Soc Classification level 1 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Enhanced Uplink Carrier Aggregation for LTE-Advanced Femtocells
VTC Fall: September 6th 2011Authors:Luis G. Uzeda Garcia et. al.
Soc Classification level 2 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Outline
• Motivation : Problem Definition
• Preliminaries: UL FPC and ACCS
• Proposed Solution
• Simulation Assumptions & Results
• Conclusions
Soc Classification level 3 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Motivation: Problem Definition
UL Carrier Aggregation in Macro Cells:– Possible to schedule UEs on multiple CCs– Problem: single or multiple CCs?– Answer: distinguish between power limited
and non-power limited UEs
UL Carrier Aggregation in Femto Cells:– Problem: single or multiple?– Fact: power limited UEs are unlikely– Poor answer: always multiple CCs– Better answer: consider CA for ICIC
Hua Wang, et al., “Uplink Component Carrier Selection for LTE-Advanced Systems with Carrier Aggregation,” in IEEE ICC, June 2011
?
Soc Classification level 4 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Preliminaries: UL Fractional power control
Power control formula [TS 36.213]:
P[dBm] = min{ Pmax, P0 + α*L + 10*log10M + Δmcs + f(Δi) }
Power control in uplink aims at:– Controlling inter-cell interference– Prolonging UE battery life time– Achieving lower receiver dynamic
range
Thinking multi-cell:– Uncoordinated femtocell deployments– Close Subscriber Groups– Severe inter-cell interference– Introduce UL FPC information into the
CC selection procedure
Not considered in this study
UL “interfered zones” may differ from UE to UE
Soc Classification level 5 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Preliminaries: ACCS in a nutshell
Femto is powered on
Select Base CC
Traffic Increases
Select Supplementary CCs
Evaluation based on BIM entries
BIM relies on DL measurements!
Nice DL simulation results!
What about the UL? ?
ACCS Framework
Autonomous Component Carrier Selection (ACCS) is a self-organizing and fully distributed interference management concept on a CC level.
Soc Classification level 6 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Proposed Solution (1/2)
Apply ACCS• ACCS Assumptions• BIMs: predict C/I experienced whenever
two cells (serving and interferer) use the same CC at the same time with equal transmit Power Spectral Densities
• UL {1} → {2} ≈ DL{1} ← {2}
• UL {1} ← {2} ≈ DL{1} → {2}
UE1
UE2
UE3
UE1
UE2
UE3
Cell-Specific
Equivalent FAP CC-set
UE-Specific
U
Equivalent FAP CC-set
U
Expected Outcomes
Soc Classification level 7 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Proposed Solution (2/2)
“Fixing” BIMs
• UE (i) is the UE, among the ones served by HeNB {1}, with the largest path loss towards it, in this example UE [B]. This UE is potentially the worst victim of incoming UL interference.
• UE (j) is the UE responsible for cell’s {1} , i.e. cell’s {2} . This is the UE served by HeNB {2} that potentially is the worst source of UL interference towards HeNB {1} – in this example UE [C].
• UE (k) in (5) is the one responsible for cell’s {1} , i.e. the worst source of outgoing uplink interference towards HeNB {2}. In this case, it is UE [B] as well (k=i), but this is not necessarily always true. Either way, this has no impact in terms of signaling since UEs (i,k) are served by the same evaluating cell.
• Finally, UE (l) is analogous to UE (i), in that, it is the UE with the largest path loss towards its serving cell {2} and hence the worst potential victim of outgoing interference, in our example: UE [D].
),(),(}{}{}{}{ jijinSnS PSDPSDLLDLUL
),(),(}{}{}{}{ lklknSnS PSDPSDLLDLUL
Cell-Specific
),(),(}{}{}{ jjnSn PSDPSDLLDLUL
),(),(}{}{ llnn PSDPSDLLDLUL
UE-Specific
Soc Classification level 8 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Simulation Assumptions Dual Stripe scenario:
Deployment Assumptions• Topology:
– Three floors (up to 120 Femtos)– Deployment ratio 75%
• Closed Subscriber Group (CSG)• No co-channel Macro layer• Antenna configuration: 2x2 • Path loss model from R4-091422• Wall penetration loss: 5/10 dB
(inner/outer) walls• Uniform distribution of 1 UE and 3UEs
per residence (always indoors)• Simple full buffer traffic• Equal resource packet scheduling
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
10 m
ACCS Assumptions• 5 Component Carriers• Minimum required SINR for primary CC
and secondary CC equals 15 and 8 dB, respectively
UL FPC AssumptionsP0 =[-50] dBm
α = [0.2 0.4, 0.6, 0.8,1.0 ]
PTX min = -40 dBm
PTX max = 23 dBm
Soc Classification level 9 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Key Performance Indicators
• UL SINR
• CC usage/cell and CC usage/UE
• Average UL Cell TP
– Aggregated throughput from all UEs connected to a single cell [Mbps]
• UL Outage User TP
– 5%-percentile of UE throughput [Mbps]
• Normalized (relative) versions of the two variables:
– Baseline performance: Unmodified ACCS
Soc Classification level 10 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Simulation Results: 1 UE/cellUL SINR: Original ACCS versus proposed method. The 0% to 10% outage region is highlighted. The correction is much more
relevant for low values of α as the imbalance between DL and UL estimations increases.
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 300
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Average UL SINR [dB]
Em
piric
al C
DF
SINR Comparison
=0.2 Original
=0.4 Original
=0.6 Original
=0.8 Original=0.2 Proposed
=0.4 Proposed
=0.6 Proposed
=0.8 Proposed
6 8 10 12 140
0.05
0.1
1 2 3 4 50
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35CC Usage per Cell Comparison
Rel
ativ
e F
requ
ency
Total # of deployed CCs/cell
=0.2=0.4=0.6=0.8Original
The share of UEs who have access to at least 2 CCs increases when compared to the original case. That combined with the SINR improvement led to the significant
relative gains in outage throughput
)1).(,(}{}{}{ jnSn LLDLULImbalance:
Soc Classification level 11 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Perfomance Results: 1 UE/cell and 3 UEs/cell
The potential of the proposed scheme, especially in terms of UL 5% outage
throughput where relative gains of up to 52% are seen with respect to the
original non-FPC-aware ACCS concept.
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0
-5
10
20
30
40
50
60
Value of (UL FPC)
Rel
ativ
e P
erfo
rman
ce (
%)
Proposed versus Original
Average Cell TP
5% Outage UE TP
1 2 3 4 50
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
Total # of deployed CCs
Rel
ativ
e F
requ
ency
Multi UEs/cell
CCs/cell: =0.6
CCs/UE: =0.6
UE specific with 3UEs/cell: the effective CC usage per cell is the set union of the CC usage of its served UEs. Cells reuse CCs more aggressively when compared
to UEs.
Soc Classification level 12 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Final Remarks and Conclusions
• ACCS provides a fully distributed (scalable) and self-adjusting frequency re-use mechanism for the UL as well.
• Enhanced Uplink Component Carrier Selection Scheme boosts UL performance further.
• User Specific Uplink Component Carrier Selection allows a “virtual” and controlled reuse-1, thus solving the UL CA problem in Femtocells.
• Actively tweaking FPC parameters using the proposed framework are suggested for future studies.
Soc Classification level 14 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Appendix with additional slides
Soc Classification level 15 © Nokia Siemens Networks Presentation / Author / Date
Perfomance Results: ACCS UL @ 75%ACCS seems to capture the benefits from the ‘best’ frequency reuse cases in
terms of both KPIs. Results inline with DL ones.
All results are normalized with respect to plain frequency re-use with no power control.
Soc Classification level 16 © Nokia Siemens Networks
Performance Summary
Deployment Ratio Configuration Average cell
capacity Outage capacity
25%
1/1 {-60; 0.6} -5% +25%
1/3 {NO PC} -43% +116%
ACCS {-60; 1} +18% +235%
75%
1/1 {-60; 0.6} -8% +69%
1/3 {-60; 0.8} -7% +332%
ACCS {-60; 0.8} +26% +416%
P0 ≈ -60 dBm and high α values [0.6 , 0.8] seem to be the most promising settings.
Top Related