The LTE Radio Interface - Key Characteristics

and Performance
Anders Furuskar, Tomas Jonsson, and Magnus Lundevall
Ericsson Research, Sweden
Abstract-Mobile broadband usage is taking off, demanding
improved services and increased capacity of mobile networks. To
meet tbese requirements, 3GPP bas defined LTE (tbe 3GPP Long
Term Evolution). Tbis paper presents some key cbaracteristics of
tbe LTE radio interface, including pbysical layer and radio resource management functions, and evaluates tbeir impact on
system performance. As compared to a reference system witb
more basic cbaracteristics, represented by Mobile WiMAX, results point to a combined gain in spectrum efficiency of 60% in
downlink and 100% in uplink. Cell-edge bitrate gains are about
100% in botb downlink and uplink. A closer analysis of tbe individual system cbaracteristics indicates tbat tbese performance
differences are due to ratber uniform contributions from a set of
distinctive features.
Index Terms-L TE, Performance, WiMAX

I. INTRODUCTION

sage of mobile broadband services, supported by the introduction of High Speed Packet Access (HSPA), is taking off. To meet the future increased demand for such services, corresponding improvements in the supply of services are
required, including higher bit rates, lower delays, and higher
capacity. This is the target of 3GPP's two radio access networks HSPA and LTE [1], of which the latter is the focus of
this paper. LTE brings unprecedented performance. Examples
include peak data rates exceeding 300Mbps, delays below
10ms, and manifold spectrum efficiency gains over early 3G
system releases. Further, LTE can be deployed in new and
existing frequency bands, has a flat architecture with few
nodes, and facilitates simple operation and maintenance.
While targeting a smooth evolution from legacy 3GPP and
3GPP2 systems, LTE also constitutes a major step towards
IMT-Advanced systems. In fact, LTE includes many of the
features originally considered for future fourth generation system.
General LTE concept descriptions are available in [1]. In
this paper, the focus is on key characteristics of the LTE radio
interface. A set of such key characteristics are both qualitatively discussed and quantitatively evaluated in terms of
downlink and uplink user data rates and spectrum efficiency
generated by means of system level simulations. For reference, the LTE characteristics are compared to more conventional solutions. These are represented by corresponding functionalities in Mobile WiMAX with Partial Usage of SubChannels (PUSC) [2].

The paper is outlined as follows: After an introduction to

the basic structure of the LTE radio interface in Section II,
Section III provides a qualitative discussion of distinctive features of the evaluated system concepts, and their impact on
performance. Models and assumptions are summarized in Section IV, followed by numerical results in Section V. Finally, a
summary is provided in Section 6.
II. AN OVERVIEW OF THE LTE RADIO INTERFACE
Comprehensive descriptions of the LTE radio interface are
available in [1]. In short, LTE is based on Orthogonal Frequency Domain Multiplexing (OFDM). The numerology includes a subcarrier spacing of 15kHz, support for bandwidths
up to 20MHz, and resource allocation granularity of 180kHz x
Ims (a so-called resource block pair). In the uplink, a precoder is used to limit peak-to-average power ratios, and thereby reduce terminal complexity. Based on channel quality,
modulation (up to 64QAM) and channel coding rates are dynamically selected. Both FDD, TDD, and half duplex FDD are
supported. A variety of antenna concepts targeting different
scenarios is included: transmit diversity for improved robustness of control channels, beamforming for improved channel
quality in general, and multi-stream (MIMO) transmission for
improved data rates in scenarios with good channel quality.
On the MAC layer, dynamic scheduling is done on a resource
block pair basis, based on QoS parameters and channel quality. Retransmissions are handled with two loops, a fast inner
loop taking care of most errors complemented with a very
robust outer loop for residual errors.
III. KEy LTE CHARACTERISTICS
Some of the more fundamental features discussed in the
previous section are not unique to LTE. E.g. OFDM, multiantenna transmission, and adaptive modulation and coding are
standard techniques used by many systems. On a more detailed level however, LTE distinguishes itself by using more
sophisticated solutions than other systems. A list of such characteristics is presented in Table I. For reference, the corresponding solutions used in more basic systems are also listed.
This is represented by Mobile WiMAX Wave 2. It should be
noted that there are several other features differing between
these systems which are not listed, e.g. control signaling robustness, higher layer overhead, and mobility aspects.

978-1-4244-2644-7/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE

Authorized licensed use limited to: Ericsson Research. Downloaded on March 20, 2009 at 07:43 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

TABLE I
LTE KEy CHARACTERISTICS
Function

LTE

Mobile WiMAX wave 2

Performance impact

Multiple access

OFDMinDL,
DFT-spread OFDM in UL

OFDM in DL and UL

Uplink power control

Fractional pathloss compensation

Channel dependent in time
and freq~~t.t.~y4~J!l~it.t.
Horizontal encoding (multiple
codewords), closed loop with
precoding
Fine granularity
(1-2dB apart)

Full pathloss compensation

DFT-spread OFDM reduces the peak-to-average

power ratio and reduces terminal complexity,
requires one-tap equalizer in base station receiver
Fractionafpathfoss-compensation enablesflexible
trade otr~~~~_e.n ave~a.ge. and cell-edge data rates
Access to the frequency domain yields larger
scheduling gains
Horizontafencoding enables per-stream link
adaptation and successive interference cancellation (SIC) receivers
enables better link adaptation
Finer
precision

(slogan used in Fig. 1-2)

(MA)
(PC)

Scheduling

(Scheduling)
MIMO scheme

(MIMO)

Modulation and coding scheme granularity (MCS)

Channel dependent in time

domain
Vertical encoding (single
codeword)
Coarse granularity
(2-3dB apart)

Hybrid ARQ II
(HARQ)
Frame duration
(CQI delay)

Incremental redundancy

Chase combining

Ims subframes

5ms frames

Overhead / control
channel efficiency
(OH I CCH eft)

Relatively low OH (while

control channels are
robust)

Relatively high OH

gianuiaritY

Incremental redundancy is more efficient

(lower S~r~quir~~ for given error rate)
Shorter subframes yield lower user plane
delay and reduced channel quality feedback
delays
Lower overhead improves performance

IV. MODELS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Models and assumptions are aligned with the NGMN recommendations in [3]. Table II contains a brief summary. The
evaluation methodology is based on time-dynamic, multi-cell
system simulations.
V. NUMERICAL RESULTS
This section presents downlink and uplink user throughput
and spectrum efficiency for a selection of system configurations and scenarios. More specifically, the following subsections cover (A) baseline configurations with 2x2 and Ix2 antenna configurations, (B) more advanced multi-antenna configurations, and (C) results for file transfer (non-full buffer)
traffic models.
A.

LTE and Mobile WiMAX - Baseline Scenario

Downlink user throughput and spectrum efficiency figures

for LTE FDD, LTE TDD, and Mobile WiMAX are summarized in Fig. 1. Note that in this special case, as there are 10
full-buffer users per sector in average, and the spectrum allocation is 1oMHz, the spectrum efficiency, measured in
bps/HzJsector, and the average user throughput, measured in
Mbps, are the same. For the TDD systems, the spectrum efficiency is calculated by down-scaling the denominator (system
bandwidth) with the relative time utilization in the direction in
question (measured in data symbols). Distributions of user
throughput normalized with spectrum allocation and TOD
utilization are also presented.
It is seen that L TE is some 60% better than Mobile WiMAX
in the average metrics, and about a factor two better in celledge performance. The reasons for these differences are a
combination of the distinctive features presented in Table I.

Parameter
Traffic Model
User location
Site-to-site distance
Carrier frequency
Carrier bandwidth
Distance-dependent
pathloss
Lognormal shadowing
Channel model
Terminal speed
BS I Terminal power
Antenna configurations
Scheduler

MIMO

Power control

Receiver type
TOD asymmetry

TABLE II
MODELS AND ASSUMPTIONS
Value
a) Full buffer (10 users per sector) or
b) File transfer (100KB fixed file size) with
variable load
Uniform distribution
500m
2.0GHz
IOMHz
L= I + 37.6log lO(R) + P, Rin kIn, 1= 128.1 for
2GHz, P = 20dB penetration loss
8dB std dev, 50m correlation distance, 0.5 correlation between sites
3GPP SCM, Urban Macro High Spread (15 deg),
extended to IOMHz
3kmlh
46dBm / 23dBm
BS: 2-4 transmit and receive
Terminal: 1transmit, 2-4 receive
LTE: DL: Proportional fair in time and frequency, UL: Quality-based FDM
WiMAX: DL: Proportional fair in time domain,
UL:FDM
LTE: Codebook-based pre-coded adaptive rank
MIMO
WiMAX: Dynamic switching between spatial
mu~tiplexing MIMO and STC
LTE: Open loop with fractional pathloss compensation (a=O.8), SNR target 10dB at cell edge
WiMAX: Open loop, SNR target I5dB (full
pathloss compensation)
LTE: MMSE with SIC in DL
WiMAX:MMSE
LTE: 4:3, WiMAX: 22:15

Authorized licensed use limited to: Ericsson Research. Downloaded on March 20, 2009 at 07:43 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Downlink

Uplink

ii

--------j-----I
-----,------

1
... 0.8
Q.

B 0.6 -

"8

C'I)

>

0.06r--------.--------,------.---------,

...

Q.

.a

0.04

I
:

0.03

LTETDD

WIMAXTDD

_ _ _ _ _ _1

0.01

--

- -

-, - - 1

- - -

0.02

WIMAXTDD

LTE FDD

- - - -I - - - - - -

LTETDD

0.04

I::s

LTE FDD

0.2

- -

~ 0.05

i...

.&

0.02

C'I)

c(

0.4

LTE FDD

LTETDD

WIMAXTDD

Uplink

Downlink
1
1
1

80 --------1----

60 - - - - - - -

------_..1_------

I
I
I

40
1

1
1

1
1

I
I

-~-------1-------

I
I

I
I

20 - --

;--------r-------~------1

ci

------~-------1-------

20 - - - --

60 - - - - --

-----_..1_------

u.:

---t-------

u.:
ci

80

----t-------

I
I

----r-------~-------

- - L1 FDD rrc/rrulce 1.73/0.173/0.052 bps/Hz

- - L1FDOrrc/rruice 1.05/0.105/0.049 bps/Hz

- - L1 TOO rrc/rrulce 1.70/0.170/0.050 bps/Hz

- - WiMAX TOO rrc/l11J/ce 1.06/0.106/0.028 bpslHz

- - L1 TOO rrc/rrulce 0.98/0.098/0.045 bps/Hz

- - WiMAX TOO rrc/l11J/ce 0.43/0.043/0.018 bpslHz

0.1
0.2
0.3
Normalised User Throughput [bps/Hz]

0.05
0.1
0.15
Normalised User Throughput [bps/Hz]

0.4

0.2

Uplink

Downlink
LTE

LTE
Scheduling

I
I

--,---

COl delay

OH/CCH eft

COl delay

_ _ _ _ .1 _ _ _

MIMO: precoding

-----T---

I
I

PC

----_..!_-I

MCS

------+---

Scheduling

I~.

HARO

I
1

LTE WiMAX-like

-------t---

WiMAX PUSC

------,---

I
I

0.5

1.5

Avg cell throughput [bpsIHzlcell]

---r----r----r----

____ L

MCS

HARO

----r----r----r----

MA(OFDM)

----1----1----1----

______ J. ___

--~----~----~---I
I
I

MIMO: vertical/no SIC

1----'-----1----

OH/CCH eft

---~----I-----

LTE WiMAX-like

In

WiMAX PUSC

I~

0.2

---1-----1-----1----1

0.6

0.8

----1----1----1----

0.4

1.2

Avg cell throughput [bpsIHzlcell]

Fig. 1. Summary of baseline downlink normalized user throughput and spectrum efficiency results, and feature analysis.

Fig. 2. Summary of baseline uplink normalized user throughput and spectrum

efficiency results, and feature analysis.

The individual impact of each such feature has been assessed

by, in the simulations, replacing the LTE functionality with
the corresponding WiMAX functionality. The result is shown
in the lower bar graph in Fig. 1. The percentage figure to the
left represents the individual feature impact, and the percentage figure to the right the accumulated impact of the features
combined. It is seen that the total difference is not due to a
single distinctive feature, but rather a combination of distinctive features, headed by frequency domain scheduling, faster

channel quality feedback, and control channel efficiency. Note

also that when all distinctive features are replaced, the performance is the same, confirming that these features are indeed
the reason for the overall difference in performance. A similar
analysis can be made for the cell-edge metric.
Similar results for the uplink are summarized in Fig. 2. In
this direction, it is seen that LTE is more than a factor two
better than Mobile WiMAX in both average and cell-edge
metrics. Also here, the distinctive features jointly make up the

Authorized licensed use limited to: Ericsson Research. Downloaded on March 20, 2009 at 07:43 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Uplink

Downlink

";J

I
I

I
I

----j--------I----

~ 1.5

----(--------1----

So

8 0.5
~

c(

0.08..-------.-----------.---------r-------,

";J

a-

0.02

f
a
CIt

LTE2x2

LTE4x4

LTE 4x2

e....

60 ----

u.:

LTE 1x4

LTE 1x4 MM2

20

I
-

-I -

I
1

0.2

-------t------I
I
1

___ L

60 -----

1
~

I
-

T -

I
-

I- -

u.:

40 ---20 - --

0.8

Fig. 3. Summary of downlink results with additional antenna concepts.

total performance difference, lead by control channel efficiency (OR), faster channel quality feedback, and more flexible
power control.
The small difference between LTE FDD and TDD depends
on the TDD guard period and differences in channel quality
feedback delays.

B.

Results with Additional Antenna Concepts

In this section results with more advanced antenna concepts
are presented. Downlink results are summarized in Fig. 3. It is
seen that both average and cell-edge performance are improved by using 4x2 and 4x4 MIMO solutions.
For the uplink, results with four receive antennas are presented in Fig. 4. In addition to receive diversity results, results
for multi-user MIMO, with 2 users multiplexed, are shown. A
significant performance increase is achieved already using 4branch receive diversity. The additional gain provided by MUMIMO is smaller. With two receive antennas the MU-MIMO
gains are even smaller.

Results for File Transfer Traffic Models

In addition to the full buffer traffic model, for LTE, evaluations with a file transfer traffic model have also been performed. For simplicity, a fixed file size of IOOKB is assumed.

- - LTE 1x4 rrc/rru/ce 1.52/0.152/0.074 bpslHz

- - LTE 1x4 WM2 rrc/rrulce 1.68/0.168/0.077 bps/Hz
- - WiMAX 1x4 rrc/rrulce 0.72/0.072/0.032 bps/Hz

- - LTE 4x2 rrc/rru/ce 2.05/0.205/0.063 bpslHz

- - LTE 4x4 rrc/rru/ce 2.82/0.282/0.077 bpslHz

0.6

----~-------1-------

- - LTE 2x2 rrc/rru/ce 1.73/0.173/0.052 bpslHz

0.4

WIMAX 1x4 MM2

80

Normalised User Throughput [bps/Hz]

C.

WIMAX 1x4

I
-

------,------,------,-----

40

r - - -

Uplink

-----+------1------

- -

0.02

____

- - - - -

I
I

- - - - :- - - - - - - - ~ - - -

Downlink

80

WIMAX 1x4 MM2

- - - -

::;,

WIMAX 1x4

O08r----..-----====------r- - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - ,

! 0.06
ai 0.04

0.06

::;,
CIt

LTE 1x4 MM2

";J

t 0.04

LTE 1x4

- - WiMAX 1x4 WM2 rrc/rru/ce 0.86/0.086/0.032 bps/Hz

~1

~2

~3

0.4

Normalised User Throughput [bps/HZ]

Fig. 4. Summary of uplink results with additional antenna concepts.

Although simple, this model captures a number of realistic

phenomena not covered by the full buffer model. These include the 'equal buffer' effect of users with low data rates dominating the link usage, and the effect of interference variations caused by transmitters switching on and off. The file
transfer model also enables the possibility to study achievable
user data rates under varying load conditions.
A number of traffic load levels, realized by different session
arrival intensities, are evaluated and user bitrates are logged.
The user bitrate is measured as the file size divided by the
time between arrival in the system and successful reception.
Queuing delays are hence included. The baseline system configurations are assumed (2x2 DL and 1x2 UL).
Results in the form of 5th , 50t\ and 95 th percentile user bitrates as a function of served traffic per sector are presented in
Fig. 5. It is seen that very high user bitrates are achieved. At
'low' load (1-2Mbps/sector), the cell edge bitrate exceeds
20Mbps in downlink, and is almost IOMbps in UL. Average
values are about a factor two higher, and the 95 th percentile
values are not far from the theoretical peak data rates (72Mbps
in DL and 26Mbps in UL with the overhead assumptions
made). Further, the capacity, here measured as the maximum
sector throughput for a certain 5th percentile bitrate (e.g.
IMbps), is not very much lower than in the full buffer case.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Ericsson Research. Downloaded on March 20, 2009 at 07:43 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

The above file transfer results, especially the bitrates

achieved at low to moderate load where file transfers are completed in tens of ms, depend on the initial selection of modulation, coding and MIMO scheme. These settings have not been
optimized. Further, the control channel overhead assumptions
are pessimistic for scenarios with low to moderate load, as
typically quite few users are scheduled in the same frame.

VI. SUMMARY

Traffic model: download

70....----..,.------,------r--------,--------.------,
I
I

- - - - _1I
I
I
- - - - _1I
I

_____ .i-

I
I
I

I
I_
I
I

_____ 1
I
I
I

- _1I

1
I

_____ 1

I_

I
I
I

I
_ _ _I

I
I

1-

1
1
1

_
_

-~-----~-----~----1

---~----I
I
I

10

System throughput [Mbps/celO

Traffic model: upload

25 ~-_r_--.--------r--__.___-__,_----,---_____,
I
I
I
I

- 1- -

-I - I
1

""1 -

T -

- -

r - - -

I
1

I
I

I
I

-~----~----~----~--

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

I
I

--1----,--I
I
I

.c

"an
2

345
6
System throughput [Mbpslcell]

Fig. 5. Downlink and uplink bitrate percentiles v traffic load for file transfer
traffic

The small difference indicates a fair system. It may be noted

that, in theory, with a resource fair scheduler, the 'full buffer'
capacity is determined by the average of the user bitrates R,
here denoted mean(R). The 'equal buffer' capacity on the other hand may be estimated by the inverse of the average normalized delay (D=l/R), and is hence given by l/mean(l/R),
which is less than or equal to mean(R).

The results presented indicate that in normalized metrics

LTE, with its more sophisticated radio interface, outperforms
the more basic Mobile WiMAX Wave 2 in both downlink and
uplink and for both FDD and TDD operation. In the downlink,
LTE is about 60% better in spectrum efficiency and average
user throughput, and 100% better in cell-edge user throughput.
In the uplink, LTE is 100% better in both average and celledge performance. Utilizing the full LTE potential (4x4
MIMO, 20MHz carriers, FDD), the differences are even greater. The large gains for LTE can not be attributed to a single
feature, but are rather the effect of a number of distinctive
characteristics, each contributing to the overall gain.
With non-full buffer traffic, very high user bitrates are
achieved for LTE. In low to moderate load scenarios, bitrates
of tens ofMbps are achievable at the cell-edge, and theoretical
peak data rates are approached closer to the base station.
In general, absolute performance values depend largely on
the scenario, models, and assumptions used, here aligned with
the NGMN recommendations. Although relevant and welldesigned, different results are achieved in other scenarios and
under different assumptions. For example, refined base station
antenna models, based on realistic antenna patterns and modeling vertical antenna diagrams, typically yield improved absolute spectrum efficiency and user throughput values [4].
REFERENCES
[1]

E. Dahlman et aI, "3G Evolution: HSPA and LTE for Mobile Broadband", Academic Press, Oxford, UK, 2007

[2]
[3]
[4]

WiMAX Forum, "Mobile System Profile", Release 1.0 Approved Specification, Revision 1.4.0.
NGMN, "NGMN Radio Access Performance Evaluation Methodology",
Version 1.2, June 2007, www.ngmn.org.
F. Gunnarsson et aI., "Downtilted Base Station Antennas - A Simulation
Model Proposal and Impact on HSPA and LTE Performance", in IEEE
VTC 2008 fall.

Authorized licensed use limited to: Ericsson Research. Downloaded on March 20, 2009 at 07:43 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.