimum possible PDCCH
allocation The resulting control overhead is 7 1% ( = 1/14)allocation. The resulting control overhead is 7.1% ( = 1/14).
– Downlink Reference Signals (RS) depend on the antenna configuration :Single stream transmission uses 2 RS out of 14 in every 3rd sub‐carrier, 2 × 2 MIMO 4 symbols and 4 × 4 MIMO 6 symbols The overhead varies between 4 8% and 14 3%symbols and 4 × 4 MIMO 6 symbols. The overhead varies between 4.8% and 14.3%.
– Other downlink symbols Overhead: synchronization signal, PBCH, PCFICH, and one group of PHICH. The overhead depends on the BW ranging from below 1% at 20 MHz to approximately 9% at 1 4 MHzMHz to approximately 9% at 1.4 MHz.
– Uplink reference signals take 1 symbol out of 7 symbols resulting in an overhead of 14.3% = 1/7.
www.cert.tn7 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Layer 1 Peak Bit Rates – Cont.
BW RB/Sub‐carriers
/Modulationand coding
Bits/symbol
MIMO usage 1.4 MHz6/72
3.0 MHz15/180
5.0 MHz25/300
10 MHz50/600
15 MHz75/900
20 MHz100/1200
QPSK 1/2 1 Single stream 0.9 2.2 3.6 7.2 10.8 14.4
16QAM 1/2 2 Single stream 1.7 4.3 7.2 14.4 21.6 28.8
16QAM 3/4 3 Single stream 2.6 6.5 10.8 21.6 32.4 43.2
64QAM 3/4 4.5 Single stream 3.9 9.7 16.2 32.4 48.6 64.8
64QAM 1/1 6 Single stream 5.2 13.0 21.6 43.2 64.8 86.4
64QAM 3/4 9 2 × 2 MIMO 7.8 19.4 32.4 64.8 97.2 129.6
64QAM 1/1 12 2 × 2 MIMO 10.4 25.9 43.2 86.4 129.6 172.8Q /
64QAM 1/1 24 4 × 4 MIMO 20.7 51.8 86.4 172.8 259.2 345.6
Downlink peak bit rates (Mbps)
www.cert.tn8 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
p ( p )
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Layer 1 Peak Bit Rates – Cont.
BW RB/Sub‐carriers
Modulation Bits/ MIMO usage 1 4 MHz 3 0 MHz 5 0 MHz 10 MHz 15 MHz 20 MHzModulationand coding
Bits/symbol
MIMO usage 1.4 MHz6/72
3.0 MHz15/180
5.0 MHz25/300
10 MHz50/600
15 MHz75/900
20 MHz100/1200
QPSK 1/2 1 Single stream 0.9 2.2 3.6 7.2 10.8 14.4
16QAM 1/2 2 Single stream 1.7 4.3 7.2 14.4 21.6 28.8
16QAM 3/4 3 Single stream 2.6 6.5 10.8 21.6 32.4 43.2
16QAM 1/1 4 Single stream 3 5 8 6 14 4 28 8 43 2 57 616QAM 1/1 4 Single stream 3.5 8.6 14.4 28.8 43.2 57.6
64QAM 3/4 4.5 Single stream 3.9 9.7 16.2 32.4 48.6 64.8
64QAM 1/1 6 Single stream 5.2 13.0 21.6 43.2 64.8 86.4
Uplink peak bit rates (Mbps)
www.cert.tn9 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Terminal Categories
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Category 5
Peak rate downlink (approximately) 10 Mbps 50 Mbps 100 Mbps 150 Mbps 300 Mbps
Peak rate uplink (approximately) 5 Mbps 25 Mbps 50 Mbps 50 Mbps 75 Mbps
Max bits received within TTI 10 296 51 024 102 048 149 776 299 552
Max bits transmitted within TTI 5 160 25 456 51 024 51 024 75 376
RF bandwidth 20 MHz 20 MHz 20 MHz 20 MHz 20 MHz
Modulation downlink 64QAM 64QAM 64QAM 64QAM 64QAMModulation downlink 64QAM 64QAM 64QAM 64QAM 64QAM
Modulation uplink 16QAM 16QAM 16QAM 16QAM 64QAM
Receiver diversity Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
MIMO downlink Optional 2 × 2 2 × 2 2 × 2 4 × 4
www.cert.tn10 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Reference Sensitivity
• The reference sensitivity level is the minimum mean
• kTB :thermal noise level , in units of dBm, in the specified bandwidth (B),
received signal strength applied to antenna ports at
• NF :noise figure for the receiver,
• SINR is the signal to interference plus noise requirement for the chosenwhich there is sufficient SINR
for the specified modulation scheme to meet a minimum
noise requirement for the chosen modulation and coding scheme,
• IM is the implementation marginscheme to meet a minimum throughput requirement of 95% of the maximum
• −3 dB represents the diversity gain.
possible.)(3Re dBmIMSINRNFKTBfSens −+++=
www.cert.tn11 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Reference Sensitivity
‐70.00
E‐UTRA reference sensitivity
‐85.00
‐80.00
‐75.00
‐100.00
‐95.00
‐90.00
dBm
‐110.00
‐105.00
1.4 3 5 10 15 20
BandWidth [MHz]BandWidth [MHz]
QPSK 1/8 QPSK 1/5 QPSK 1/4 QPSK 1/3 QPSK 1/2
QPSK 2/3 QPSK 3/4 QPSK 4/5 16QAM 1/2 16QAM 2/3
16QAM 3/4 16QAM 4/5 64QAM 2/3 64QAM 3/4 64QAM 4/5
www.cert.tn12 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
Q / Q / Q / Q / Q /
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Link Budgets
• The link budget calculations estimate the maximum allowed signal attenuation between the mobile and the base station gantenna. The maximum path loss allows the maximum cell range to be estimated with a suitable propagation model.
• The cell range gives the number of base station sites required to cover the target geographical area.
www.cert.tn13 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Link Budgets ‐ Propagation model
• A propagation model describes the average signal propagation, and it converts the maximum allowed p p g ,propagation loss to the maximum cell range.
• It depends on:– Environment : urban, rural, dense urban, suburban, open, forest, sea…
– Distance
– Frequency
– atmospheric conditions
– Indoor/outdoor– Indoor/outdoor
• Examples : Free space, Walfish–Ikegami, Okumura–Hata, Longley–Rice, Lee, Young
www.cert.tn14
g y , , g
LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Link Budgets ‐ Propagation model –Cont.
• Hata Model for Urban Areas:)log(*)]log(*556944[)log(*8213)log(*16265569 dhChfLu −+−−+=
• For small or medium sized city,
)log()]log(55.69.44[)log(82.13)log(16.2655.69 dhChfLu BHB ++=
)log(*56.1*)7.0)log(*1.1(8.0 fhfC MH −−+=
• For large cities,
)log(56.1)7.0)log(1.1(8.0 fhfC MH +
⎧ ≤≤− 200150,1.12))*54.1(log(*29.8 fifhM
⎩⎨⎧
≤−≤≤
=1500200,97.42))*75.11(log(*2.3
200150,1.12))54.1(log(29.8fifh
fifhC
M
MH
p
Parameters Unit Significance Parameters Unit SignificanceLu dB Path loss in Urban Areas f MHz Frequency of TransmissionhB m Height of base station Antenna CH dB Antenna height correction factorhM m Height of mobile station Antenna d km Distance between Base station and MS
www.cert.tn15 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Link Budgets ‐ Propagation model –Cont.
• Coverage evaluation will be based on the the Ok H t ti d l ith thOkumura–Hata propagation model with the parameters shown below:
Urban indoor Suburban indoor Rural outdoor Rural outdoor fixedBase station antenna height (m) 30 50 80 80Mobile antenna height (m) 1.5 1.5 1.5 5Mobile antenna gain (dBi) 0 0 0 0Slow fading standard deviation (dB) 8 8 8 8Location probability 95% 95% 95% 95%Correction factor (dB) 0 −5 −15 −15( )Indoor loss (dB) 20 15 0 0Slow fading margin (dB) 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8
www.cert.tn16 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Uplink link budgetsGSM voice HSPA LTE
Data rate (kbps) 12.2 64 64Transmitter – UE
( )
Source :
LTE for UMTS –a Max tx power (dBm) 33 23 23b Tx antenna gain (dBi) 0 0 0c Body loss (dB) 3 0 0d EIRP (dBm) 30 23 23
OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio AccessHarri Holma and Antti Toskala
Receiver – BTS/Node B/eNBe Node B noise figure (dB) – 2 2f Thermal noise (dB) – ‐108.2 ‐118.4g Receiver noise (dBm) – ‐106.2 ‐116.4g ( )h SINR (dB) – ‐17.3 ‐7i Receiver sensitivity ‐114 ‐123.4 ‐123.4j Interference margin (dB) 0 3 1k Cable loss (dB) 0 0 0k Cable loss (dB) 0 0 0l Rx antenna gain (dBi) 18 18 18m Fast fade margin (dB) 0 1.8 0n Soft handover gain (dB) 0 2 0
M i th l 162 161 6 163 4
www.cert.tn17 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
Maximum path loss 162 161.6 163.4
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Downlink link budgetsDownlink GSM voice HSPA LTEData rate (kbps) 12.2 1024 1024Transmitter – Node B
Source :
LTE for UMTS –a Tx power (dBm) 44.5 46 46b Tx antenna gain (dBi) 18 18 18c Cable loss (dB) 2 2 2d EIRP (dBm) 60 5 62 62
OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio AccessHarri Holma and Antti Toskala
d EIRP (dBm) 60.5 62 62Receiver – UE
e UE noise figure (dB) – 7 7f Thermal noise (dB) ‐119.7 ‐108.2 ‐104.5g Receiver noise fl oor (dBm) – ‐101.2 ‐97.5h SINR (dB) – ‐5.2 ‐9i Receiver sensitivity (dBm) ‐104 ‐106.4 ‐106.5j Interference margin (dB) 0 4 4j g ( )k Control channel overhead (%) 0 20 20l Rx antenna gain (dBi) 0 0 0m Body loss (dB) 3 0 0
M i th l 161 5 163 4 163 5
www.cert.tn18 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
Maximum path loss 161.5 163.4 163.5
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Link budgets Comparison GSM/HSPA/LTE
180
Maximum path loss values for GSM voice and HSPA and LTE data
170
175
155
160
165
dB
145
150
155
140
GSM voice HSPA 1Mbps/64kbps LTE 1Mbps/64kbps
Uplink Downlink
www.cert.tn19 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Link budgets Comparison GSM/HSPA/LTE• The LTE link budget in downlink has several similarities with HSPA and the
maximum path loss is similar.
h l k h d ff ll f• The uplink part has some differences: smaller interference margin in LTE, no macro diversity gain in LTE and no fast fading margin in LTE.
• The link budgets show that LTE can be deployed using existing GSM and HSPA sites assuming that the same frequency is used for LTE as for GSM and HSPA.
• LTE itself does not provide any major boost in the coverage. That is because the transmission power levels and the RF noise figures are also similar in GSM and HSPA technologies, and the link performance at low data rates is not much different in LTE than in HSPA.
• The link budget was calculated for 64 kbps uplink, which is likely not a high enough data rate for true broadband service. If we want to guarantee higher data rates in LTE, we may need low frequency deployment, additional sites, active antenna solutions or local area solutions.
www.cert.tn20 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Cell range Comparison
• The urban cell range varies from 0.6 km to 1.4 km and suburban Cell ranges with Okumura–Hata
propagation modelfrom 1.5 km to 3.4 km.
• Such cell ranges are also typically found in existing GSM and UMTS
100
propagation model
gnetworks.
• The rural case shows clearly higher cell ranges: 26 km for the
10
Km
higher cell ranges: 26 km for the outdoor mobile coverage and even up to 50 km for the rural f d ll
1
fixed installation at 900 MHz. 0.1
900 MHz 1800 MHz 2100 MHz 2600 MHz
Urban indoor Suburban indoor
Rural outdoor Rural outdoor fixed
www.cert.tn21 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Difference between 900 MHz and 2600 MHz
Urban RuralRural fixedwireless
• 1 :According to Okumura–Hata.
• 2 :Shared 1.3 m antenna for / d d
Propagation loss (1) +14 dB +14 dB +14 dB
BTS antenna gain ‐3 dB (2) 0 dBc 0 dB (3)
900/2600 giving 15 and 18 dBigain at 900 vs 2600 MHz.
• 3 :2.5 m antenna giving 18 dBi gain at BTS antenna gain 3 dB (2) 0 dBc 0 dB (3)
BTS cable loss (4) +1 dB +3 dB +3 dB
900 MHz.
• 4 :Cable 1/2’. Urban 30 m and rural 100 m.
UE antenna gain ‐5 dB (5) ‐5 dB (5) 0 dB (6)• 5 :Based on 3GPP RAN4
contributions.
• 6 :External fixed antenna assumed. UE sensitivity (7) ‐1 dB ‐1 dB ‐1 dB
Total +6 dB +11 dB +16 dB
• 7 :UE sensitivity can be up to 3 dB worse at 900 MHz but thedifference in practice is less.
www.cert.tn22
difference in practice is less.
LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Cell range Limitation
• The earth’s curvature limits the maximum cell range to approximately 40 km with an 80 m high base station antenna pp y gassuming that the terminal is at ground level.
• The maximum cell range can be calculated with Equation below
• To achieve 100 km cell range, the required antenna height is 580 m!!!
R = 8650 km hRdR +=+ 222 )((Effective earth radius for radio propagation is4/3 larger than real radius)
RdRh
hRdR
−+=
+=+22
)(
www.cert.tn23 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Latency
• User plane latency is relevant for the performance of many applications. pp
• There are several applications that do not require a very high data rate, but they do require very low latency: voice, real time gaming, interactive applications.
www.cert.tn24 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Latency : End‐to‐end delay budget
Delay component Delay value
Transmission time uplink + downlink
2 ms
• On average, the packet needs to wait for 0.5 ms for the start of the next framedownlink
Buffering time (0.5 ×transmission time)
2 × 0.5 × 1 ms = 1 ms
Retransmissions 10% 2 × 0.1 × 8 ms = 1.6 ms
frame.
• The retransmissions take 8 ms at best
• the assumed retransmission
Uplink scheduling request 0.5 × 5 ms = 2.5 ms
Uplink scheduling grant 4 ms
UE d l i d 4
probability is 10%.
• The average delay for sending the scheduling request is 2 5 msUE delay estimated 4 ms
eNodeB delay estimated 4 ms
Core network 1 ms
l d l h ll d
scheduling request is 2.5 ms
• Scheduling grant : 4 ms.
• UE processing delay : 4 ms, Total delay with pre‐allocated resources
13.6 ms
Total delay with scheduling 20.1 ms
p g y ,
• eNodeB processing delay :4 ms
• core network delay :1 ms.
www.cert.tn25 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
End‐to‐end round trip time including scheduling latency
25
LTE round trip time
20
Core
15eNB
UE
Uplink scheduling grant
Uplink scheduling request
5
10Uplink scheduling request
Retransmissions
Buffering time
Transmission time
0
Delay value
www.cert.tn26 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
LTE Refarming to GSM Spectrum
• LTE could be deployed in the existing GSM spectrum like 900 MHz or 1800 MHzlike 900 MHz or 1800 MHz.
• The flexible LTE bandwidth makes refarming easier th ith WCDMA b LTE t t ith 1 4than with WCDMA because LTE can start with 1.4 MHz or 3.0 MHz bandwidths and then grow later h th GSM t ffi h d dwhen the GSM traffic has decreased.
www.cert.tn27 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
LTE refarming to GSM spectrum ‐ Example
www.cert.tn28 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Dimensioning Capacity ‐ Traffic volume based approach
• The busy hour is assumed to carry 15% of the daily traffic
h b h l d• the busy hour average loading is 50%.
• The calculation shows that the total site throughput per month is 4600 GB.
• To offer 5 GB data for every subscriber per month, the number of subscribers per site will be 920.
www.cert.tn29 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Dimensioning Capacity ‐ Data rate based approach
• Target : 1 Mbps per subscriber.
• Since only some of the subscribers are downloading data simultaneously, we can apply an overbooking factor, for example g , p20.
• It means that the average busy hour data rate is 50 kbps perhour data rate is 50 kbps per subscriber.
• The number of subscribers per site using this approach is 1050.
www.cert.tn30 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
Thanks for your AttentionThanks for your Attention
www.cert.tn31 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ANNEXESLTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
www.cert.tn32 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
UL link budget parameters for LTE – Parameters‐1
R f LTE f UMTS OFDMA d SC FDMA B d R di A
www.cert.tn33 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
Ref. LTE for UMTS – OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio Access Harri Holma and Antti Toskala
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
UL link budget parameters for LTE – Parameters‐2
R f LTE f UMTS OFDMA d SC FDMA B d R di A
www.cert.tn34 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
Ref. LTE for UMTS – OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio Access Harri Holma and Antti Toskala
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
UL link budget parameters for LTE – Parameters‐3
R f LTE f UMTS OFDMA d SC FDMA B d R di A
www.cert.tn35 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
Ref. LTE for UMTS – OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio Access Harri Holma and Antti Toskala
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
DL link budget parameters for LTE – Parameters‐1
R f LTE f UMTS OFDMA d SC FDMA B d R di A
www.cert.tn36 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
Ref. LTE for UMTS – OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio Access Harri Holma and Antti Toskala
ITU/BDT Arab Regional Workshop on “4G Wireless Systems” - Tunisia 2010
DL link budget parameters for LTE – Parameters‐2
R f LTE f UMTS OFDMA d SC FDMA B d R di A
www.cert.tn37 LTE Technology Perofrmance Evaluation
Ref. LTE for UMTS – OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio Access Harri Holma and Antti Toskala