Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 104

SMALL CELL FORUM

RELEASE 6.0

scf.io

URBAN
RURAL
& REMO
TE

HOME

ENTERP
RISE

17:25

VIRTUAL

IZATIO

DOCUMENT

003.06.02

Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


High-band
December 2013

Solving the HetNet puzzle


www.scf.io/

www.smallcellforum.org

SMALL CELL FORUM

RELEASE 6.0
Small Cell Forum accelerates small cell adoption to drive the widescale adoption of small cells and accelerate the delivery of integrated
HetNets.
We are not a standards organization but partner with organizations that inform
and determine standards development. We are a carrier-led organization. This
means our operator members establish requirements that drive the activities
and outputs of our technical groups.
We have driven the standardization of key elements of small cell technology
including Iuh, FAPI/SCAPI, SON, the small cell services API, TR069 evolution
and the enhancement of the X2 interface.
Today our members are driving solutions that include small cell/Wi-Fi
integration, SON evolution, virtualization of the small cell layer, driving mass
adoption via multi-operator neutral host, ensuring a common approach to
service APIs to drive commercialisation and the integration of small cells into
5G standards evolution.
The Small Cell Forum Release Program has now established business cases
and market drivers for all the main use cases, clarifying market needs and
addressing barriers to deployment for residential, enterprise and urban small
cells. The theme of Release 6 is Enterprise, with particular emphasis on real
world and vertical market deployments, and the role of neutral host solutions
to drive the mass adoption of small cells in business environments.
Small Cell Forum Release website can be found here: www.scf.io

If you would like more information about Small Cell Forum or would
like to be included on our mailing list, please contact:
Email info@smallcellforum.org
Post Small Cell Forum, PO Box 23, GL11 5WA UK
Member Services memberservices@smallcellforum.org

scf.io

Scope
This paper [2] provides detailed results of in-depth studies of interference between femtocells and
macrocells deployed in the UMTS high bands around 2GHz. An accompanying study is also available for
the UMTS low bands around 850/900MHz [3]. For a higher level overview of the findings from both of
these studies, we recommend reading our associated topic brief [1]
Related SCF Publications
[1] Topic brief: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells, Small Cell Forum, www.scf.io/doc/008
[2] Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells ("High-band"), Small Cell Forum,
www.scf.io/doc/003
[3] Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells ("Low-band"), Small Cell Forum,
www.scf.io/doc/009

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Executive summary
Femtocells, by virtue of their simultaneous small size, low cost and high performance,
are a potentially industrychanging disruptive shift in technology for radio access in
cellular networks. Their small size means that the spectrum efficiency they can attain
is much greater than that achievable using macrocells alone. Their low cost means
they can be deployed as consumer equipment, reducing the capital load and operating
expenses of the host network. And their high performance means that all this can be
gained at no loss of service to the customer, and in many cases, owing to the
improved link budgets, improved service.
However, for these apparent benefits to translate into real advantage for network
operator and consumer alike, we must answer serious questions about the interaction
between the femtocell technology and the host macrocellular radio network into which
they are deployed. If femtocells can only achieve their potential by disrupting the
macro network, then they will be relegated to niche deployments, of little overall
relevance to next generation networks. On the other hand, if the interactions between
macro and femto radio layers can be managed to the benefit of all, then their
properties (in terms of lowered cost, improved spectrum efficiency and link budget
and general performance) can be fully realised, and femtocells will find themselves an
essential component of all future radio access network designs
So, what are these interactions, and how can they be managed, and what does that all
mean for the technology, to the operator and to the consumer? These are the
questions that this paper is helping to answer. In doing so, it has deliberately
maintained a tight focus, according to the priorities of its authors. It is exclusively
concerned with WCDMA as an air interface technology. (Other teams within Small Cell
Forum are looking at other air interfaces.) It is, at this edition, concerned exclusively
with operation around 2GHz this being seen as the most important frequency range
for early, inbuilding deployment. (We provide also an edition of this paper for
850/900MHz deployment [3].) And it is exclusively a theoretical treatment, using link
level and system level simulations to draw its conclusions, though we expect to back
these conclusions up in due course with trial campaign data. In view of the residential
application that femtocells are addressing, this paper is also exclusively concerned
with femtocells operating with closed user groups. Perhaps most importantly, this
paper stands on the shoulders of giants, drawing on the great mass of study work
that has already been undertaken by 3GPP RAN4 participants in analysing these
issues, and referencing them for further reading.
The interacting components of the femtoenabled network include femtocells
themselves, which can be interacting in their downlinks with other nearby femtocells
and macro cells; macrocells, which interact with nearby femtocells; users and user
equipment (UEs) which by virtue of intentional radio links to femtocells and
macrocells, may be causing unintentional interactions with both.
In approach, this paper has chosen to look at extreme cases, to complement as far as
possible the average, or typical scenarios that RAN4 has already studied in 3GPP. In
the main, the analysis has shown up internal contradictions in those extreme cases
meaning that they will never occur. For instance: analysing the case when the UE is
operating at full power in its uplink towards a femtocell is shown to occur only when
the macro cell is nearby in which case the macro downlink signal is so strong that
the UE will never select the femtocell over the macrocell. This contradiction shows, for
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

instance, that the high noise rise that a UE could in principle cause will happily never
occur. In other cases, the extreme cases are avoided by uplink powercapping or other
techniques recommended in the paper.
With these extreme cases disarmed, then of the many potential interactions between
UEs, femtocells and macrocells, the summary conclusion that we have reached, in
common with other studies, is that in order to be successful, femtocell technology
must manage three things,Femtocell downlink power if femtocells transmit
inappropriately loudly, then the cell may be large, but nonmembers of the closed user
group will experience a loss of service close to the femtocell. On the other hand, if the
femtocell transmits too softly, then nongroup members will be unaffected, but the
femtocell coverage area will be too small to give benefit to its users. Femtocell
receiver gain since UEs have a minimum transmit power below which they cannot
operate, and since they can approach the femtocell far more closely than they can a
normal macrocell, we must reduce the femtocell receiver gain, so that nearby UEs do
not overload it. This must be done dynamically, so that distant UEs are not
transmitting at high power, and contributing to macro network noise rise on a
permanent basis. UE uplink power since UEs transmitting widely at high power can
generate unacceptable noise rise interference in the macro network, we signal a
maximum power to the UE (a power cap) to ensure that it hands off to the macro
network in good time, rather than transmit at too high a power in clinging to the
femtocell.
We have also shown that, with these issues addressed, the net effect of deploying
femtocells alongside a macro network is significantly to increase its capacity. In
numerical terms, and in terms of the simulated scenario, the available air interface
data capacity is shown to increase by over a hundredfold by the introduction of
femtocells.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.
10.1
10.2
10.3

Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Small Cell


Forum ...............................................................................1
What are Femtocell Access Points? ........................................ 1
What do Femtocells offer? .................................................... 1
What is the Small Cell Forum?............................................... 2
Objectives and methods of this paper ..............................3
Previous Work ..................................................................5
Simulation Scenarios and Definitions ...............................7
Abbreviations and Defined Terms ...................................10
Scenario A: Macrocell Downlink Interference to the
Femtocell UE Receiver ....................................................12
Description ....................................................................... 12
Analysis ........................................................................... 12
Extended scenario: HSDPA coverage.................................... 15
Conclusions ...................................................................... 17
Scenario B: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the
Femtocell Receiver .........................................................18
Description ....................................................................... 18
Analysis ........................................................................... 18
Conclusions ...................................................................... 23
Scenario C: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the
Macrocell UE Receiver ....................................................25
Description ....................................................................... 25
Analysis ........................................................................... 26
Scenario analysis and conclusions........................................ 28
Scenario D: Femtocell Uplink Interference to the
Macrocell NodeB Receiver ..............................................30
Introduction ...................................................................... 30
Analysis of Scenario D - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA .................... 31
Conclusions ...................................................................... 34
Recommendations ............................................................. 34
Scenario E: Femtocell Downlink Interference to nearby
Femtocell UE Receiver. ...................................................35
Description ....................................................................... 35
Capacity Analysis .............................................................. 36
Conclusions ...................................................................... 38

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

11.
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
12.
12.1
12.2
12.3
13.
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
14.
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
15.
15.1
15.2
15.3
16.
16.1
16.2
16.3
17.
18.
19.
19.1

Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby


Femtocell Receivers........................................................39
Description ....................................................................... 39
Analysis ........................................................................... 39
Conclusions ...................................................................... 41
Recommendations ............................................................. 42
Scenario G: Macrocell Downlink Interference to an
adjacent-channel Femtocell UE Receiver ........................43
Description ....................................................................... 43
Analysis ........................................................................... 43
Conclusions ...................................................................... 45
Scenario H: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the
adjacent channel Femtocell Receiver..............................46
Description ....................................................................... 46
Analysis ........................................................................... 47
Conclusions ...................................................................... 53
Femto System Impact ........................................................ 54
Mitigation techniques ......................................................... 54
Scenario I: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the
adjacent channel macrocell UE Receiver.........................55
Description ....................................................................... 55
Analysis ........................................................................... 56
Conclusions ...................................................................... 60
Customer (MUE) Impact ..................................................... 60
Mitigation techniques ......................................................... 60
Scenario J: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to the
adjacent channel Macrocell NodeB Receiver ...................61
Introduction ...................................................................... 61
Analysis of Scenario J - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA ..................... 61
Conclusions ...................................................................... 64
Downlink and Uplink Scenarios Modelling Power
Control Techniques for Interference Mitigation ..............65
Modelling of Propagation loss .............................................. 65
HNB transmit power calibration for 850 MHz ......................... 65
Simulation results for Dense Urban Deployment .................... 66
Summary of Findings ......................................................75
Overall Conclusions ........................................................84
Further Reading .............................................................85
Scenario A ........................................................................ 85

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

19.2
Scenario B ........................................................................ 85
19.3
Scenario C ........................................................................ 85
19.4
Scenario D........................................................................ 85
19.5
Scenario E ........................................................................ 86
19.6
Scenario F ........................................................................ 86
19.7
Scenario G........................................................................ 86
19.8
Scenario H ........................................................................ 86
19.9
Scenario I......................................................................... 86
19.10 Scenario J ........................................................................ 87
19.11 Scenarios Section 16 ....................................................... 87
20.
Simulation Parameters and Path Loss Models ................88
20.1
Simulation parameters ....................................................... 88
20.2
Path Loss Models ............................................................... 89
References ................................................................................91
Tables
Table 3-1

Table Title ...................................................................................... 6

Table 4-1

Femtocell Deployments in Shared Spectrum ....................................... 7

Table 4-2

Femtocell Deployments in non-Shared Spectrum ................................ 8

Table 4-3

Table Title ...................................................................................... 8

Table 6-1

Macro Node B assumptions and transmit EIRP calculation ...................13

Table 6-2

Link budget for the received power from macro Node B to UE .............13

Table 6-3

EIRP for the femtocell.....................................................................14

Table 6-4

Required Ec/No for voice connection ................................................15

Table 7-1

Assumptions for Scenario B .............................................................18

Table 7-2

MUE link budget at the femtocell receiver. ........................................19

Table 7-3

FUE transmitter power requirements in order to hold a voice call .........19

Table 7-4

Maximum co-channel DL deadzone created by the femtocell for MUEs,


based on [R4-070969] and assuming RSSI of -65dBm .......................20

Table 7-5

Link budget for HSUPA ...................................................................21

Table 9-1

Macro Node B noise floor ................................................................31

Table 9-2

Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B ................................32

Table 9-3

Noise rise calculation for Scenario D (femto UE is transmitting at


8.39dBm and 21dBm 1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service
and 2Mbps HSUPA service) .............................................................33

Table 9-4

Macro UE Tx power 1,000m away from macro Node B receiver by


window on a 12K2 voice and 2Mbps HSUPA data service. ....................34

Table 11-1

Femtocell Sensitivity and Noise Rise at AP1 .......................................40

Table 12-1

Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE


in this worst-case scenario ..............................................................45

Table 13-1

Uplink radio link-budget for AMR 12.2 kbps RAB ................................49

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Table 14-1

Maximum Macro NB MUE separation for a given maximum


Femtocell transmit power level, when the Femtocell MUE separation
is fixed at 5 m. ..............................................................................58

Table 14-2

UE receiver performance requirement (HSDPA), [TS25.101] ...............59

Table 15-1

Macro Node B noise floor ................................................................62

Table 15-2

Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B ................................63

Table 15-3

Noise rise calculation for Scenario D1 (femto UE is transmitting at


8.39dBm and 21dBm 1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service
and 2Mbps HSUPA service) .............................................................64

Table 16-1 Parameters for the co-channel idle cell reselection procedure. ................67
Table 16-2

Coverage Statistics at 850 MHz for Calibrated HNB Transmit Power ......67

Table 16-3

Pilot acquisition statistics at 850 MHz for dense-urban model with 24


active HNBs and calibrated HNB transmit power ................................68

Table 16-4

Coverage statistics for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and


calibrated HNB transmit power ........................................................68

Table 20-1

Recommended simulation parameters ..............................................88

Figures
Figure 1-1

Typical femtocell deployment scenario. .............................................. 1

Figure 4-1

Figure Title .................................................................................... 9

Figure 6-1

Scenario A ....................................................................................12

Figure 6-2

Received signal strengths at UE, from macrocell and femtocell. ...........15

Figure 6-3

HSDPA throughput vs. UE to femtocell distance for various femtocell


Tx powers. ....................................................................................17

Figure 7-1

Scenario B ....................................................................................18

Figure 7-2

Interference Scenario B, voice call ...................................................20

Figure 7-3

HSUPA simulation, Scenario B. E-DPDCH Ec/No compared to


throughput for RFC3.......................................................................22

Figure 7-4

Throughput for HSUPA. 70% max bit rate for all FRCs. ......................23

Figure 8-1

Illustration of the interference analysis for Scenario C ........................25

Figure 8-2

Path loss model .............................................................................26

Figure 8-3

TX power needed for 12.2 kbps for MUE (1000 metres away and 100
metres away respectively). .............................................................27

Figure 8-4

MUE throughput with HSDPA for locations at 1,000 and 100 metres
respectively. .................................................................................28

Figure 9-1

Interference Scenario D ..................................................................30

Figure 10-1 Scenario E. Adjacent femto with UEs connected to each AP. ................35
Figure 10-2 Apartments Plan Flats layout ........................................................36
Figure 10-3 Macrocell location relative to the house where the femtos are located ..36
Figure 10-4 Dedicated carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput ....................................37
Figure 10-5 Shared carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput ........................................38
Figure 11-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario F .........................................39
Figure 12-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario G ........................................43
Figure 12-2 CPICH Ec/Io for Femto ...................................................................44
Figure 13-1 Illustration of the interference Scenario H .........................................46

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Figure 13-2 Minimum separation between Femtocell and MUE to avoid blocking,
for a given MUE transmit power level ...............................................50
Figure 13-3 E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level ....51
Figure 13-4 Required average FUE transmit power level to meet HSUPA
throughput requirements. ...............................................................52
Figure 13-5 E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level ....53
Figure 14-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario I .........................................55
Figure 14-2 Macro Node B signal strength relative to the interfering femtocell
signal strength measured at the MUE, required for successful
decoding of AMR ............................................................................57
Figure 14-3 Maximum MNB - MUE separation as a function of femtocell MUE
separation, assuming AMR voice service. ..........................................58
Figure 14-4 Maximum macrocell-MUE separation as a function of femtocell-MUE
separation, for reception of HSDPA ..................................................59
Figure 15-1 Interference Scenario J. ..................................................................61
Figure 16-1 In variance of HNB calibrated Tx Power in the two frequencies. ...........68
Figure 16-2 DL user throughput distribution under different minimum powers ........70
Figure 16-3 Magnified version of Figure 1-2 showing outage statistics ...................70
Figure 16-4 HUE uplink throughput distribution ....................................................71
Figure 16-5 MUE uplink throughput distribution ....................................................72
Figure 16-6 Transmit power distribution ..............................................................72
Figure 16-7 Transmit power distribution. .............................................................73
Figure 16-8 UE uplink throughput distributions in 850 MHz. There are, in total, 34
UEs per macrocell, of which 24 UEs migrate to MNB in the No HNBs
case. HNB deployment increases the system capacity significantly .......74

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

1. Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Small Cell Forum


1.1

What are Femtocell Access Points?

Femtocell Access Points (FAPs) are low-power radio access points, providing wireless
voice and broadband services to customers primarily in the home environment. The
FAP provides cellular access in the home and connects this to the operators network
through the customers own broadband connection to the Internet.
FAPs usually have an output power less than 0.1 Watt, similar to other wireless home
network equipment, and they allow a small number (typically less than 10) of
simultaneous calls and data sessions at any time. By making the access points small
and low-power, they can be deployed far more densely than macrocells (for instance,
one per household). The high density of deployment means that the femtocell
spectrum is re-used over and over again, far more often than the re-use that the
macro network (with its comparatively large cells) can achieve. Trying to reach the
same levels of re-use with macrocellular technology would be prohibitively expensive
in equipment and site acquisition costs. By using femtocells, the re-use, spectrum
efficiency, and therefore the aggregate capacity of the network can be greatly
increased at a fraction of the macrocellular cost.
A typical deployment scenario is shown in Figure 1-1.

Figure 1-1

1.2

Typical femtocell deployment scenario.

What do Femtocells offer?

Zero-touch installation by end user: Femtocells are installed by the end


user without intervention from the operator. The devices will automatically
configure themselves to the network, typically using Network Listen
capabilities to select settings that minimise interference with the macro
network.
Moveability: The end user may move their femtocells for example, to
another room, or, subject to operator consent, to another location entirely.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

1.3

Backhaul via the end users fixed broadband connection: Femtocells


will use the subscribers broadband connection for backhaul, which typically
will be shared with other devices in the home.
Access control the closed user group: The operator and/or end user
will be able to control which mobile devices can access the femtocell. For
example, subscribers may be able to add guest phone numbers via a web
page.
Supports a restricted number of simultaneous users: Femtocells will
support a limited number (typically, fewerthan ten) of simultaneous calls and
data sessions.
Femtozone (homezone) tariffs: Mobile services accessed through the
femtocell may be offered at a cheaper rate than the same services on the
macro network. End users are advised when services are accessed via the
femtocell, either by an advisory tone, or a display icon or some other means,
so they know when the femto-tariffs apply.
Ownership: Various ownership models are possible for example, end users
may own their femtocells, just as they own their mobile phones, or the
operator may retain ownership, with end users renting the equipment (like a
cable modem).
Small cell size/millions of cells in the network: The femtocell network
can easily extend to millions of devices.
Femto as a service platform: Novel mobile services can be made available
on the femtocell. For example, a femtocell-aware application on the mobile
handset could automatically upload photos to a website when the user enters
the home, and download podcasts.

What is the Small Cell Forum?

The Small Cell Forum (www.smallcellforum.org), formerly known as the Femto Forum,
supports the wide-scale adoption of small cells.
Small cells are low-power wireless access points that operate in licensed spectrum, are
operator-managed and feature edge-based intelligence. They provide improved
cellular coverage, capacity and applications for homes and enterprises as well as
metropolitan and rural public spaces. They include technologies variously described as
femtocells, picocells, microcells and metrocells.
The Forum has in excess of 140 members including 68 operators representing more
than 2.92 billion mobile subscribers 46 per cent of the global total as well as
telecoms hardware and software vendors, content providers and innovative start-ups.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

2. Objectives and methods of this paper


The benefits of femtocells are not straightforward to realise. While network operators
will see significant capacity gains, and end users can expect higher performance, to
achieve this the radio layer must be carefully managed. The management of the radio
interference between the Macro and Femto Layers is a key industry concern addressed
by this paper.
Interference adversely affects the capacity of a radio system and the quality of the
individual communication links on that system. Adding capacity is always based on a
trade-off between interference, quality and capacity. Hence, there is a need for
interference management techniques to minimise interference that might otherwise
counteract the capacity gains and degrade the quality of the network.
1.

The principal objectives of this study are:

To develop an industry position on the interference risks from femtocell


deployments.
To recommend mitigation techniques and any necessary associated radio
frequency (RF) parameters and performance requirements, to ensure minimal
disruption to the macro network or other femtocells.

2.

3.
4.

5.

6.

7.

To achieve these objectives, this paper develops detailed interference


scenarios for evaluation and inclusion in the interference management
assessment. The scenarios will cover worst-case deployment conditions and
assess the respective system impact.
An immediate focus is to develop the assessment for W-CDMA, and in doing
so devise a process that should be consistent with alternative radio
technologies.
Two main steps were identified in order to accomplish the above goal:
First, a baseline set of interference analysis conclusions for UMTS femtocells,
based on 3GPP RAN4 interference studies, was required. This would be
supplemented with specific analysis of identified micro scenarios, their
likelihood, and potential impact. Interference mitigation techniques should
also be considered on the understanding that vendor independence be
preserved wherever possible.
Secondly, a recommendation for a common set of behaviours (RF parameters
and/or test cases) that can be derived by any UMTS femtocell was required.
This is so that the femtocell can configure itself for minimal disruption to
either the macrocell layer or other deployed femtocells.
We focus exclusively on the Closed User Group model. This is the most likely
residential deployment model, and restricts the pool of allowed users to a
small group authorised by the operator or the owner of the femtocell. Nonauthorised subscribers may suffer coverage and service impairment in the
vicinity of a closed-access femtocell (the so-called deadzone), which is
important to assess.
The study will also investigate methods of controlling the impact of deploying
large numbers of femtocells on the macro network. For example, different
scrambling codes and adaptive power controls may be used to manage the
interference in the network.
This paper has limited itself in scope, according to perceived priorities, as
follows:

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

8.
9.

It is exclusively concerned with W-CDMA as an air interface technology


(other teams within Small Cell Forum are looking at other air interfaces).
It is concerned primarily with the 850 MHz band in the United States, but is
equally applicable to the 900 MHz band in Europe and elsewhere. It should
also be broadly applicable to similar bands (eg. 700 MHz).
It is exclusively a theoretical treatment, using link level and system level
simulations to draw its conclusions, although we expect to back up these
conclusions in due course with experiment.
The femtocells have been modelled in terms of three power classes (10dBm,
15dBm, 21dBm) or (10mW, 30mW, 125mW), although not all cases examine
all three classes.
In approach, this paper has chosen to look at extreme cases of general
industry concern, to complement as far as possible the RAN4 scenarios
already studied in 3GPP. In the main, the analysis has shown up internal
contradictions in those extreme cases meaning that they will never occur in
practice. Such contradictory analyses are then followed up with less extreme,
more realistic scenarios, where the interference effects and their mitigation
can be modelled and analysed.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

3. Previous Work
Analysis in this problem space has already been carried out as part of the 3GPP Home
Node B study item. 3GPP RAN4 concluded their study into the radio interface feasibility
of Home Node B (aka femtocells) at RAN#39 in March 2008. Their results are
presented in [TR25.820]. Part of their study included the analysis of anticipated
interference scenarios covering a range of HNB deployments. A summary of their
findings is presented in Table 3-1 below.
The scenarios for this paper are defined in Section 4.
Scenario
(this
paper)
A

25.820
scenario
id
4

Summary of RAN4 conclusions

Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as


the femtocell has sufficient transmit dynamic range.
The femtocell receiver must reach a compromise between
protecting itself against uncoordinated interference from the
macro UEs, and controlling the interference caused by its own UEs
towards the Macro Layer. Adaptive uplink attenuation can improve
performance, but consideration must also be given to other
system issues like the associated reduction in UE battery life.
Downlink interference from a closed-access femtocell will result in
coverage holes in the macro network. In co-channel deployments
the coverage holes are considerably more significant than when
the femtocell is deployed on a dedicated carrier. A number of
models are presented for controlling maximum femtocell
transmission power, but it is acknowledged that no single
mechanism alone provides a definitive solution. Open access
deployment should also be considered as a mitigating option.
Noise rise on the Macro Layer will significantly reduce macro
performance; consequently, the transmit power of the femto UE
should be controlled. A number of mechanisms to achieve this are
presented, generally providing a compromise between macro and
femtocell performance. Again, open access deployment should be
seen as a mitigating option in the co-channel case.
This scenario has received less coverage than the macro
interference cases, but it is noted that the performance of Closed
Subscriber Group (CSG) femtocells is significantly degraded unless
interference mitigation techniques are used. This is generally a
similar problem to macro DL interference in the co-channel
scenario.
It is difficult to avoid co-channel interference between CSG
femtocells, and this limits the interference reductions achieved by
deploying the femtocell on a separate carrier from the macro
network. Again, interference management techniques are required
to manage femto-to-femto interference.
Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as
the femtocell has sufficient transmit dynamic range.
The femtocell receiver must reach a compromise between
protecting itself against uncoordinated interference from the
macro UEs, and controlling the interference caused by its own UEs
towards the Macro Layer. This is generally an easier compromise
to arrive at with adjacent-channel deployments than it is with cochannel.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Scenario
(this
paper)
I

25.820
scenario
id
2

Table 3-1

Summary of RAN4 conclusions

Downlink interference from a closed-access femtocell will result in


coverage holes in the macro network. In adjacent-channel
deployments the coverage holes are considerably easier to
minimise and control than when the femtocell is deployed on the
same carrier as the Macro Layer. A number of models are
presented for controlling maximum femtocell transmission power;
all except the fixed maximum power approach are generally
acceptable.
Noise rise on the Macro Layer will significantly reduce macro
performance; consequently, the transmit power of the Femto UE
should be controlled. A number of mechanisms to achieve this are
presented, generally providing a compromise between macro and
femtocell performance. Adjacent-channel deployments can
generally be accommodated.

Table Title

In addition to the previous 3GPP analysis work, the Forum conducted an earlier study
covering the same scenarios at 2 GHz [FF08]. For this study at 850 MHz, several
changes were made to the simulation parameters used in that earlier 2 GHz study:
Wall loss was reduced from 20 to 10dB, to reflect greater building penetration at
850MHz.
Macro basestation antenna height was increased from 25 to 30 metres, to reflect the
higher antenna heights (larger cell size) typical in North American deployments.
The minimum distance from a macro basestation was increased from 30 to 1,000
meters, to again reflect typical North American deployment scenarios where cells are
larger and basestations are not typically located in residential areas. This also allowed
us to eliminate the use of the ITU P.1411 propagation model, and to use the
Okumura-Hata model, simplifying the analysis work.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

4. Simulation Scenarios and Definitions


The Forum has identified 10 stretch scenarios that explore the limits of operation of
femtocells and femtocell subscriber equipment.
The scenarios are summarised in the following tables and figure.
Scenario
Macrocell Downlink Interference
to the Femtocell UE Receiver (A)

Macrocell Uplink Interference to


the Femtocell Receiver (B)

Femtocell Downlink Interference


to the Macrocell UE Receiver (C)

Femtocell Uplink Interference to


the Macrocell Node B Receiver (D)

Femtocell Downlink Interference


to Nearby Femtocell UE Receivers
(E)

Femtocell Uplink Interference to


Nearby Femtocell Receivers (F)

Table 4-1

Description
A femtocell UE receiver, located on a table next to the
apartment window, is in the direct bore sight of a macrocell
(1 km distance). The macrocell becomes fully loaded, while
a femtocell UE is connected to the femtocell at the edge of
its range.
A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment.
Weak coverage of the macro network is obtained
throughout the apartment. A user UE1 (that does not have
access to the femtocell) is located next to the femtocell and
has a call established at full power from the UE1 device.
Another device UE2 has an ongoing call at the edge of
femtocell coverage.
UE1 is connected to the macro network at the edge of
macro coverage. It is also located in the same room as a
femtocell (to which it is not allowed to access). The
femtocell is fully loaded in the downlink.
UE1 is located next to the apartment window, in direct bore
sight of a macrocell (1 km distance). UE1 is connected to
the femtocell at the edge of its range, and is transmitting
at full power.
Two apartments are adjacent to each other. Femtocells
(AP1 and AP2) are located one within each apartment. The
owner of AP2 visits their neighbours apartment, and is on
the edge of coverage of their own femtocell (AP2) but very
close (<3m) to AP1. The owner of AP1 establishes a call
requiring full power from the femtocell.
Two apartments are adjacent to each other. Femtocells
(AP1 and AP2) are located one within each apartment. The
owner of AP2 visits their neighbours apartment, and is on
the edge of coverage of their own femtocell. The owner of
AP2 establishes a call that requires peak UE power to their
own femtocell while they are located next to AP1 (< 3m).

Femtocell Deployments in Shared Spectrum

Scenario
Macrocell Downlink Interference
to the adjacent-channel Femtocell
UE Receiver (G)
Macrocell Uplink Interference to
the adjacent-channel Femtocell
Receiver (H)

Description
A femtocell UE is located on a table next to the apartment
window, in direct bore sight of a macrocell (1 km distance).
The macrocell becomes fully loaded, while a femtocell UE is
connected to the femtocell at the edge of its range.
A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment.
Weak coverage of the macro network is obtained
throughout the apartment. A user (that does not have
access to the femtocell) is located next to the femtocell and
has a call established at full power from the UE1 device.
Another device UE2 has an ongoing call at the edge of
femtocell coverage.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Scenario
Femtocell Downlink Interference
to the adjacent-channel Macrocell
UE Receiver (I)
Femtocell Uplink Interference to
the adjacent-channel Macrocell
NodeB Receiver (J)
Table 4-2

Description
Two users (UE1 and UE2) are within an apartment. UE1 is
connected to a femtocell at the edge of coverage. UE2 is
connected to the macrocell at the edge of coverage, and
located next to the femtocell transmitting at full power.
A femtocell is located in an apartment, in direct bore sight
of a macrocell (1 km distance). UE1 is connected to the
femtocell at the edge of coverage, but next to the widow
thus, in the direct bore sight of the macrocell antenna.

Femtocell Deployments in non-Shared Spectrum

In addition to these extreme scenarios, we include shared-spectrum system level


simulations specifically modelling the mitigation of downlink interference and uplink
noise rise by power control techniques (Section 16). These simulations also model the
effect of femtocells on the total throughput and capacity of the network.
The relationship between these scenarios and those already studied in RAN4 is
summarised in the following table and figure.
Victim
Femto UE
DL Rx
Macro NodeB
DL Tx
Macro UE
UL Tx

Femto AP
UL Rx

Neighbour
Femto UE
DL Rx

B, H
3
C, I
2

Femto UE
UL Tx
Neighbour Femto UE
UL Tx

Table 4-3

Macro
NodeB
UL Rx

A, G
4

Femto AP
DL Tx
Aggressor

Macro UE
DL Rx

E
6
D, J
1

F
5

Table Title

AF are the interference scenarios for co-channel deployments


GJ are the interference scenarios for adjacent-channel deployments
16 are the equivalent interference scenario IDs used in the 3GPP HNB analyses
[TR25.820]
The following diagram illustrates and summarises Small Cell Forum Scenarios A-J:

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

A,G

F
FUE

Macro
NodeB

FUE
F

B,H

MUE

UE Association

C,I

Apartments

Figure 4-1

D,J

Interference
path
F

Femto AP

FUE

Femto UE

MUE

Macro UE

Figure Title

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

5. Abbreviations and Defined Terms


Throughout this paper a number of abbreviations are used to identify various system
elements and parameters. The most frequently used are presented here for quick
reference. However, a more extensive list has been produced and is available under
separate cover.
AP

Access Point

BER

Bit Error Rate (or Bit Error Ratio) the proportion of the total number of bits
received that are decoded wrongly

BS

Base Station (assumed to be a wide-area BS, as defined in [TS25.104],


unless otherwise stated)

EIRP

Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power a measure of the transmitted power in


a particular direction that takes account of the antenna gain in that direction

FAP

Femto AP, also known as the femtocell

FUE

Femto UE, also called the Home UE (HUE)

HUE

Home UE, also called the femto UE (FUE)

HNB

Home NodeB

MNB

Macro NodeB

MUE

Macro UE

QoS

Quality of Service

UE

User Equipment (handset, data terminal or other device)

RAN

Radio Access Network

RAT

Radio Access Technology

RSCP

Received Signal Code Power

RTWP

Received Total Wideband Power

LOS

Line-Of-Sight

P-CPICH Primary Common Pilot Channel


Victim

Is a radio node (macro node-B, or femto access point) whose receiver


performance is compromised by interference from one or more other radio
nodes (the Aggressor). Alternatively, the Victim may be a radio link, whose
quality is degraded by unwanted interference from Aggressor nodes

Aggressor
Is a radio node (either macro node-B, femto access point or UE) whose
transmissions are compromising the performance of another radio node (the
Victim), or which are contributing to the degradation of quality of a (Victim)
radio link

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

10

DeadzoneIs an area where the quality of service is so poor as a result of interference


that it is not possible to provide the demanded service. Deadzones are also
characterised by the fact that in the absence of any interference, a normal
service would be possible.
Deadzones are often specified in terms of the path loss to the Aggressor transmitter. A
60dB deadzone in the femtocell is, therefore, a region around the femtocell where the
path loss to the FAP is less than 60dB.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

11

6. Scenario A: Macrocell Downlink Interference to the Femtocell


UE Receiver
6.1

Description

A UE is located on a table next to the apartment window that is 1 km distance away


from a macrocell. The macrocell is operating at 50% load, while the UE is connected to
the femtocell (ie. FUE) at the edge of its range. In this scenario the Victim link is the
downlink from the femtocell to the FUE, while the Aggressor transmitter is the
downlink from the macrocell. This interpretation of Scenario A is summarised in Figure
6-1.

Figure 6-1

6.2

Scenario A

Analysis

The objective of the analysis of this scenario is to work out the services that can be
delivered to a femto UE when it is on the edge of the femtocell the femtocell itself
being positioned, as required by the scenario, 1km from the macro. The analysis
strategy for this scenario is broken down as follows:
The first task is to determine the range of the femtocell as defined by the pilot power.
This gives us the maximum range at which the UE can detect and decode the femto
beacon, and therefore camp on to it. Secondly, we work out the services that can be
offered by the femtocell at the edge of its coverage, given that interference level. The
first step is accomplished by the following sequence:

Assume a given P-CPICH transmit power for both macro and femto; then
find the power due to the macro at the distance given by the scenario (1km);
then
find the distance from the femto at which the ratio of femto power to macro
power is sufficient for the UE to detect the femtocell. This distance is the
range of the femtocell as defined by the pilot power the maximum range at
which a UE can detect the femtocell and camp on to it.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

12

The second step (to work out the services that can be offered at this range) is
accomplished as follows:

For voice, work out how much dedicated channel power is required to sustain
a voice call, given the interference level calculated in the first step, and
reconcile that with the total amount of power available to give the number of
voice calls that may be sustained.
For data, work out the Ec/Io that can be achieved by allocating all the
remaining power to the HSDPA downlink shared channel, and derive a
throughput from that, given an industry standard relationship between Ec/Io
and throughput.

Assumptions for the macrocell are as defined in [FF09] with variant values shown in
Table 6-1, which shows the transmit EIRP of the macrocell. The link budget for the
macrocell is defined in Table 6-2.
Value Units Comments
Macro Node B utilisation as percentage of total
power

50

Macro Node B maximum Tx power

43

dBm

Ptx_max

Macro Node B Tx power

40

dBm

Ptx_m= Ptx_max +
10*log(0.5)

Antenna gain

17

dBi

Gm

Feeders and cable losses

dB

Lc

Tx EIRP

54

dBm

EIRP_m=Ptx_m+Gm-Lc

Table 6-1

Macro Node B assumptions and transmit EIRP calculation

Distance macro nodeB


to UE
Height macro nodeB
antenna
Height UE from ground
Path loss

UE antenna gain
UE connector and body
losses
Macro nodeB received
power at UE

Value
1000

Unit
m

Comments
d_mu

30

hb

1.5
125.75

m
dB

0
3

dBi
dBi

hM
PL_m is calculated from the
Okumura-Hata Model, + 5dB window
loss
Gue
Lc_u

-79.75
dBm

Table 6-2

Prx_m=eirp_mPL_m+GueLc_u

Link budget for the received power from macro Node B to UE

The value Prx_m in Table 6-3 is the power due to the macrocell at the scenario
distance (1 km), and takes account of the propagation, plus an allowance for the
window loss (5dB).

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

13

The femtocell assumptions are presented in Table 6-4. Note that three types of
femtocell are assumed with the defined femto transmit power classes (10dBm, 15dBm
and 21dBm).
Value

Unit Comments

10
Femtocell max transmit power

15

dBm Ptx_f for the three power classes modelled

21
Femtocell antenna gain

dBi

Femtocell feeders/connector
losses

dB

Gf (same as UE)
Lc_f

9
Maximum transmit EIRP

14

dBm

eirp_f=Ptx_f+Gf-Lc_f, for the three power


classes modelled

pcp_pctage

20
P-CPICH power relative to
maximum power

10
-1

P-CPICH transmit EIRP

dBm Eirp_pcp_f = eirp_f * pcp_pctage

10
Table 6-3

EIRP for the femtocell

In order to complete the calculation of position of the cell edge according to P-CPICH,
we calculate the P-CPICH power at the UE and compare it to the power at the UE due
to the macrocell. Note that in this scenario we are fixing the UE at the window and
moving the femtocell location so the macrocell power is constant at the value
calculated in Table 6-4. We use the indoor propagation model ITU-R P.1238, assuming
a residential building and same floor operation, the femtocell characteristics from
Error! Reference source not found. as well as the same UE characteristics as in
Table 6-4. Figure 6-2 shows the femtocell P-CPICH power received at the UE, and the
power at the UE from the macrocell as taken from Table 6-4.
In order for the FUE to detect the femtocell and camp onto it, the P-CPICH Ec/No must
be sufficient. It is assumed that a level of -18 dB will be adequate in this respect. To
find the range of the femtocell we need to find the distance below which the P-CPICH
power is less than 18 dB below the power from the macrocell. By observing in Table 64 where the P-CPICH power exceeds the bounds on the macro interference power
minus 18 dB, it can be seen that even at the 10 dBm transmit power, the FAP has a
range of more than 100 m. It is to be noted that this does not necessarily mean that a
UE 100m away from the FAP will select the FAP in idle mode. Rather, it means that if
the UE is already connected to this FAP, it can still sustain the connection at this
distance

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

14

Figure 6-2

Received signal strengths at UE, from macrocell and femtocell.

Further, it can be seen that, based on Table 6-4Error! Reference source not
found., voice services are readily achievable at the edge of coverage, since they
require about the same Ec/No as the minimum CPICH Ec/No assumed above.
Value

Unit

Comments

Chiprate

3.84e6

cps

Bitrate of AMR voice call

12.2

kbps

Eb/No requirement for voice


connection

+7

dB

Eb/No

Ec/No requirement for voice


connection

-18

dB

Ec/Io=Eb/No-10*log10(W/R)

Table 6-4

Required Ec/No for voice connection

Similarly for HSDPA, assuming that 80% of the femtocell power is reserved for HSDPA
services (9dB above P-CPICH), the HSDPA Ec/No will be at least -1.8 dB (@ 100m
from HNB), which corresponds to > 1.5 Mbps, according to the translation equation in
[R4-080149].

6.3

Extended scenario: HSDPA coverage

The HSDPA throughput at the UE as a function of the distance between the HNB and
the window is analysed by employing the rate mapping equation presented in
reference [R4-080149]. The HSDPA max data rate is presented as a function of
average HS-DSCH SINR.
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

15

In this work, SINR is calculated using the formula in [Hol06]:

SINR = SF16

PHS DSCH
(1 ) Pown + Pother + Pnoise

Equation 6-1

where:

SF16 is the spreading factor,


PHS-DSCH is the received power of the HS-DSCH, summing over all active HSPDSCH codes,
Pown is the received own-cell interference,
is the downlink orthogonality factor (assumed to be 1, fully orthogonal),
Pother is the received other-cell interference,
Pnoise is the received noise power (here it is assumed that the UE Noise figure
is 7dB).

Assuming:

The femtocell transmit powers are 10dBm, 15 dBm and 21 dBm, with 80%
allocated to HS-DSCH
And employing the path loss assumptions of the previous section
The UE is still assumed to be 1 km away from the macrocell.

The HSDPA throughput for the FUE at different distances from the femtocell is shown
in Figure 6-3.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

16

Figure 6-3

HSDPA throughput vs. UE to femtocell distance


for various femtocell Tx powers.

It can be seen from Figure 6-3 that the maximum HSDPA throughput can be expected
up to 25 m away from the femto, even at the 10 dBm transmit power.

6.4

Conclusions

The scenario that has been analysed in this section examines the case of the UE being
located in front of a window overlooking a macrocell that is 1 km away. Assuming
standard models and parameters, it is shown that, even at 10 dBm transmit power,
the femtocell is able to comfortably provide voice to the UE when the femtocell is
located as far as 100 m away, and maximum HSDPA throughput can be expected up
to 25 m away.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

17

7. Scenario B: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the Femtocell


Receiver
7.1

Description

A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment. Weak coverage of the macro
network is obtained throughout the apartment. A user that does not have access to
the femtocell (MUE) is located next to the femtocell. Another user device (FUE) is
connected to the femtocell and has an ongoing call at the edge of femtocell coverage.
The scenario is depicted in Figure 7-1. In this case the Victim receiver belongs to the
femtocell access point (FAP), and the Aggressor transmitter is that of the nearby MUE.

Figure 7-1

7.2

Scenario B

Analysis

The general assumptions for the analysis of this scenario are presented in Table 7-1.
The link budget for the MUE is shown in Table 7-2; note that three separation
distances between the MUE and the femtocell are taken into account (5, 10 and 15m).
Value

Unit

Comments

Voice call service rate

12.2

kbps

Chip rate

3.84

Mbps

Processing gain

24.98

dB

PG=10*log10(W/R)

Required Eb/No for voice call

8.3

dB

Eb/No (performance requirement in


[TS25.104] for AWGN channel, no
diversity)

Frequency

850

MHz

Fc (Band V)

Table 7-1

Assumptions for Scenario B

Value

Unit Comments

MUE uplink transmitted power

21

dBm Ptx_mue (power class 4)

UE antenna gain

dBi

Gue

Connectors/body loss

dB

Lue

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

18

Value

Unit Comments

MUE Tx EIRP

18

dBm eirp_mue=Ptx_mue+Gue-Lue

Distance MUE-femtocell

5, 10, 15

d_mue

MUE-femtocell path loss

50.16 (@5m)
58.59(@10m)
63.52 (@15m)

dB

PL_mue, Indoor to indoor path


loss model , where d=d_mue,
f=fc

Femtocell antenna gain

dBi

Gf

Femtocell feeders/connector losses

dB

Lf

Uplink power received by the


femtocell from MUE at different MUEfemtocell separation distances

-33.16(@5m)
-41.59(@10m)
-46.52(@15m)

dBm

Prx_mue=eirp_mue-PL_mue+GfLf

Table 7-2

MUE link budget at the femtocell receiver.

In Table 8-3, the FUE's minimum transmitted power requirement for holding a voice
call is calculated. Note that the power is well within the FUE's capabilities, even at the
largest separation distance.
Value

Units

Comments

Distance between FUE and


femtocell

15

d_fue

Path loss

63.51

dB

PL_fue
Indoor to indoor path loss model
(d=d_fue, f=fc)

Eb/N0 requirements for a


voice call

8.3

dB

Eb/No_fue
[TS25.104]

Processing Gain

24.98

dB

PG_fue

Noise power

-103

dBm

PN from [TS25.942]

FUE received power in order -49.84 (@5m)


to obtain required Eb/N0 for -58.27(@10m)
-63.20 (@15m)
different MUE distances
(d_mue)

dBm

Prx_fue is calculated from


equation [Hol06]:

FUE transmitted power


requirements for different
MUE distances (d_mue)

dBm

Table 7-3

17.68 (@5m)
9.25 (@10m)
4.32 (@15m)

(Eb / No )fue

PG fue Prx , fue

Prx ,mue (d mue )+ PN

Ptx_fue=Prx_fueGue+Lue+PL_fue-Gf+Lf

FUE transmitter power requirements in order to hold a voice call

The values calculated in Table 7-3 for the transmitted power of the FUE required are
the same as the one calculated for the 1900Mhz study. The reason for this is that the
reduction on frequency affects both FUE and MUE in the same way. Moreover, as the
MUE is near to the femtocell, the affect of Noise Power is small in the calculation of
Prx_fue.
In Figure 7-2, the results are interpolated for different UE distances and power levels.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

19

Note that the plot includes the downlink deadzones created by the femtocell, which
affects the MUE. Downlink deadzone assumptions are summarised in Table 7-4.
DL Tx power

Maximum co-channel
DL deadzone

MUE-femtocell
distance
(using ITU-P.1238 indoor path loss
model)

10dBm

60dB

11.3m

15dBm

65dB

17m

20dBm

70dB

25.7m

Table 7-4

Maximum co-channel DL deadzone created by the femtocell for MUEs, based on


[R4-070969] and assuming RSSI of -65dBm

Within these zones, the MUE will be re-directed to another WCDMA frequency or Radio
Access Technology (RAT) by the macrocells, or the call may be dropped. In both case
the interference level in the femtocell reduces, and the uplink power requirements will
relax.

Figure 7-2

Interference Scenario B, voice call

7.2.1

HSUPA

In this section the affects of HSUPA are analysed. The link budget is shown in Table 75.
Value

Unit Comments

FUE uplink transmitted power

21

dBm Ptx_fue

UE antenna gain

dBi

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Gue

20

Value

Unit Comments

Connectors/body loss

dB

FUE Tx EIRP

18

dBm eirp_fue=Ptx_fue+Gue-Lue

Distance FUE-femtocell

d_fue

FUE-femtocell path loss

50.16

dB

PL_fue
Indoor to indoor path loss model
(d=d_fue, f=fc)

MUE distance from femtocell

21

dBm Ptx_mue

MUE-femtocell separation

10

MUE power at femtocell (see Table 72 for d_mue=10)

-41.59

dBm Prx_mue

Noise level

-103

dBm N0

E-DPDCH Ec/No

-2.57

dB

Table 7-5

Lue

d_mue

(Ec / No )fue =

Prx , fue
Prx ,mue + N 0

Link budget for HSUPA

The simulation results in Figure 7-3 show the E_DPDCH Ec/No for two cases:

FUE is at 5m from the femtocell


FUE is at 15m from the femtocell.

In both cases, it is expected that the MUE is transmitting at maximum power


(21dBm).
Figure 7-3 shows the fixed-reference channel (FRC) #3 (see [TS25.104], Pedestrian A
channel model) for the following requirements for E-DPDCH to be met:

Ec/No of 2.4dB: provides R30% of max information bit rate


Ec/No of 9.4dB: provides R70% of max information bit rate.

Note that DL deadzones are not taken into account. However, the grey area in the
figure represents the maximum extent (11.3m) of the DL deadzone for a femtocell
transmitting at +10dBm. This distance would reduce if the FAP was not loaded in the
downlink.
Note also that the indoor to indoor path loss model, ITU-R P.1238, may underestimate
the true path loss outside 15-20m range, as it is likely that other physical features
(such as furniture, walls and buildings) will affect radio propagation (this is particularly
true in dense urban areas.). A larger path loss reduces MUE interference, which, in
turn, allows greater FUE throughput (linked to an increase in FUE-DPDCH Ec/No).

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

21

Figure 7-3

HSUPA simulation, Scenario B. E-DPDCH Ec/No compared to throughput for RFC3.

The results in Figure 7-3 are mapped to the TS 25.104 throughput model for
pedestrian A no receiver diversity. The results are shown in Figure 7-4. Here, it is
noted how interference from the MUE has a strong affect on throughput; however, it
should be noted that the simulation assumes an MUE transmitting at maximum power
(on the edge of the macrocell).

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

22

Figure 7-4

7.3

Throughput for HSUPA. 70% max bit rate for all FRCs.

Conclusions

Based on link budget calculations, the affects of uplink interference from one UE on
the macrocell and a UE on the femtocell have been analysed; in this work it is
assumed that the same frequency is used by the Macro and Femto Layer.
In the analysis, it was assumed a femtocell serving an FUE on the physical edge of the
cells (assumed to be 15m away) with a 12.2kbps AMR speech call; while a co-channel
interference MUE is in the proximity of the femtocell. The analysis results showed that
in order to be able to maintain the uplink connection between the FUE and femtocell,
the transmitted power requirements are within the capability of the UE.
Additionally, the performance of HSUPA on the femto-FUE link has been analysed in
the presence of uplink interference from the Macro UE. By simulation, it has been
found that in order to obtain HSUPA throughput of at least 2.8Mbps with a category 6
UE, the FUE needs to be near to the femtocell (5m) and transmit at a power level
greater than 15dBm if the MUE is within 15m of the femtocell.
However, such analysis must take into account the downlink deadzone created by the
femtocell. High power from the femtocell, in order to maintain the downlink, will
interfere with the macrocell signal at the MUE, and will force the macrocell to
handover the call to another WCDMA frequency or RAT; or, if none of these are
possible, the MUE call may be dropped.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

23

7.3.1

Customer (MUE) impact

From the point of view of the MUE, the femtocell is a source of interference to the
macrocell. However, the macro network can already cope with re-directing UEs to
other WCDMA frequencies or RAT if a user is affected by high interference.
Those locations with no coverage from alternative WCDMA frequencies or RATs may
be adversely affected by poor Eb/No levels, leading to dropped calls.
Due to femtocells, the macrocell may also be affected by an increase of uplink
interference as femto-UEs increase power levels in order to achieve required quality
levels. This may be limited by capping the maximum power level transmitted by FUEs,
or limiting uplink throughput.
7.3.2

Customer (FUE) Impact

The minimum separation between MUE and femtocell has a strong affect on the
capability to offer the required QoS to the femtocell user. However, the FUE has
enough power to sustain a voice call while the MUE is in the coverage range of the
femtocell. The downlink deadzone sets a minimum separation between MUE and
femtocell meaning that the FUE transmit power is always within its capability.
For HSUPA, the user is required to go closer to the femtocell in order to be provided
with the best throughput. Simulation has shown that at 5m from the femtocell, good
throughput can be achieved for MUEs further away than 12m.
7.3.3

Mitigation techniques

Availability of alternative resources (a second carrier, or underlay RAT) for handing off
or reselecting macro-users is the best way to provide good service when macro-users
are in the proximity of femtocells.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

24

8. Scenario C: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the Macrocell


UE Receiver
8.1

Description

In this scenario, MUE is connected to the macro network at the edge of coverage
(RSCP<-95dBm). MUE1 is located in the same room as a femtocell (to which it is not
allowed to access). The femtocell is fully loaded in the downlink; the femto UE are
denoted as FUE. The Victim receiver in this case is the MUE, and the Aggressor is the
femtocell downlink transmitter.

Figure 8-1

Illustration of the interference analysis for Scenario C

Due to propagation loss and shadow fading effect, the macrocell signal strength varies
at different location in the macrocell network coverage area. Femtocells are deployed
at different locations in the macrocell network coverage area. Therefore, the down link
interference from macrocell to the femtocell users will be location dependent. In order
for the Femto to maintain its designed coverage, it should be capable of adjusting its
pilot and max transmission power, while not causing undue interference to macrocell
users.
Two important parameters need to be calculated or estimated. These are the
minimum path loss (PLmin), when the UE is closest to the antenna, and the maximum
path loss (PLmax), when the UE is farthest away from the antenna. PLmin will restrict the
Femto maximum transmit power to avoid saturating the UE receiver; while PLmax is the
maximum acceptable loss where the femto transmit power is sufficient to keep inhouse communication with the UE.
For this purpose, we have assumed a certain house layout as an example with defined
structure, and we have worked the path loss across the entire area of the house.
Figure 8-1 below shows that path loss is dependent on the area within the house.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

25

Figure 8-2

Path loss model

The maximum indoor path loss is shown to be more than 90 dB in some locations. The
minimum outdoor path loss from an indoor Femto can be less than 60 dB. This will be
a challenge for operators to balance good indoor coverage while not causing excessive
outdoor interference.
Studied in this section is a macrocell user (MUE) at cell edge, located in an apartment
where an active femtocell is operating with full capacity. Analysis is given for the
following case:
For the MUE to detect the macrocell and camp on it, or to maintain a call, the P-CPICH
Ec/No must be sufficient. We assume a -20 dB threshold ie. the received P-CPICH
RSCP from the macro must be no more than 20dB below the Rx P-CPICH RSCP of the
femto. It is assumed that cell-edge PCPICH RSCP for the macro is -103 dBm, and so
we can infer that the femto PCPICH RSCP must be lower than -83dBm for the MUE to
camp on the macrocell. (Note that techniques for facilitating cell re-selection, such as
the use of hysteresis, cell re-selection parameters, HCS, HPLMN, etc, are not
discussed here, and are beyond the scope of this paper; the discussion in this paper is
on the generic aspect of triggers for cell re-selection only.)
We have assumed two scenarios for the location of the femto relative to the
macrocell: 100 metres and 1,000 metres away from the macro have been used. We
have found that when the femto is deployed in an area in close proximity to the
macrocell (ie. 100 metres away), the maximum output power of the femto should be
increased beyond 100 mW in order to ensure operation in high coverage. Therefore,
when we study the 100 metres case, we assume the femto is able to radiate up to 125
mW, while maximum output power is limited to 20 mW when the femto is deployed
further away (ie. 1,000 metres).
Figure 8-3 shows the statistics of the MUE performance when located near the femto
in the above mentioned two cases.

8.2

Femto being 100 metres away from macrocell


Femto being 1,000 metres away from macrocell.

Analysis

Macrocell configuration:
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

26

Macrocell site-to-site distance: 100 or 1,000 metres


Antenna height: 25 m
Antenna gain: 18 dBi
Frequency carrier in 850 MHz band
Output power of the macro Node B: 20 Watts
Town size: 500m radius.

Femto location configuration:

House size: 8.3X17.5 (m2)


Houses cover 70% of the area
Wall penetration loss: 12 dB
CPICH power is 10% of max output power.

The following figures show the required power (as a proportion of the total macrocell
power) needed to support a voice call at 12.2 kbps within the house in the two
deployment scenarios.

Figure 8-3

TX power needed for 12.2 kbps for MUE (1000 metres away and 100 metres away
respectively).

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

27

It is evident that the required power for a well-sustained call at 12.2 kbps is higher in
the following two cases:

When the MUE is at the edge of the macrocell (ie. 1,000 metres away) and is
behind the building where the femto is deployed. In this case the MUE
requires the macrocell to transmit the radio link at a higher power to
compensate for the high path loss affecting the macro signal and the
interference from the femtocell.
When the MUE is in close proximity to the femtocell and the MUE is located
inside the house. In this case the wall loss is adding additional attenuation to
the macro signal.

The following figures show the macro HSDPA throughput within the house in the two
deployment scenarios (based on how far the femto is from the macro).

Figure 8-4

8.3

MUE throughput with HSDPA for locations at 1,000 and 100 metres respectively.

Scenario analysis and conclusions

In the scenario presented in this section, the performance of MUE attached to the
macrocell is shown to be affected by the femtocell in some locations. This can be
mitigated by the use of adaptive power control on femto. Results show that in some
cases the MUE might experience deadzone when in close proximity to the femto.
One firm conclusion from this analysis is that adaptive power control is necessary for
the femtocells. Femtocells will require higher output power when the femtocell is
deployed in locations near the centre of the macrocell.
Adaptive power control on the femtocell mitigates interference by offering just the
required transmit power on the femto, based on the level of interference from macro.
However, it is shown that a macrocell UE (MUE) might not receive an adequate signal
level from the macro to compensate for the femto interference. This is evident in all
places in close proximity to the femto when the macro and femtocells share the same
carrier.
It is also concluded that there is no apparent and fundamental performance change
whether 850 MHz or 2100 MHz is used for the carrier.
In general, if a macro network is designed to provide fixed coverage in terms of cells
radius, then the macrocell requires lower output power when operating at 850 MHz.
Therefore, the interference level seen by a femto is the same, regardless of the carrier
frequency.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

28

It is shown that the femto is an effective vehicle for delivering a good carrier re-use.
Furthermore, femtocells are an efficient technique for delivering the high-speed data
offered by HSPA to femto users. This can be compared with the macrocell case, where
cell radius is larger, resulting in the distribution of the potential bandwidth of the
HSDPA to a larger number of users. It is also well known that HSPA throughput is
affected by the location of the UE; the closer the UE to the centre of the cell, the
higher the throughput. This leads us to conclude that small cells like femtocells are an
optimum complementary technique for macrocells for addressing high-data usage.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

29

9. Scenario D: Femtocell Uplink Interference to the Macrocell


NodeB Receiver
9.1

Introduction

This document provides an analysis of Femtocell Uplink Interference from femtocell


mobiles (FUEs) to a Macrocell NodeB Receiver.
The scenario being investigated is as follows: An FUE is located next to the apartment
window that is in sight of a rooftop macrocell (approximately 1,000 m in distance), as
shown in Figure 10-1. At the same time, the FUE is connected to the femtocell at the
edge of its range, and is transmitting at full power.

Figure 9-1

Interference Scenario D

In this analysis the impact to the macro Node B is measured by the sensitivity
degradation, also referred to as noise rise (or relative increase in uplink Received Total
Wide Band Power (RTWP)), experienced by the macro Node B, due to the femto UE.
The impact is considered relative to the impact a macro UE will have on a macro Node
B from the same location as the femto UE. The rest of this document is structured as
follows:

In Section 9.2, analysis of Scenario D described in [Law08] is presented,


including the assumptions used. The analysis shows that the femto UEs
impact on the macro Node B is no worse that the impact a macro UE from the
same location would cause.
In Section 9.4, a mitigation technique is suggested that would always ensure
there is minimal impact to macro Node Bs due to femtocell UEs.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

30

9.2

Analysis of Scenario D - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA

An analysis of this scenario is presented, based on link budget calculations. The


analysis looks at the noise rise at the Macro Node B antenna connector due to the
femtocell UE in the described scenario.
9.2.1

Assumptions

A macro Node B with a noise floor based on the assumption that the sensitivity of the
Wide macro Node B for 12k2 voice service at the time is equal to -121 dBm (i.e. the
3GPP reference sensitivity level for a 12k2 voice service on a Wide Area Node B at the
antenna connector [TS25.104]). This sensitivity captures both the loading and noise
figure of the macro Node B. The noise floor calculation is shown in Table 9-1.
Value
Sensitivity @ antenna
connector
UE Service Rate
Chip rate
UE Processing Gain
Required EbNo

noise floor
Table 9-1

Unit
s

-121
12.20
3.84
24.98

dBm
kbps
MHz
dB

Pue_r
ec
R
W
PG

8.30
104.3
2

dB

EbNo

dB

nf_ant

Comment
3GPP reference sensitivity level for Wide
Area Node B

= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without rx diversity (see
[FF09])

= Pue_rec +PG -EbNo

Macro Node B noise floor

Next, the factors that could lead the femto UE to transmit at a power higher than
expected are considered. This will occur if the femto UE is at the femtos cell edge,
and if the femtocell experiences a noise rise, or its receiver is experiencing a blocking
effect, caused by one of the following:

A co-channel macro UE.


An adjacent channel macro UE.
Another femto UE located very close (~1m Free Space Loss) to the femtocell
eg. a laptop with a 3G data card doing a data upload on the same desk as
the femtocell.

Subsequently, for the purposes of this scenario, the following assumptions are made:

The femto is operating under extreme conditions, experiencing a total noise


rise equivalent to 70% loading in the uplink.
A 21 dBm class femto 1 is used in the scenario that can provide a coverage
path loss of up to 120 dBs (path loss estimate based on minimum RSCP
sensitivity of UE of -111 dBm and an 11 dBm CPICH transmit power and
assumption of negligible downlink interference from surrounding Node Bs).

Based on these assumptions, the link budget in Table 9-2 estimates the likely femto
UE uplink transmission power at the femtocell edge of coverage for a 12K2 voice
service and a 2Mbps HSUPA service.

1
Under the same RF conditions a 21 dBm class femto cell will provide larger downlink coverage than a 15dBm class or a 10dBm class
femto

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

31

Frequency
Bandwidth
Thermal Noise Density
Receiver Noise Figure
Receiver Noise Density
Receiver Noise Power
Loading
Noise Rise due to
Loading
Femto Receiver Noise
Floor
Femto UE Service Rate
Chip rate
Femto UE Processing
Gain

12K2
Voice
850.00
3.84
-174.00
8.00
-166.00

Value
2Mbps
HSUPA
850.00
3.84
174.00
8.00
-166.00

-100.16
70.00

Units
MHz
MHz
dBm/Hz
dB
dBm/Hz

F
B
tnd
NF
rnd

-100.16
70.00

dBm
%

rnp
L

5.23

5.23

dB

IM

-94.93
12.2
3.84

-94.93

dBm
kbps
MHz

trnp
R
W

dB

PG

24.98

Required EbNo

8.30

Required EcNo
Minimum Required
Signal Level for Femto
UE
Femto UE Path loss to
Femto

-16.68

dB

-111.61

-94.93

dB

Pfmin

120

120

dB

DLcov

Femto UE Tx Power

8.39

dB

Comments

21

dBm

Table 9-2

Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B

9.2.2

Macro Node B Noise Rise

EbNo

Pfue

= tnd +NF
=rnd
+10*log(B*1e6)
= -10*log(1L/100)

=rnp +IM

= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance
without rx
diversity [FF09]
EbNo PG for
12K2
Typical EcNo to
achieve HSUPA
rates of ~ 2Mbps
[Hol06]

= trnp +EcNo

= min(21, max
((Pfmin + DLcov),
-50)

The noise rise caused to the macro by a femto UE transmitting at 8.39dBm for a 12K2
voice service and 21dBm for a 2Mbps HSUPA service was calculated, using the link
budget in Table 10-3, as 1.44 dB and 9.12 dB respectively. Assuming that a macro UE
is at the same location as the femto UE by the window (path loss of 130.77dB from
the macro, see Ltot in Table 9-3), Table 10-4 shows that a macro UE operating from
the same location as the femto UE will be transmitting at 9.94 dBm, and 21dBm if on
a 12k2 voice service and 2Mbps HSUPA data service respectively and, hence, will lead
to the same amount of noise rise as the femto UE.
Value
12K2
Voice

HSUPA

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Units

Comments

32

Value
12K2
Voice
17
3

HSUPA
17
3

Units
dBi
dB

Gant
Lf

-104.32

-104.32

dBm

nf_ant

Femto UE Tx Power
UE Antenna Gain

8.39
0

21
0

dBm
dBi

Femto UE Tx EIRP
Window/Wall Loss

8.39
5

21
5

dBm
dB

Pfue
Gmant
Pfue_e
irp
Lw

Node B Antenna Gain


Feeder/Connector Loss
Noise Floor at antenna
connector

Path loss to Macro


Node B
Femto UE Interference
@ macro antenna
connector
Rise above noise floor
Noise rise
Table 9-3

dB

Ltot

-95.77
8.55

dB
dB

Pfue_r
ec
R

9.12

dB

NR

130.77

130.77

-108.38
-4.06
1.44

Table 10-1

=Pue Gmant +m
=1000m
OkumuraHata(Node B
at30m and mobile
at 1.5m) +Lw
= Pfue_eirp
Ltot + Gant Lf
Pfue_rec- nf_ant
=10*log( 1+
100.1*R))

Noise rise calculation for Scenario D (femto UE is transmitting at 8.39dBm and


21dBm 1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service and 2Mbps HSUPA
service)

Frequency
Bandwidth
Thermal Noise
Density
Receiver Noise
Figure
Receiver Noise
Density
Receiver Noise
Power
Loading
Noise Rise due to
Loading
Macro Receiver
Noise Floor

Value
12K2
850
3.84
-174.00
5.00
-169.00
-103.16
50.00
3.01
-100.15

Value
HSUPA
850
3.84

Units

Comments

MHz
MHz

-174.00

dBm/Hz

tnd

5.00

dB

NF

-169.00

dBm/Hz

rnd

-103.16
50.00

dBm
%

rnp
L

3.01

dB

IM

-100.15

dBm

trnp

0.00
10
17

dB
dB
dBi

EcNo
m
Gant

-16.68

Required EcNo
Fade Margin
Antenna gain

Comments
[FF09]

10
17

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

= tnd + NF
=rnd
+10*log(B*1e6)
=-10*log(1L/100)
= rnp +IM
= EbNo - PG for
12k2 (see EbNo in
Table 10.2)
Typical EcNo to
achieve HSUPA
rates of ~ 2Mbps
[Hol06]

33

Feeder/Connector
Loss
Minimum Required
Signal Level

3
-120.83

dB

Lf

-104.15

dB

Pfmin

130.77

dB

DLcov

21

dBm

Pfue

130.77
Macro UE Path loss
to macro
9.94
Macro UE Tx Power
Table 9-4

9.3

= Trnp Gant +Lf


+EcNo + m
=1000m
OkumuraHata(Node B at
30m and mobile at
1.5m) +Lw
= min(21, max
((Pfmin + DLcov),
-50)

Macro UE Tx power 1,000m away from macro Node B receiver by window on a


12K2 voice and 2Mbps HSUPA data service.

Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn:


It is unlikely that a femto UE will be transmitting at maximum power, due to the
relatively smaller coverage of the femto compared to the macro.
When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a 12k2
voice service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will be transmitting
in the region of 8.39 dBm and will cause a noise rise of approximately 1.44 dB.
Further, a macro UE on a 12k2 voice service at the same location as the femto UE will
transmit at 9.94 dBm and, hence, will lead to a similar amount of noise rise.
When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a
femto UE with 2Mbps HSUPA data service has shown that a femto UE in the described
scenario will cause a noise rise amounting to approximately 8.55 dB; however, it
should also be noted that a macro UE operating at the same position and on the same
service (with the same service requirement) is expected to cause the same amount of
noise rise.

9.4

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made. They will help ensure harmonious
coexistence of femtocells and macro Node Bs:

It is desirable to limit the allowed maximum transmission power of a femto


UE, to avoid a noise rise to the Macro Layer.

Assuming the femtocell has certain capabilities, then:

The maximum allowed femto UE transmission power can be limited


appropriately, such that the noise rise caused by a femto UE when
transmitting at its maximum allowed power is limited based on the femtocells
proximity to the surrounding Macro Layer Node Bs. This is important,
especially when one considers the cumulative effect of multiple femto UEs
spread across a network. A similar approach is suggested in [R4-071578].
The femtocell could also handover a femto UE to a macrocell if an in-service
femto UE is at the verge of the femtocell; thereafter, uplink interference to a
macrocell from this UE is avoided.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

34

10. Scenario E: Femtocell Downlink Interference to nearby


Femtocell UE Receiver.
10.1

Description

In this section, performance effect on a femto user denoted UE1 is analysed when
another UE (UE2), belonging to another femtocell, operates in close proximity.
Two residential housing units are considered:

Two apartments are separated by a wall, with a femtocell being deployed


within each apartment. The two femtocells being considered are denoted AP1
and AP2. Each femtocell supports a corresponding UE namely, UE1 and UE2
respectively. The assumption is that UE2 is not located in its own apartment,
but rather in the apartment where AP1 is operating. Therefore, UE2 is at the
edge of coverage of his own femtocell, but very close (<3m) to AP1 (ie. a
foreign femtocell). The scenario assumes UE1 to be the Victim, while UE2 has
an active call supported by AP2.
Two houses are detached with a femtocell being deployed within each house.
The two femtocells being considered are denoted AP1 and AP2. Each
femtocell supports a corresponding UE namely, UE1 and UE2 respectively.
The assumption is that UE2 is not located in its own house, but rather in the
house where AP1 is operating. Therefore, UE2 is at the edge of coverage of
its own femtocell, but very close (<3m) to AP1 (ie. a foreign femtocell). The
scenario assumes UE1 to be the Victim, while UE2 has an active call
supported by AP2.

AP1

AP2

UE1
UE2
Apartment 1
Figure 10-1

Apartment 2
Scenario E. Adjacent femto with UEs connected to each AP.

We also assume two cases for macrocells: that the femtocells are and are not
deployed in the corresponding residential premises where macrocell coverage is
present.
Interference and performance degradation to the home user (i.e. UE1) from the
presence of UE2 and the macrocell is analysed in this section.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

35

10.2

Capacity Analysis

The effect on average throughput for the femto users can be analysed through the use
of a Monte-Carlo simulation.
The simulation layout for this scenario is for case 1 and case 2, as shown in Figure 102 and Figure 10-3.
15

10

-5

-10

-15
-15

-10

Figure 10-2

-5

10

15

Apartments Plan Flats layout

In the second scenario contained in this section, the effect of neighbouring femtocell
interference on the central house (located at coordinates 0,0) is investigated. In cases
where a macrocell is present, it is located at coordinates -500m, -500m.
Village Plan
80

60

Y Coordinate in Meter

40

20

-20

-40

-60

-80
-80

Figure 10-3

-60

-40

-20
0
20
X Coordinate in Meter

40

60

80

Macrocell location relative to the house where the femtos are located

Simulation Configuration for apartment case:

Max Femto power = 13dBm (but actual output power is based on autoconfiguration)

Pilot power = 10% of femto output power

External Wall Loss = 15dB

Internal Wall Loss = 10dB

Door Loss = 5dB


Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

36

Macrocell location = -500, -500


Macrocell antenna height = 25m.
Apartment layout:
Two-story building, height = 7m.
Femto acess point is located on the ceiling
UE height = 1.5m
Penetration loss:
External wall = 15 dB
Window = 1 dB
Doors = 3 dB
Outer door = 30 dB.
Simulation assumption for case 2 when houses are considered is found in
the section describing Scenario C, but is not repeated here.

The first simulation result obtained when the femtos use a dedicated carrier shown
in Figure 10-4 below. The graph provides the cumulative distribution of HSDPA
throughput for the UEs when located in the various locations (ie. flat or house). The
results show the CDF for HSDPA throughput for UE1 in two cases:
when the AP1 is operating in isolation (ie. AP2 is not there, and nor is UE2)
when AP2 is operating in the adjacent location, and AP2 is connected to AP1
in active call.

It is evident that the neighbouring femtocells (AP2) and the presence of UE2 do result
in throughput degradation to UE1.
It is shown that the performance degradation sustained by UE1 is greater in the case
of apartment. In the case of users in apartments, the statistics for UE1 getting full
throughput drops from more than 90%, to just over 40%.
1
Flat no Neighbour
Flat with Neighbour
House no Neighbour
House with Neighbour

0.9

Cumulative Distribution Function

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

Figure 10-4

500

1000

1500
2000
Throughput in kbps

2500

3000

3500

Dedicated carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput

The performance is further evaluated when macro network coverage is also provided,
and the macro and femtocells share the same frequency. This is shown in Figure 10-5.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

37

1
0.9

Cumulative Distribution Function

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Flat at (500 500)
Flat at (100 0)
House at (500 500)
House at (100 0)

0.1
0

500

Figure 10-5

10.3

1000

1500
2000
Throughput in kbps

2500

3000

3500

Shared carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput

Conclusions

In Scenario E, the downlink throughput of the UE connected to Femtocell is shown to


be affected by the downlink of neighbouring femtocells. The case shows that driving
femtocells to provide coverage for adjacent locations deemed to be covered by other
femtocells yields performance degradation.
The closer the femtocells are, the higher the mutual interference and performance
degradation.
It is, therefore, strongly recommended that femtocells use effective power control to
confine coverage to their premises. Where the UE cannot get service from the femto,
this UE should be supported by the macro network. There is a need to make sure that
the pilot and transmit power of the femto is carefully adjusted to provide coverage to
UEs within the intended area.
It can be concluded that the femto coverage should aim to be restricted to a single
apartment/house only in order to limit any undue interference between femtos.
Adaptive power control is one method to help this. This leaves the issue of supporting
visiting UEs being under the control of the macrocell.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

38

11. Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby


Femtocell Receivers
11.1

Description

In this scenario, there are two neighbouring Femtos: a Femto UE (UE2) is camping on
femto 2 (AP2) while close to femto 1 (AP1) see Figure 11-1 below.

Figure 11-1

Illustration of the Interference Scenario F

The analysis on this scenario mainly focuses on how the uplink receiver (UL Rx) of AP1
would be interfered with or impacted by UE2, especially when service is ongoing in
UE2. In this situation the interference or impact is measure by sensitivity degradation,
also referred to as noise rise (or relative increase in uplink Received Total Wide Band
Power (RTWP)), experienced by AP1 due to UE2.

11.2

Analysis

Analytical analysis is carried out for the above scenario based on link-budget
calculations and transceiver performance requirements taken from [FF09].
11.2.1

Assumptions

For the purposes of analysis the following assumptions are also made:

AP1 and AP2 have equal Maximum DL powers, and CPICH channel power
ratio is 10%;
both AP1 and AP2 have only one 12.2K voice service ongoing; DL load factors
are at about 50%; and
AP2 has 50% loading in the uplink.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

39

11.2.2

Analysis of Noise Rise received at the Victim AP


value

Unit

comment

Femtocell Noise Figure (NF)

dB

Performance requirements taken from


[2]

UE Processing Gain (G)

25

dB

=10*log(3.84MHz/12.2kbps)

Required Eb/No (EbNo)

dB

Sensitivity (S)

-118

dBm

UL load factor of AP2 (LoadUL)

50

Noise rise due to UL loading (NRload)

dB
%

DL load factor of AP2

50 ( )
50( )

RSCPAP1 RSCPAP 2

10.6

dB

The interference at AP1 (Rx)

-104.4

dBm

Noise floor at AP1 (PN)

-100

dBm

Noise rise due to interference


(NRinterfer)

1.3

dB

DL load factor of AP1

Table 11-1

=-108+EbNo-G+NF
=-10*log(1-LoadUL)

%
According to formula(2)
=S+NRload+

RSCPAP1 RSCPAP 2

=No+NF
=

10 * log(10

PN
10

Rx
10

+ 10 ) PN

Femtocell Sensitivity and Noise Rise at AP1

The sensitivity of a femtocell is based on the assumption that the noise figure is 8dB
[FF09]. The sensitivity calculation is shown in Figure 11-1.
When UE2 get near enough to AP1, UE2 will drop call from AP2. At this point, the
interference received at AP1 from UE2 is at the maximum. The assumed Ec/Io
(interference margin) required to maintain a voice call is assumed -18dB.

Ec / Io = 10 * log

10^ ( RSCPAP 2 / 10)


= 18dB (1)
%
%
RSCPAP1 / 10
RSCPAP 2 / 10
* 10
* 10
+
10%
10%
1.8

RSCPAP1 RSCPAP 2 = 10 * log 10 0.10*.1* (dB)

(2)

In order to maintain a voice call, the transmit power of UE2 connected to AP2 can be
calculated as follows:

TxpowerUE 2 = S AP 2 + NRload + PathLossUE 2 _ AP 2 (3)


The interference from UE2 to AP1 (InterfUE2_AP1) can be calculated as follows:

Interf UE 2 _ AP1= TxpowerUE 2 PathLossUE 2 _ AP1


Then the interference from UE2 to AP1 can be derived as follows:

Inter UE 2 _ AP1 = S AP 2 + NRload + PathLossUE 2 _ AP 2 PathLossUE 2 _ AP1


= S AP 2 + NRload + ( Pcpich , AP 2 RSCPUE 2, AP 2 ) ( Pcpich , AP1 RSCPUE 2, AP1 )

(4)

= S AP 2 + NRload + ( Pcpich , AP 2 Pcpich , AP1 ) + ( RSCPUE 2, AP1 RSCPUE 2, AP 2 ) dB


Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

40

The link budget in Table 11-1 estimates the maximum uplink interference to AP1 from
UE2 at the cell edge of coverage of AP2 for a 12.2K voice service from formula (4).
Both radio paths, from AP1 and AP2 to UE2, with the same model (ITU P.1238), are
assumed to undergo the same signal decay loss with the increasing of distance.
The maximum interference at AP1 from UE2 depends on the difference of the pilot
signal strength (RSCP) received at UE2, from AP1 and from AP2.
And in this condition, the maximum interference from UE2 to AP1 will result in 1.3dB
noise rise at AP1. According to ITU P.1238 Model, there is a relationship between the
distance from UE2 to AP1 and to AP2, as can be seen in the figure below.

distance between UE2 and AP1(m)

Distance between AP1 and UE2 with the maximum interference


7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

11.3

10
15
20
25
distance between AP cells(m)

30

35

Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn:

The closer UE2 to AP1, the greater interference from UE2 to AP1.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

41

11.4

The interference reaches its maximum at the point when UE2 is disconnecting
from AP2 (call is dropping). However, the analysis is based on the extreme
scenarios. Usually, UE2 will handover to a macrocell before call drop, which
will avoid the interference to AP1.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are made; they will help ensure the harmonious
coexistence of co-channel femtocells:

It is desirable to limit the allowed maximum transmission power of UE2 to


avoid a noise rise to the nearby AP1 when UE2 is at the verge of AP2.
The AP2 could also handover a UE2 to a macrocell (macrocell on another
frequency channel preferred) if in-service UE2 is in the vicinity of the AP1;
thereafter, uplink interference to AP1 from this UE2 is avoided.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

42

12. Scenario G: Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacentchannel Femtocell UE Receiver


12.1

Description

In this scenario, there are two NodeBs, a macro NodeB and a Femto one (AP1); UE
(UE1) is camping on the femtocell see Figure 13-1 below.

Figure 12-1

Illustration of the Interference Scenario G

The analysis on this scenario mainly focuses on how the downlink receiver (DL Rx) of
UE1 would be interfered or impacted by the macro downlink transmission, especially
when service is ongoing in UE1. Here, we assume that the distance between the femto
UE and macro NodeB is approximately 1,000m. In this context, Ec/Io received by the
UE1 at a different place within AP1 coverage is used as the metric to evaluate the
impact from macro downlink.

12.2

Analysis

Analytical analysis is carried out for the above scenario based on link-budget
calculations and transceiver performance requirements taken from [FF09].
12.2.1

Assumptions
The macrocell is 50% loaded.
Okumura-Hata model + window loss and ITU P.1238 are used, respectively,
for macrocell path loss to UE1.
ITU P.1238 is used for indoor modelling (for femtocell path loss to UE1).

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

43

The macrocell is assumed to have a maximum transmit power of 43dBm,


running at 50% utilisation; femtocell 10dBm of maximum transmit power and
50% utilisation.
AP is1,020m away from macrocell.

12.2.2

Simulation Analysis

(a) with no interference from macrocell (left)


(b) with downlink interference from
adjacent-channel macrocell (right)
Figure 12-2

CPICH Ec/Io for Femto

Okumura-Hata model + window loss used for macrocell path loss to UE


(approximately 1km distance).
The simulation showed that an adjacent macrocell causes little downlink interference
to a femtocell.
12.2.3

Theoretical Analysis
value

unit

Maximum Macro Node B Transmit Power

43

dBm

Macro Node B Loading

50

Macro NodeB output power


(TxPowerMacroNodeB)

40

dBm

Macro Node B Antenna Gain


(GtMacroNodeB)

17

dBi

Distance from UE to Macro NodeB

km

Window loss

dB

Path loss from UE to Macro NodeB (PL1)

131

dB

Adjacent channel selectivity of the UE


receiver (ACS)

33

dB

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

=Okumura-Hata propagation
loss +window loss

44

UE Antenna Gain (AntG_UE)

dBi

Noise level at UE receiver from Macro


NodeB

-110

dBm

Table 12-1

=TxPowerMacroNodeB +
GtMacroNodeB - PL - ACS-BLAntG_UE

Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE in this


worst-case scenario

From the above table, the downlink interference level from an adjacent channel
macrocell at the UE receiver is -110dBm, which is less than thermal noise when the UE
is located 1km away from the macrocell. Therefore, adjacent channel macrocell causes
no downlink interference to Femto UE receiver.

12.3

Conclusions

Both theoretical analysis and simulation results show that Femtocell UE experiences
little adjacent channel interference from an outdoor macrocell in most cases.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

45

13. Scenario H: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the adjacent


channel Femtocell Receiver
The aim of this interference scenario is to evaluate impact of uplink interference
experienced by a femtocell supporting closed access from a UE that is connected to a
macro Node B (as it is not in the femto white list), when the UE and femtocell are
located in close proximity. A weak signal is received from the macro Node B within the
apartment where the femtocell is located. Further, it is assumed that the macro and
femto cellular layers are deployed on adjacent frequencies. The impact of interference
is evaluated using two services, AMR 12.2 kbps voice, and HSUPA. 3GPP transceiver
specifications will be used in the analysis. It will be determined whether any
enhancement to specifications is required.

13.1

Description

A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment. Weak coverage of the macro
network is obtained throughout the apartment. A user (that does not have access to
the femtocell) is located next to the femtocell and has a call established at full power
from the UE1 device. Another device UE2 has an ongoing call at the edge of femtocell
coverage [Law08]. Figure 14-1 illustrates the interference Scenario H.

Figure 13-1

Illustration of the interference Scenario H

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

46

13.2

Analysis

Analytical evaluation is carried out for the interference scenario based on link-budget
calculations and transceiver performance requirements, as specified by 3GPP. The
uplink frequency is assumed to be 850 MHz (Band V), and the antenna gains of the
Femtocell and UEs are equal to unity. The frequency separation between Femtocell UE
(FUE) and Macrocell UE (MUE) is 5 MHz. The assumptions used in the analysis are
given below.
13.2.1

Parameter settings

The parameter settings that are used in the analysis are given below:
Services

AMR 12.2 kbps voice,

5.76 Mbps HSUPA.


MUE parameters

MUE max transmit power, a = 21 dBm (Power Class 4) [TS25.101]

Minimum Coupling Loss (MCL) between MUE and Femtocell, b = 45 dB


[TS25.141]

Antenna gain = 1dBi.


MNB parameters

Receiver sensitivity, RxSens = -121 dBm [TS25.104]

Required Eb/N0 for 12.2 kbps voice, Eb_N0 = 8.3 dB (without Rx diversity
[TS25.104])

Noise floor = -104.32 dBm (RxSens + 10*log10(3.84e6/12.2e3) - Eb_N0).


FUE parameters

FUE max transmit power, c = 21 dBm (Power Class 4) [TS25.101]

HSUPA terminal category = 6 (5.76 Mbps) [TS25.104].


Femtocell parameters

Adjacent Channel Selectivity (ACS) of the femtocell receiver is equal to d =


63 dB. The specification states that femtocell should be able to decode AMR
speech when the received signal strength on adjacent channel is equal to -28
dBm, while wanted signal level is at -91 dBm [TS25.104].

Maximum allowed path loss between FUE and femtocell is calculated as the
difference between the maximum UE transmit power and minimum received
signal level of the wanted signal, f = 112 dB (ie. 21 - -91 [dB]).

Antenna gain
= 1 (single-antenna reception)

Noise figure
= 12dB [FF09]

Maximum transmit power = 20dBm [TR25.967].


Indoor-indoor path loss model
ITU P.1238, N = 28 (2.8 x 10), n = 1, floor penetration loss factor = 4dB, residential
deployment, shadow fading has log-normal distribution with standard deviation of 8
dB [FF09].
13.2.2

Impact of MUE interference on AMR

AMR voice service is used in the following analysis. Assuming that the MUE is
transmitting at maximum power, the minimum allowed path loss between femtocell
and MUE is calculated as the difference between the MUE transmit power (21 dBm)
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

47

and the received signal level of the unwanted signal (-28 dBm). It is equal to 49 dB.
This corresponds to a minimum separation of around 3.2m between femtocell and
MUE, based on the ITU P.1238 indoor path loss model [FF09]. Clearly, this separation
cannot be guaranteed in a residential deployment. Figure 14-2 illustrates the variation
in minimum separation between femtocell and MUE for a given MUE transmit power
level.
One of the mechanisms available to improve robustness against adjacent channel
interference is AGC. Under this technique the receiver will dynamically reduce gain of
RF front end when it is subject to a blocking signal. The drawback of this technique is
that it will result in a receiver sensitivity loss. The next step is to determine whether
the reduction in receiver sensitivity makes a significant difference to uplink coverage
of a femtocell.
The uplink link-budget of AMR 12.2 kbps voice service is given in Table 13-1. It shows
that the UE is only required to transmit at -25 dBm to achieve a typical coverage
range of 25 m in uplink. Thus, there is sufficient head room available for ramping-up
the UE power in response to uplink interference.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

48

Ref

Description

Value

Units

Formula

0.003
-25.00
0.00
-3.00
0.00
-28.00

mW
dBm
dBi
dB
dB
dBm

Input, power allocation

174.0
0

dBm/H
z

Input

12.00
162.0
0

dB

Input

dBm/H
z

f+g

-96.16

dBm

h + 10*log(3840000)

-3.00
8.30
-16.68
109.8
4

dB
dB
dB

Input, corresponding to 50% load [FF09].


Input [TS25.104].
Includes the SF gain.

dBm

i + l - j, minimum requirement is -107 dBm


[TS25.104].

0.00
0.00

dBi
dB

Input
Input

-8.00

dB

Input

0.00

dB

Input, SHO is disabled in the Femto AP.

0.00

dB

Input

73.84

dB

25.22

e-m-n+o+p+q+r+s
According to ITU P.1238 indoor loss model
[FF09].

Transmitter (UE)
Transmit power
A
b
c
d
e

As above in dBm
Antenna gain
Body loss
Cable loss
Transmitter EIRP

Input, omni-directional antenna pattern.


Input
Input
a+b+c+d

Receiver
(Femtocell)

f
g

h
i
j
k
l

Thermal noise
density
Receiver noise
figure
Receiver noise
density
Receiver noise
power
Interference
margin
Required Eb/N0
Required Ec/I0

Receiver
sensitivity
Receiver antenna
gain
Cable loss
Slow fading
margin
Soft handover
gain
Fast fading
margin
Allowed
propagation loss
for cell range

Cell range

m
n
o
p
q
r

Table 13-1

Uplink radio link-budget for AMR 12.2 kbps RAB

Under this interference scenario, the femtocell receiver can utilise AGC and reduce
the gain of RF front end. As a result, uplink fast power control will command the FUE
to increase its transmit power. Thus, the femtocell receiver will be able to tolerate a
higher input level of unwanted signal. Figure 13-2 illustrates performance trends with
and without AGC, assuming that the front end gain is reduced by 10 dB. Now, the
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

49

minimum separation between the femtocell and MUE is equal to 1.5 m. A much
smaller separation can be supported if the MUE is transmitting at lower power levels.
If the FUE transmit power is increased in response to AGC there will also be an
increase in interference to neighbouring femtocells, as well as to the macro Node Bs.
Next, the impact on noise rise at the Macro Node B is evaluated. The noise floor at the
macro Node B is calculated to be -104.32 dBm, as shown in Section 14.2. Assuming
that the HUE is transmitting at -15 dBm and the total loss of signal strength up to the
macro Node B is 110 dB (cell edge scenario), the received signal level will be -125
dBm. Adding ACS rejection of 63dB the received in-band signal strength will be equal
to -188 dBm. Thus, noise rise at the macro Node B due to FUE will be insignificant.
However, noise rise at neighbouring femtocells could become important as they will
normally operate on the same frequency and may not be separated from each other
by large distances. Thus, it is important to ensure that femtocell receiver desensitisation occurs only when it is necessary. Further, in order to reduce the risk of a
significant noise rise in the Macro Layer due to femtocells, it is recommended to limit
the maximum FUE transmit power e.g. as suggested in [R4-071578].

Minimum Home Node B-MUE separation [m]

3.5

Impact of adjacent channel interference on the Home Node B


Interfering signal level = -28 dBm
Interfering signal level = -18 dBm

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
4

10
12
14
16
MUE transmit power level [dBm]

18

20

22

Figure 13-2

Minimum separation between Femtocell and MUE to avoid blocking, for a given
MUE transmit power level

13.2.3

Impact of MUE interference on HSUPA

The fixed-reference channel (FRC) no. 3 is used in the following analysis, as it


corresponds to the maximum uplink bit rate that is likely to be supported by
femtocells in initial deployments. According to [TS25.104], the femtocell receiver
should provide R 30% of max information bit rate at reference value of Ec/No of 2.4
dB and R 70% of max information bit rate at Ec/No of 9.1 dB. R denotes minimum

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

50

HSUPA throughput. These values are based on the Pedestrian A channel model. The
maximum information bit rate with FRC3 is equal to 4059 kbps.
Assuming that MUE to FAP separation is fixed at 2 m, and the received MUE signal
level at the femto receiver being less than or equal to -28 dBm (from ACS spec.),
Figure 14-3 illustrates the variation in E-DPDCH Ec/No measured at the femto receiver
for a given MUE transmit power level. It is assumed that the FUE to FAP path loss is
fixed at 90 dB (coverage edge scenario). Results show that in order to achieve 70% of
max information rate, the average transmit power of FUE should be at least -3 dBm.
Additionally, MUE transmit power should be kept to below 2.2 dBm. Maximum allowed
FUE transmit power level can be signalled by the femtocell (eg. in RRC signalling),
while MUE transmit power level cannot be controlled by the femtocell. As the likelihood
of MUE transmitting at high power increases at the macrocell edge, HSUPA throughput
at the femtocell is likely to deteriorate under this interference scenario.
Femto - MUE separation = 2 m

12

FUE Tx. Power = 5


dBm

10

FUE E-DPDCH Ec/No [dB]

2.8 Mbps (=70% of 4.095 Mbps)

6
4

FUE Tx. Power = 0


dBm

2
0

1.2 Mbps (=30% of 4.095 Mbps)


FUE Tx. Power = -3
dBm

-2
-4
-10

Figure 13-3

-5

0
5
MUE transmit power level [dBm]

10

15

E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level

Figure 13-4 illustrates the increase in average transmit power level of the FUE
required to meet HSUPA throughput requirements, as a function of MUE transmit
power level. The curves show that there is sufficient headroom available in uplink
under this interference scenario.
Figure 13-5 illustrates the variation in E-DPDCH Ec/No as a function of MUE transmit
power level, when the FAP to MUE separation is fixed at 5 m. In this case, although
the FUE transmit power should be at least -3 dBm, MUE transmit power can increase
to 13 dBm to achieve R 30% of max information bit rate.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

51

Femto - MUE separation = 2 m

Required average FUE transmit power level [dBm]

10
8

R = 1.2 Mbps
R = 2.8 Mbps

6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-10

Figure 13-4

-5

0
5
MUE transmit power level [dBm]

10

15

Required average FUE transmit power level to meet HSUPA throughput


requirements.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

52

Femto - MUE separation = 5 m

12

FUE Tx. Power = 5 dBm

FUE E-DPDCH Ec/No [dB]

10

2.8 Mbps (=70% of 4.095 Mbps)


FUE Tx. Power = 0 dBm

1.2 Mbps (=30% of 4.095 Mbps)


4

0
-10

Figure 13-5

13.3

FUE Tx. Power = -3 dBm

-5

0
5
10
MUE transmit power level [dBm]

15

20

E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level

Conclusions

This section has considered a simple analysis of the interference Scenario H based on
link-budget calculations and 3GPP specifications. Analysis considers impact of
interference on two services AMR 12.2 kbps voice, and 5 Mbps HSUPA.
The relationship between minimum FAP to MUE separation and MUE transmit power
level has been derived. It was found that if the MUE is transmitting at the maximum
power of 21 dBm it needs to be separated from the femtocell by around 3.2 m. This
separation can be reduced further by employing Automatic Gain Control (AGC) at the
femtocell receiver. It has been shown that the minimum MUE to FAP separation can be
reduced to 1.5 m if a reduction in gain of 10 dB is applied by AGC. The resulting loss
in receiver sensitivity will not deteriorate femtocell coverage of voice, as there is
sufficient power headroom available at the UE.
The performance of HSUPA has been analysed in the presence of uplink interference
from the macro UE, which is operating on the adjacent frequency. The femtocell
MUE separation is fixed at 2 m and 5 m. The FUE femtocell path loss is fixed at 90
dB, representing the coverage edge scenario. It was seen that in order to obtain 70%
of nominal HSUPA bit rate with a category 6 UE, the MUE transmit power should be
below 7.5 dBm and 18.5 dBm, respectively. In both cases minimum transmit power
required for HSUPA transmission is equal to -3 dBm. As the likelihood of MUE
transmitting at high power increases at the macrocell edge, HSUPA throughput at
femtocell is expected to deteriorate in this interference scenario.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

53

13.4

Femto System Impact

If the minimum separation between the MUE and femtocell is not maintained the
femtocell receiver may not be able to decode the wanted speech signal at the required
QoS level. Similarly, the HSUPA performance will deteriorate gradually as the MUE
transmit power is increased for a given separation between the MUE and femtocell
receiver.

13.5

Mitigation techniques

The ACS specification for the Home Node B has been enhanced recently to
accommodate higher levels of blocking signals [TS25.104]. Additional robustness
against uplink interference can be provided with AGC. Since reduction in RF front end
gain will cause receiver desensitisation, AGC should be activated only when required.
It has been shown that there is sufficient power headroom available at the UE to meet
typical femtocell coverage requirements for both voice and data services. Further, to
maintain overall system stability in uplink, restriction of the maximum FUE transmit
power level could be considered [R4-071578]. Some of the factors governing selection
of maximum transmit power of FUE are femtocell coverage, service requirements,
frequency deployment, distance to nearest macrocell receiver, uplink noise rise
margin, etc.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

54

14. Scenario I: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the adjacent


channel macrocell UE Receiver
The aim of this interference scenario is to evaluate the impact of downlink interference
experienced by a UE that is connected to the macro Node B from a femtocell, while
being located in close proximity to a femtocell. The MUE is not allowed to access the
femtocell (ie. closed subscriber group). A weak signal is received from the macro Node
B within the apartment where the femtocell is located. Further, it is assumed that the
macro- and femto-cellular layers are deployed on adjacent frequencies. Impact of
interference is evaluated using two services, AMR 12.2 kbps voice, and HSDPA. 3GPP
transceiver specifications will be used in the analysis. It will be determined whether
any enhancement to specifications is required.

14.1

Description

Two users (UE1 and UE2) are within an apartment. UE1 (FUE) is connected to a
femtocell and at the edge of coverage. UE2 (MUE) is connected to the macrocell at the
edge of coverage, and located next to the femtocell transmitting at full power
[Law08]. Figure 14-1 illustrates the interference Scenario I.

Figure 14-1

Illustration of the Interference Scenario I

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

55

14.2

Analysis

Analytical evaluation is carried out for the interference scenario based on link-budget
calculations and transceiver performance requirements as specified by 3GPP. The
downlink frequency is assumed to be 850 MHz, and the antenna gains of the Femtocell
and UEs are equal to unity.
14.2.1

Parameter settings

The parameter settings that are used in the analysis are given below [FF09]:

ServicesAMR 12.2 kbps voice


14.4 Mbps HSDPA.
Femtocell parametersStatic maximum total transmit power, including
control and traffic channels, Pmax = 10, 15, 20 [dBm]
Downlink frequency = 850 MHz.
Macrocell parametersMax transmit power on DCH = 33 dBm
Total transmit power = 43 dBm
HSDPA power allocation = 42 dBm (80% of total power)
Antenna gain = 17 dBi
Feeder/cable loss = 3 dB.

MUE receiver parameters

Reference sensitivity level (DPCH_Ec_<REFSENS>) = -115 dBm (Band II),


[TS25.101]

REFIor = -104.7 dBm (Band II), [TS25.101]

Max transmit power = 21 dBm (Power Class 4), [TS25.101]

Maximum input power level = -25 dBm, [TS25.101]

ACS = 33 dB, [TS25.101]

HSDPA terminal category = 10 (14.4 Mbps).


The ACS specification is valid as long as the Femtocell Downlink signal is in the range
[-25,-52] (dBm) [TS25.101]. Additionally, the DPCH_Ec from the Macro Node B
should be in the range [-74, -101] (dBm) [TS25.101]. Figure 14-2 illustrates the
region of operation, which meets conditions specified above.
Outdoor-indoor path loss model, [FF09]

Okomura Hata + Wall/Window loss

External wall loss = 10 dB.


Indoor-indoor path loss model, [FF09]

ITU P.1238, N = 28, n = 0 (MUE is in close proximity of the femtocell).

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

56

Max. Femtocell Downlink interference at MUE (Ioac) [dBm]

Region of normal operation, AMR speech

-25

-30

Region of operation

-35

-40

-45

-50

-55

-100

-95
-90
-85
-80
Min. Macro NB Downlink signal strength (Ior) [dBm]

-75

Figure 14-2

Macro Node B signal strength relative to the interfering femtocell signal strength
measured at the MUE, required for successful decoding of AMR

14.2.2

Impact of Femtocell interference on AMR service

The region of operation, shown in Figure 14-2, gives the maximum strength of the
downlink interfering signal versus the minimum strength of wanted signal. Each point
in the region of operation translates into distance of separation between femtocell to
MUE, versus distance between macro NodeB and MUE. The ITU P.1238 model will be
used to calculate path loss between the femtocell and MUE, while the Okumura-Hata
model will be used on the link between the macrocell and MUE.
Figure 14-3 illustrates impact of downlink interference as a function of femtocell
transmit power. The curves are obtained by converting maximum allowed path loss
into distance according to specified path loss models. It is assumed that femtocell is
transmitting at full power. The general trend is that as the MNB to MUE separation is
increased, the distance between femtocell and MUE also needs to be increased, in
order to avoid blocking at the MUE. It is clear from Figure 14-3 that downlink
interference will not pose any problem to the MUE when it is located close to the
macrocell. However, if the MUE is located close to the macrocell edge femtocell,
interference could block the downlink signal. Figure 14-3 also illustrates the merits of
adaptive control of maximum femto transmit power level, as for a fixed minimum
femtocell MUE separation the appropriate femtocell transmit power level depends on
the femtocell macrocell path loss.
Table 14-1 gives the maximum MNB MUE separation that can be supported for
different femtocell transmit power levels, when the femtocell MUE separation is fixed
at 5 m. Results are obtained by converting maximum allowed path loss into distance
using appropriate path loss model. A recent 3GPP contribution on the same topic
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

57

suggests that maximum transmit power of a femtocell should be limited to 10 dBm for
the adjacent channel deployment scenario [R4-090940].
Interference Scenario I.1, AMR speech

Maximum Macro NB - MUE separation [km]

2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Pmax = 10 dBm
Pmax = 15 dBm
Pmax = 20 dBm

1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0

Figure 14-3

10
15
20
25
Minimum Femtocell - MUE separation [m]

30

35

Maximum MNB - MUE separation as a function of femtocell MUE separation,


assuming AMR voice service.

Femtocell transmit power (dBm)


10
15
20

Max. Macro NB - MUE separation (km)


1.0
0.7
0.5

Table 14-1

Maximum Macro NB MUE separation for a given maximum Femtocell transmit


power level, when the Femtocell MUE separation is fixed at 5 m.

14.2.3

Impact of Femtocell interference on HSDPA

Next, performance of HSDPA under this interference scenario is analysed using linkbudget type calculations. Fixed Reference Channel definition H-Set 6 is selected for
analysis purposes [TS25.101]. A Category 10 UE is chosen, as it supports the
maximum achievable HSDPA data rate (equal to 14.4 Mbps).
The nominal average information bit rate for this FRC is 3219 kbps with QPSK, and
4689 kbps with 16QAM. The UE specification states that the receiver should meet or
exceed the information bit throughput R requirements given in Table 14-2.
Parameter
Channel model
Ioc [dBm]

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

Value
PA3 (Pedestrian A)
-60

58

Ec / I or [dB] [TS25.133]

-6, -3

Ior / I oc [dB]

10

R, QPSK [kbps]
R, 16QAM [kbps]

1407, 2090
887, 1664

Table 14-2

UE receiver performance requirement (HSDPA), [TS25.101]

Based on link budget calculations, the minimum femtocell to MUE separation is found
to be 1.7 m, 2.6 m and 3.9 m (to maintain given Ioc), depending on whether Pmax is
equal to 10 dBm, 15 dBm or 20 dBm (ITU p.1238 model). Figure 14-4 illustrates the
impact of interference in terms of maximum macrocell to MUE separation for a given
femtocell to MUE separation. At each point in the curve, femtocell interference is fixed
at -60 dBm, while the macrocell G-factor ( Ior / I oc ) is maintained at 10 dB. Further, it is
assumed that macrocell has allocated 80% of total power to HSDPA, resulting in HSPDSCH Ec/Ior of approx. -1 dB.
Interference Scenario I.1, HSDPA

650

Pmax = 10 dBm
Pmax = 15 dBm
Pmax = 20 dBm

Max. Macrocell-MUE separation [m]

600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150

Figure 14-4

4
5
6
7
Femtocell-MUE separation [m]

10

Maximum macrocell-MUE separation as a function of femtocell-MUE separation,


for reception of HSDPA

If the femtocell MUE separation is fixed at 5 m, the macrocell MUE separation


should not be more than 185 m - 360 m in order to decode the HS-PDSCH at the
specified rate. It is well known that a macrocell allocates highest HSDPA data rates
only when UEs are located close to the cell site. Thus, it is not apparent whether
interference from the femtocell will significantly deteriorate HSDPA performance at the
MUE.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

59

14.3

Conclusions

A simple analysis of the interference Scenario I has been carried out based on linkbudget type calculations and 3GPP specifications. Adjacent channel deployment for the
macro- and femto-layers has been assumed. The analysis considers impact of
interference on two services AMR 12.2kbps voice, and 14.4Mbps HSDPA.
In terms of AMR service, a minimum separation of 5 m between the femtocell and
MUE can be achieved if the macrocell site is within 1.0 km, and the femtocell is not
transmitting above 10dBm. It is recommended to implement adaptive control of
maximum transmit power level at the femtocell and restrict maximum transmit power
to 10 dBm, in order to achieve a good trade-off between femtocell coverage and
adjacent channel deadzone.
We have also analysed HSDPA performance under this interference scenario using
link-budget type calculations and UE specifications. At the minimum supported
femtocell MUE separation of 5 m, it was found that the macrocell MUE separation
should not be more than 185 m - 360 m in order to decode the HS-PDSCH at the
specified rate. Analysis was performed for a fully loaded femtocell transmitting at 10
dBm, 15 dBm and 20 dBm. It is well known that a macrocell allocates highest HSDPA
data rates only when UEs are located close to the cell site. Thus, it is not apparent
whether downlink interference from femtocell will significantly deteriorate HSDPA
performance at the MUE.

14.4

Customer (MUE) Impact

In terms of AMR service, it was found that femtocell downlink interference can block
macrocell signal if the MUE is located close to the macrocell edge, and the femtocell
transmit power is above 10 dBm. In terms of HSDPA performance, it is not clear that
femtocell interference will significantly deteriorate HSDPA performance at the MUE.

14.5

Mitigation techniques

Assuming dedicated spectrum deployment for the macro and femto cellular layers, the
adjacent channel deadzone created by the femtocell can be adjusted by performing
adaptive control of maximum femtocell transmit power. For example, femtocell should
reduce the maximum transmit power level when it detects a weak macrocell signal,
and vice versa.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

60

15. Scenario J: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to the adjacent


channel Macrocell NodeB Receiver
15.1

Introduction

This document provides an analysis of Femtocell Uplink Interference from femtocell


mobiles (FUEs) to a Macrocell NodeB Receiver on the adjacent channel.
The scenario being investigated is as follows: An FUE is located next to the apartment
window that is in the sight of an adjacent channel rooftop macrocell (approx 1,000m
distance), as shown in Figure 16-1. At the same time the FUE is connected to the
femtocell at the edge of its range, and is transmitting at full power.

Figure 15-1

Interference Scenario J.

In this analysis the impact to the macro Node B is measured by the sensitivity
degradation also referred to as noise rise (or relative increase in uplink Received Total
Wide Band Power (RTWP)), experienced by the macro Node B due to the femto UE. In
Section 15.2 analysis of Scenario J described in [Law08] is presented, including the
assumptions used. The analysis shows that the femto UEs impact on the macro Node
B is negligible.

15.2

Analysis of Scenario J - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA

An analysis of this scenario is presented based on link budget calculations. The


analysis looks at the noise rise at the Macro Node B antenna connector due to the
femtocell UE in the described scenario.
15.2.1

Assumptions

A macro Node B with a noise floor based on the assumption that the sensitivity of the
Wide macro Node B for 12k2 voice service at the time is equal to -121 dBm (ie. the
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

61

3GPP reference sensitivity level for a 12k2 voice service on a Wide Area Node B at the
antenna connector [TS25.104]). This sensitivity captures both the loading and noise
figure of the micro Node B. The noise floor calculation is shown in Table 15-1.
Sensitivity @ antenna
connector
UE Service Rate
Chip rate
UE Processing Gain
Required EbNo
Noise floor
Table 15-1

Value

Units

-121
12.20
3.84
24.98

dBm
kbps
MHz
dB

Pue_rec
R
W
PG

8.30
104.32

dB

EbNo

dB

nf_ant

Comment
3GPP reference sensitivity level for
Wide Area Node B

= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without rx diversity
(see [FF09])
= Pue_rec +PG -EbNo

Macro Node B noise floor

Next, the factors that could lead the femto UE to transmit at a power higher than
expected are considered. This will occur if the femto UE is at the femtos cell edge,
and the femtocell experiences a noise rise or its receiver is experiencing a blocking
effect, caused by one of the following:

An adjacent channel macro UE.


Another femto UE located very close (~1m Free Space Loss) to the femtocell
eg. a laptop with a 3G data card doing a data upload on the same desk as
the femtocell.

Subsequently, for the purposes of this scenario, the following assumptions are made:

The femto is operating under extreme conditions, experiencing a total noise


rise equivalent to 70% loading in the uplink.
A 21 dBm class femto 2 is used in the scenario that can provide a coverage
path loss of up to 120dBs (path loss estimate based on minimum RSCP
sensitivity of UE of -111 dBm and a 11 dBm CPICH transmit power and
assumption of negligible downlink interference from surrounding Node Bs).

Based on these assumptions, the link budget in Table 15-2 estimates the likely femto
UE uplink transmission power at the femtocell edge of coverage for a 12K2 voice
service and a 2Mbps HSUPA service.

Frequency
Bandwidth
Thermal Noise Density
Receiver Noise Figure
Receiver Noise Density
Receiver Noise Power

12K2
Voice
850.00
3.84
174.00
8.00
166.00
100.16

Value
2Mbps
HSUPA
850.00
3.84

-166.00

Unit
s
MHz
MHz
dBm/
Hz
dB
dBm/
Hz

-100.16

dBm

174.00
8.00

Comments
F
B
tnd
NF
rnd

= tnd +NF

rnp

=rnd +10*log(B*1e6)

2
Under the same RF conditions, a 21 dBm class femtocell will provide larger downlink coverage than a 15dBm class or a 10dBm class
femto.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

62

Value
2Mbps
HSUPA
70.00
5.23

Loading
Noise Rise due to Loading

12K2
Voice
70.00
5.23

Femto Receiver Noise Floor


Femto UE Service Rate
Chip rate
Femto UE Processing Gain

-94.93
12.2
3.84
24.98

Required EbNo

8.30

Required EcNo
Minimum Required Signal
Level for Femto UE

-16.68
111.61

dB

-94.93

dB

Femto UE Path loss to femto

120

120

dB

Femto UE Tx Power

8.39

21

dBm

-94.93

Unit
s
%
dB
dBm
kbps
MHz
dB
dB

Comments
L
IM
trn
p
R
W
PG
Eb
No

Pfm
in
DLc
ov
Pfu
e

Table 15-2

Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B

15.2.2

Macro Node B Noise Rise

= -10*log(1-L/100)
=rnp +IM

= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without rx
diversity [FF09]
EbNo PG for 12K2
Typical EcNo to achieve
HSUPA rates of ~ 2Mbps
[Hol06]
= trnp +EcNo

= min(21, max ((Pfmin +


DLcov), -50)

The noise rise caused to the adjacent channel macro by a femto UE transmitting at
8.39dBm for a 12K2 voice service and 21dBm for a 2Mbps HSUPA service was
calculated, using the link budget in Table 15-3 as 8.610-4 dB and .02 dB, respectively.
12K2
Voice

Value
2Mbps
HSUPA

Unit
s

Comments

dB

Ga
nt
Lf
nf_
ant
Pfu
e
Gm
ant
Pfu
e_e
irp
Lw
Lto
t

Node B Antenna Gain


Feeder/Connector Loss
Noise Floor at antenna
connector

17
3
104.32

17
3

dBi
dB

-104.32

dBm

Femto UE Tx Power

8.39

21

dBm

UE Antenna Gain

dBi

Femto UE Tx EIRP
Window/Wall Loss

8.39
5

21
5

dBm
dB

Path loss to Macro Node B

130.77

130.77

Adjacent Channel Selectivity


Femto UE Interference @
macro antenna connector

33
141.38

33

dB

AC
S

-128.77

dB

Pfu
e_r

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

[FF09]

Table 16-1

=Pue Gmant +m
=1000m OkumuraHata(Node B at30m and
mobile at 1.5m) +Lw
Adjacent Channel selectivity
(+/-5MHz)
= Pfue_eirp Ltot + Gant Lf
- ACS

63

12K2
Voice

Value
2Mbps
HSUPA

Unit
s

Comments
ec

Rise above noise floor


Noise rise
Table 15-3

15.3

-37.06
8.6
10-4

-24.45

dB

=Pfue_rec- nf_ant

.02

dB

NR

=10*log( 1+ 100.1*R))

Noise rise calculation for Scenario D1 (femto UE is transmitting at 8.39dBm and


21dBm 1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service and 2Mbps HSUPA
service)

Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn:

It is unlikely that a femto UE will be transmitting at maximum power due to


the relatively smaller coverage of the femto compared to the macro.
When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis
for a 12k2 voice service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario
will be transmitting in the region of 8.39 dBm, and will cause a negligible
noise rise of approximately 8.6 10-4dB.
When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis
for a femto UE with 2Mbps HSUPA data service has shown that a femto UE in
the described scenario will cause a negligible noise rise amounting to
approximately .02 dB.
The general conclusion is that a femto UE operating on the adjacent channel
to a macro Node B will not cause an impact to such an adjacent channel
macro Node B.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

64

16. Downlink and Uplink Scenarios Modelling Power Control


Techniques for Interference Mitigation
In [FF08], system level simulations were presented for the downlink and uplink under
deployment of femtocells for 2 GHz carrier frequency. In this section, HNB
deployment in 850 MHz is discussed vis a vis a deployment in the 2 GHz band carried
out in Section 17 of [FF08] and system level simulations are provided. It is shown
that simple modification to the parameters setting for power calibration can be used in
850MHz to achieve nearly the same performance (Coverage and Throughput statistics)
as 2GHz deployment. It is also shown with simulations that the uplink interference
mitigation technique of adaptive attenuation continues to work well in 850MHz as well.
All results presented in this section are under the same set-up and simulation
conditions as Section 17 of [FF08], except the propagation model. We restrict our
attention to the femtocell deployment in the dense urban settings.

16.1

Modelling of Propagation loss

The propagation loss models specified in [FF09] (from [ITU1238]) identify the
frequency dependent term for propagation in indoor environment and for small
distances as 20*log10(f) , where f is the carrier frequency and the path loss is
expressed in dB. This term suggests that the typical path loss between two points will
be 20*(log10(2000/850)) ~= 7.4 dB higher in 2GHz than in 850 MHz. This is the
major component of difference in the propagation loss seen in the two bands.
We apply this frequency dependent path loss offset of -7.4 dB to the path losses from
2 GHz system simulations using the simulation framework described in Section 17 of
[FF08]. Specifically, all the path loss values from 2 GHz modelling (outdoor to outdoor,
outdoor to indoor, indoor to indoor in same or different apartment) are reduced by the
path loss offset to model 850 MHz propagation. Other components, such as outdoor to
indoor wall penetration loss, are observed to be not as sensitive to this frequency
difference 3, and are left unchanged.

16.2

HNB transmit power calibration for 850 MHz

As identified in [FF08], the coverage of a femtocell for a given transmit power differs
based on its location within a macrocell, and hence it is crucial to calibrate the
transmit power of the femtocell. A reference power calibration algorithm that attempts
to strike a balance between increasing the femtocell coverage and reducing the
interference to the macro network was specified in [FF08, Section 17.1.2.4, and
TR25.820].
This power calibration algorithm uses the downlink receiver at the femtocell to obtain
the RF conditions (total signal strength and pilot signal strength from other Node Bs).
It selects maximum femtocell transmit power to satisfy certain criterion at a desired
coverage edge of the HNB. This edge of HNB coverage is described by a target path
loss. For example, the results in Section 17 of [FF08] for 2 GHz are obtained by
assuming a target path loss of 80 dB. This target path loss corresponds to a
geographical boundary of coverage.

3
Various studies over the years have produced inconclusive and sometimes contradictory trends in the
behaviour of outdoor to indoor penetration loss with change in frequency (e.g. see [Kob92, Stav03,
Dav97]).

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

65

The same geographical boundary of coverage is reached for 850 MHz at a path loss
nearly 7.4 dB lower ie. at nearly 72.6 dB. Hence, the version of HNB power
calibration algorithm for 850 MHz can be specified as follows.
1.
2.
3.

To maintain an Ecp/Io of -18dB for a MUE located 72.6 dB away from HNB
(ie. to protect the macro user).
To ensure that HNB is not causing unnecessary interference to others by
enforcing an SIR cap of -5dB for HUE at 72.6 dB away from HNB.
To maintain an Ecp/Io of -18dB for a MUE on the adjacent channel, located
39.6 dB away from the HNB (ie. to protect the adjacent channel macro use).

This simple change in the parameter for HNB power calibration ensures that the
algorithm works well in 850 MHz as well.

16.3

Simulation results for Dense Urban Deployment

In this section we show illustrative results and compare with 2 GHz deployment to
show that outage and throughput performance in 850 MHz band does not significantly
differ from that in 2 GHz band, provided the power calibration of femtocells takes into
account the impact of the frequency band. We show the results for dense urban model
depicted in Section 17 of [FF08]. Similar to Section 17 of [FF08], we assume 2000
apartments per cell with 4.8% HNB penetration giving 96 HNBs per cell. Out of these,
24 HNBs are simultaneously active (have HUEs in connected mode). If an HNB is
active it transmits at full calibrated power, else it transmits only the pilot and
overhead channels.
16.3.1

Idle Cell Reselection Parameters

Similar to Section 17 of [FF08], we assume co-channel deployment where HUEs and


MUEs share the same carrier. Closed subscriber group is assumed throughout. We say
a UE is unable to acquire the pilot if the CPICH Ec/No is below Tacq. We use Tacq=-20dB
for our analysis. For this analysis, the MNBs are assumed to transmit at 50% of the
full power (ie. 40dBm). The CPICH Ec/Ior for MNBs and HNBs are set to -10dB (ie.
33dBm). In addition, we take into account idle cell reselection procedure to determine
whether a HUE is camped on its HNB or on a MNB, or whether it is moved to another
carrier. A HUE will be moved to another carrier if it is not able to acquire the pilots of
the HNB and macro on the shared carrier, or if the HUE attempts to perform an idle
cell reselection to a neighbour HNB. Similarly, a MUE will be moved to another carrier
if it is not able to acquire the macro pilot or if it attempts to perform an idle cell
reselection to a HNB. Table 16-1 summarises representative co-channel idle cell
reselection parameters used in our analysis. These parameters are set such that
priority is given to HNBs over MNBs when a UE is performing idle cell reselection.
However, a minimum CPICH Ec/No of -12dB is enforced for HNBs, so that idle cell
reselection to an HNB happens only when the HNB signal quality is good.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

66

Table 16-1 Parameters for the co-channel idle cell reselection procedure.

SIB/Parameter
SIB3

Macro

HNB

Qqualmin

-18 dB

-18dB

Sintrasearch

10 dB

4dB

Sintersearch

NA

NA

Qhyst+Qoffset

HNB cells: -50 dB


Macro cells: 3dB

HNB cells: 3dB


Macro cells: 5dB

Qqualmin

HNB cells: -12 dB


Macro cells: not needed

Not needed

SIB11

Table 16-2

Coverage Statistics at 850 MHz for Calibrated HNB Transmit Power

In this section we analyse the coverage statistics of UEs with calibrated HNB transmit
power algorithm described in previous sections. Table 16-3 and Table 16-4 show the
pilot acquisition and outage statistics for dense-urban model, with calibrated HNB
transmit power. We compare three cases:
1.
2.
3.

Calibrated HNB transmit power with Pmin=-20dBm and Pmax=20dBm


Calibrated HNB transmit power with Pmin=-10dBm and Pmax=20dBm
Calibrated HNB transmit power with Pmin=0dBm and Pmax=20dBm.

The results show the expected trade off between good HNB coverage and interference
to Macro UEs as a function of the HNB transmit power.
Results corresponding to Pmin=-10 dBm and Pmin=0 dBm were presented in [FF08] for
2 GHz. Additionally, this section presents results for Pmin=-20 dBm. It can be readily
seen that the statistics corresponding to Pmin=-10dBm and Pmin=0 dBm in Table 16-3
and Table 16-4 closely matche those in Table 17.7 of [FF08]. Each point on the cell
sees a lower path loss in 850 MHz from both macro and femtocells and, consequently,
switching to 850 MHz makes the system slightly more interference limited compared
to 2 GHz. As the reduced path loss is taken into account to set the target cell edge
coverage for femtocells, the calibrated power for the femtocell remains nearly
unchanged in 850 MHz compared to 2 GHz. This is evident in the comparison of CDFs
of calibrated power in 2 GHz and 850 MHz, as shown in Figure 16-1 where the CDF
corresponding to both bands coincide 4.
This also suggests that HNB with a given power will have similar coverage radius in
both bands, irrespective of the location.
It is also seen that in dense urban environment a significant number of HNBs reach
their minimum power limit.

HUEs unable to
acquire HNB pilot
HUEs unable to
acquire HNB or macro

Pmin=-20dBm,
Pmax=20dBm

Pmin=-10dBm,
Pmax=20dBm

Pmin=0dBm,
Pmax=20dBm

3.9%

1.9%

0.5%

0.6%

0.2%

0.2%

4
In these simulations the possible calibrated transmit powers for HNBs are assumed to take a continuous
range of values. In practice, these values will be quantised with a given granularity.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

67

pilot
MUEs unable to
acquire macro pilot
Table 16-3

2.7%

5.2%

12.0%

Pilot acquisition statistics at 850 MHz for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs
and calibrated HNB transmit power

Pmin=-20dBm,
Pmax=10dBm

Pmin=-10dBm,
Pmax=20dBm

Pmin=0dBm,
Pmax=20dBm

MUEs moved to
another carrier

9.7%

13.5%

25.5%

HUEs unable to camp


on own HNB

9.6%

4.9%

2.4%

HUEs switched to
macro on shared
carrier

7.7%

3.6%

1.1%

HUEs moved to
another carrier

1.9%

1.3%

1.3%

Table 16-4

Coverage statistics for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and calibrated
HNB transmit power

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
HNB Tx Power: 2 GHz,PL Edge 80 dB, PMin 0 dBm

0.4

HNB Tx Power: 2 GHz,PL Edge 80 dB, PMin -10 dBm


0.3

HNB Tx Power: 850MHz ,PL Edge 72.6 dB, PMin 0 dBm


HNB Tx Power: 850 MHz ,PL Edge 72.6 dB, PMin -10 dBm

0.2
0.1
0
-10

Figure 16-1

-5

0
5
10
HNB Calibrated Tx Power, dBm

15

20

In variance of HNB calibrated Tx Power in the two frequencies.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

68

16.3.2

Downlink Throughput Simulations

In this section we study the performance of HSPA+ DL on 850 MHz under HNB
deployment by system level simulations. The assumptions for the simulation are the
same as those in Section 17 of [FF08]. In the dense-urban model, blocks of
apartments are dropped into the three centre cells of a macrocell layout with ISD of 1
km. We drop 2,000 apartment units in each macrocell that corresponds to 6,928
households per square kilometre. This represents a dense-urban area. Taking into
account various factors such as wireless penetration (80%), operator penetration
(30%) and HNB penetration (20%), we assume a 4.8% HNB penetration, which
means 96 of the 2,000 apartments in each cell have a HNB installed from the same
operator. Out of these, 24 HNBs are simultaneously active (have a HUE in connected
mode). We assume co-channel performance for all HUEs and MUEs. All UEs have one
receive antenna. We assume that the power transmitted for the overhead channels,
including CPICH pilot is 25% and the transmit power for the pilot, is 10%. The
transmit power of HNBs is calibrated using the algorithm specified in Section 16.2. We
assume a Rician channel with Rician factor K=10 and 1.5 Hz Doppler frequency.
Macrocells are loaded with HNBs, HUEs and MUEs. There are 10 MUEs per cell, and 96
HNBs, of which 24 are active. Each active HNB has one HUE. We assume a full-buffer
traffic model and all active cells are transmitting at full power. HNBs that are not
active are only transmitting the overhead. The maximum number of HARQ
transmissions is 4. The maximum modulation is 64 QAM. A proportional fair scheduler
is implemented for the macro users. Only UEs that are not in outage on the shared
channel are included in the simulations. However, those users in outage are included
in the following CDFs as zero throughput users. If the operator has another frequency
for macro operation, many of the MUEs, now considered in outage, will be switched to
the other frequency and will not be in outage. Figure 16-2 shows the throughput CDF
of all user throughputs.
User Throughput Distributions, 10 MUEs, 24 HUEs

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
All UEs: No HNB present
All UEs: HNB Present, Pmin = -10 dBm
All UEs: HNB Present, Pmin = -20 dBm

0.2
0.1
0

0.2

0.4

0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
UEs: Average Throughput (bps)

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

1.6

1.8

2
7

x 10

69

Figure 16-2

DL user throughput distribution under different minimum powers

User Throughput Distributions, 10 MUEs, 24 HUEs

0.8

0.6
CDF

All UEs: No HNB present


All UEs: HNB Present, Pmin = -10 dBm
All UEs: HNB Present, Pmin = -20 dBm

0.4

0.2

Figure 16-3

5
4
3
2
UEs: Average Throughput (bps)

6
5

x 10

Magnified version of Figure 1-2 showing outage statistics

It is seen that deployment of HNBs helps all users. The users served by HNBs see very
good RF conditions and dedicated Node B and, hence, see very high throughputs. The
users on macrocells see a reduced load on the network and, hence, experience better
throughputs. Even when the lower limit on the transmit power to HNBs is reduced to 20 dBm, the HUEs continue to experience high user throughputs. Figure 16-3 shows a
magnified version of the lower range of throughputs to identify the impact of Pmin on
outage.
16.3.3

Conclusions

To summarise, HNB deployment continues to provide the benefits identified in Section


17 of [FF08] in 850 MHz. The small change in parameters of power calibration enables
the same algorithm to be used in 850 MHz, and results in nearly the same transmit
power distribution on HNBs as that in 2 GHz.
16.3.4

Uplink throughput simulations with adaptive attenuation

In this section we study the HNB and macro uplink throughput performance in a cochannel deployment of HNBs for 850 MHz. In [FF08] the benefits of uplink adaptive
attenuation at an HNB were identified. This section carries out the uplink throughput
analysis and comparison of HNB deployment with and without adaptive attenuation in
850 MHz in a dense urban scenario. The layout and deployment scenario is the same
as those in [FF08] and Section 16.2.
We assume a Rician channel with K factor of 10 dB and 1.5 Hz Doppler fading. The
MUEs and HUEs are assumed to transmit full-buffer traffic using 2ms TTI HSUPA. The
maximum number of transmissions is set to 4. Power control is enabled for both MUEs
and HUEs. The maximum transmit power for the UEs is set to 24dBm and the
minimum transmit power is set to -50dBm.
Single-frequency co-channel deployment is considered. For the uplink simulations, we
only keep those UEs that are not in outage on the downlink.
An NF of 5dB and Noise Rise Threshold (NRT) of 5dB are assumed for MNBs. For
HNBs, three cases are considered:

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

70

1.
2.
3.

Baseline 1: HNB NF=5dB and HNB NRT=5dB


Baseline 2: HNB NF=20dB and HNB NRT=10dB
Enhanced: Adaptive attenuation at HNB (max attenuation=40dB) and HNB
NRT=6dB.

In Baseline 1, the NF setting at HNB is similar to MNB. In Baseline 2, a fixed NF of


20dB is assumed at the HNB. This is similar to the 19dB NF used in local area
basestation class specified in [TS25.104]. The Enhanced case uses adaptive
attenuation (or noise figure), which means additional attenuation is added only when
needed, depending on out-of-cell and in-cell signal strength.
We run uplink simulations for the scenario described in the previous section. Figure
16-4 and Figure 16-5 show the HUE and MUE uplink throughput CDFs for Baseline 1,
Baseline 2 and Enhanced cases. The HUE and MUE transmit power distributions are
shown in Figure 16-6 and Figure 16-7.
It is seen from Figure 16-4 that the HUE Baseline 1 uplink throughput performance is
poor, due to intra-HNB, inter-HNB and Macro-to-HNB interference. Adding 15dB fixed
attenuation at HNBs (ie. Baseline 2) improves the HUE performance significantly, but
there are still some HUEs that have poor uplink throughput. This is because 15dB fixed
attenuation does not solve inter-HNB interference problem. In addition, in some cases,
more than 15dB attenuation is needed to overcome Macro-to-HNB interference. With
fixed uplink attenuation (ie. Baseline 2), the HUE transmit powers are higher
compared to adaptive attenuation. As seen in Figure 16-4, adaptive UL attenuation
completely eliminates HUE throughput outage and achieves good throughput
performance. It is also seen from Figure 16-5 that the MUE uplink performance is not
impacted by adding attenuation at HNBs. In addition, Figure 16-6 and Figure 16-7
show that the transmit power in 850MHz is roughly 7 to 10dB lower than that in 2GHz.
The reduced power will both reduce interference and improve battery life.
10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Enhanced

0.2
0.1
0

500

1000

1500
2000
2500
HUE Throughput [kbps]

3000

3500

4000

Figure 16-4 HUE uplink throughput distribution


Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

71

10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2

Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Enhanced

0.1
0

50

100

150

200
250
300
350
MUE Throughput [kbps]

400

450

500

Figure 16-5 MUE uplink throughput distribution

10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Enhanced

0.2
0.1
0
-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
0
HUE Tx Power [dBm]

10

20

30

Figure 16-6 Transmit power distribution

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

72

10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell

1
0.9

Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Enhanced

0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
0
MUE Tx Power [dBm]

10

20

30

Figure 16-7 Transmit power distribution.

Figure 16-8 shows the throughput CDFs for two cases. The first case is when HNBs are
deployed; there are 24 active HNBs, each with one HUE per macrocell, and there are
10 MUEs per macrocell. The second case is when there are no HNBs deployed and the
24 UEs served earlier by HNBs are served by the MNB instead; thus, there are a total
of 34 (10+24) MUEs. When there are HNBs, adaptive attenuation is used at the HNBs.
The UEs that are in outage are included in these CDFs and are assigned zero
throughputs. The results are similar to those found in the 2GHz study. As seen in the
figure below, deploying HNBs continues to result in a significant improvement in the
overall system throughput. Firstly, the UEs that use HNBs achieve much higher uplink
throughputs compared to before. Secondly, the uplink throughputs of the MUEs also
improve, since some of the users are offloaded to HNBs.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

73

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
34 MUEs + 0 HUEs per macro cell
10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell with adaptive uplink attenuation

0.1
0

500

1000
1500
2000
UE Throughput [kbps]

2500

3000

Figure 16-8

UE uplink throughput distributions in 850 MHz. There are, in total, 34 UEs per
macrocell, of which 24 UEs migrate to MNB in the No HNBs case. HNB
deployment increases the system capacity significantly

16.3.5

Conclusions

Simple adjustment of Power Calibration settings, namely changing the HNB target
coverage path loss, is sufficient to make HNB deployments nearly equivalent in
different frequency bands. Similar DL throughput performance is seen in Dense Urban
deployment of HNBs in 850 MHz and 2 GHz. UL throughputs are higher in Dense
Urban deployments of HNBs in 850 MHz, compared to 2GHz. The UE transmit powers
are seen to be smaller for 850 MHz compared to 2 GHz.
In summary, HNB deployment continues to provide expected benefits in 850 MHz
band as well.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

74

17. Summary of Findings


Scenario

Conclusions

Impacts

A - Macrocell
Downlink
Interference to
the Femtocell
UE Receiver

When a strong macro signal is


present, customers already obtain
excellent service; adding a cochannel femtocell offers little
additional coverage gain. Assuming
standard models and parameters, it
is shown that even at 10 dBm
transmit power, the femtocell is able
to comfortably provide voice to the
UE when the femtocell is located as
far as 100 m away and maximum
HSDPA throughput can be expected
up to 25 m away.

Low, but a way of identifying


customers who are unlikely to
benefit from femto because of
already high macro coverage
would be desirable.
If the macro is dominant, the
consequence for the customer is
that they will be provided service
by the macro carrier so the
impact of this scenario is mainly
on zonal-based propositions.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

75

Scenario

Conclusions

Impacts

B - Macrocell UE
Uplink
Interference to
the Femtocell
Receiver

The analysis results showed that in


order to be able to maintain the
uplink connection between the FUE
and femtocell, the transmitted power
requirements are within the
capability of the UE.
Additionally, the performance of
HSUPA on the femto FUE link has
been analysed in the presence of
uplink interference from the Macro
UE. By simulation, it has been found
that in order to obtain HSUPA
throughput of at least 2.8Mbps with
a category 6 UE, the FUE needs to
be near to the femtocell (5m) and
transmit at a power level greater
than 15dBm, if the MUE is within
15m of the femtocell.
However, such analysis must take
into account the downlink deadzone
created by the femtocell. High power
from the femtocell in order to
maintain the downlink will interfere
with the macrocell signal at the MUE,
and will force the macrocell to
handover the call to another WCDMA
frequency or RAT; or, if none of
these are possible, the MUE call may
be dropped.

From the point of view of the


MUE, the femtocell is a source of
interference to the macrocell.
However, the macro network can
already cope with re-directing UEs
to other WCDMA frequencies, or
RAT, if a user is affected by high
interference.
Those locations with no coverage
from alternative WCDMA
frequencies, or RATs, may be
adversely affected by poor Eb/No
levels, leading to dropped calls.
Due to femtocells, the macrocell
may also be affected by an
increase of uplink interference, as
femto-UEs increase power levels
in order to achieve required
quality levels. This may be limited
by capping the maximum power
level transmitted by FUEs, or by
limiting uplink throughput.
The minimum separation between
MUE and femtocell has a strong
effect on the capability to offer
the required QoS to the femtocell
user. However, the FUE has
enough power to sustain a voice
call while the MUE is in the
coverage range of the femtocell.
The downlink deadzone sets a
minimum separation between
MUE and femtocell, meaning that
the FUE transmit power is always
within its capability.
For HSUPA, the user is required to
go closer to the femtocell in order
to be provided with the best
throughput. Simulation has shown
that at 5m from the femtocell,
good throughput can be achieved
for MUEs further away than 12m.
Availability of alternative
resources (a second carrier, or
underlay RAT) for handing off or
reselecting macro-users is the
best way to provide good service
when macro-users are in the
proximity of femtocells.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

76

Scenario

Conclusions

In the scenario presented in this


section, the performance of MUE
attached to the macrocell is shown
to be affected by the femtocell in
some locations. This can be
mitigated by the use of adaptive
power control on the femto. Results
show that in some cases the MUE
might experience deadzone when
in close proximity to the femto. One
firm conclusion from this analysis is
that adaptive power control is
necessary for the femtocells; another
is that femtocells will require higher
output power when the femtocell is
deployed in locations near the centre
of the macrocell.
Adaptive power control on the
femtocell mitigates interference by
offering just the required transmit
power on the femto based on level of
interference from macro. However, it
is shown that a macrocell UE (MUE)
might not receive adequate signal
level from the macro to compensate
for the femto interference. This is
evident in all places in close
proximity to the femto when the
macro and femtocells share the
same carrier.
It is also concluded that there is no
apparent and fundamental
performance change between the
case when 850 MHz or 2100 MHz is
used for the carrier.
In general, if a macro network is
designed to provide fixed coverage
in terms of cells radius, then the
macrocell requires lower output
power when operating at 850 MHz.
Therefore, the interference level
seen by a femto is the same,
regardless of the carrier frequency.
It is shown that the femto is an
effective vehicle for delivering a good
carrier re-use. Furthermore,
femtocells are an efficient technique
for delivering high-speed data
offered by HSPA to the femto users.
This should be compared to the
macrocell case where cell radius is
larger resulting in the effect of
distributing the potential bandwidth
of the HSDPA to a larger number of
users. It is also a well known that
HSPA throughput is affected by the
location of the UE, the closer the UE
to the centre of the cell the higher
the throughput. This lead us to
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
conclude that small cells like femto
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02
cells are an optimum complimentary
technique to macro cells for
addressing high data usage.
C - Femtocell
Downlink
Interference to
the Macrocell UE
Receiver

Impacts

For operators without a dedicated


carrier on which to deploy femto,
adaptive power control is essential
for the success of the network
Even though the intrinsic
coverage of the macro network is
reduced by the deployment of
femto, other studies have shown
(eg. Section 17) that the total
capacity of the network (macro +
femto) may increase a
hundredfold.

77

Scenario

Conclusions

Impacts

D - Femtocell
Uplink
Interference to
the Macrocell
NodeB Receiver

It is unlikely that a femto UE will be


transmitting at maximum power, due
to the relatively smaller coverage of
the femto compared to the macro.
The analysis for a 12k2 voice service
has shown that a femto UE in the
described scenario will be
transmitting in the region of 8.39
dBm, and will cause a noise rise of
approximately 0.07dB. Further, a
macro UE at the same location as
the femto UE will cause a 0.09dB
noise for the same 12k2 voice
service.
The analysis for a femto UE with
2Mbps HSUPA data service has
shown that a femto UE in the
described scenario will cause a noise
rise amounting to approximately
1.09dB; however, it should be noted
that a macro UE operating at the
same position and on the same
service (with the same service
requirement) is expected to cause
the same amount of noise rise.

The maximum allowed femto UE


transmission power can be limited
appropriately, such that the noise
rise caused by a femto UE when
transmitting at its maximum
allowed power is limited based on
the femtocells proximity to the
surrounding Macro Layer Node Bs.
This is important, especially when
one considers the cumulative
affect of multiple femto UEs
spread across a network. A similar
approach is suggested in [R4071578].
The femtocell could also handover
a femto UE to a macrocell if an inservice femto UE is at the verge of
the femtocell; thereafter, uplink
interference to a macrocell from
this UE is avoided.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

78

Scenario

Conclusions

Impacts

E - Femtocell
Downlink
Interference to
Nearby
Femtocell UE
Receivers

The downlink throughput of the UE


connected to the femtocell is shown
to be affected by downlink of
neighbouring femtocells. This case
shows that driving femtocells to
provide coverage to adjacent
location deemed to be covered by
other femtocells yields performance
degradation.
The closer the femtocells are, the
higher the mutual interference and
performance degradation.
It is therefore strongly recommended
that femtocells use effective power
control to confined coverage to their
premises, and where the UE can not
get service from the its femto, this
UE should be supported by the
macro network. There is a need to
make sure that the pilot and
transmit power of the femto is
carefully adjusted to provide
coverage to UEs within the intended
area.
It can be concluded that the femto
coverage should aim to be restricted
to a single apartment/ house only in
order to limit any undue interference
between femtos. Adaptive power
control is one method to help this.
This leaves the issue of supporting
visiting UEs to be under the control
of the macrocell.

If the femto coverage is controlled


through mechanisms such as
adaptive power control, then this
scenario will generally result in
the visiting UE being handled by a
Macro Layer.
These impacts exist when a UE
femtocell experiences interference
levels in the order of -50dBm.
Consequently, there is a risk that
for adjacent apartment
deployments coverage may not be
assured from the femtocell under
all circumstances.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

79

Scenario

Conclusions

Impacts

F - Femtocell UE
Uplink
Interference to
Nearby
Femtocell
Receivers

The following conclusions can be


drawn:
The closer UE2 to AP1, the greater
interference from UE2 to AP1.
The interference reaches maximum
at the point when UE2 is
disconnecting from AP2 (call is
dropping). However, the analysis is
based on the extreme scenarios.
Usually, UE2 will handover to a
macrocell before call drop, which will
avoid the interference to AP1.
The following recommendations are
made, which will help ensure
harmonious coexistence of cochannel femtocells:
It is desirable to limit the allowed
maximum transmission power of UE2
to avoid a noise rise to the nearby
AP1, when UE2 is at the verge of
AP2.
The AP2 could also handover a UE2
to a macrocell (macrocell on another
frequency channel preferred) if inservice UE2 is in the vicinity of the
AP1; thereafter, uplink interference
to AP1 from this UE2 is avoided.

In typical cases, both wanted and


Aggressor femtocells should have
dynamically optimised coverage to
their respective UE; hence, this
co-channel scenario is unlikely to
occur.
If this femtocell power
optimisation does not occur, the
co-channel interference can
indeed occur, and range reduction
is the consequence. This range
reduction can be mitigated to an
extent by the normal dynamic
power control of the wanted UE.
Consequently, this is manageable
as long as minimum performance
requirements for adaptive power
control are agreed.

G - Macrocell
Downlink
Interference to
the adjacent
channel
Femtocell UE
Receiver

Both theoretical analysis and


simulation results show that
femtocell UE experiences little
adjacent channel interference from
an outdoor macrocell in most cases.

There is no impact.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

80

Scenario

Conclusions

Impacts

H - Macrocell UE
Uplink
Interference to
the adjacent
channel
Femtocell
Receiver

It was found that if the MUE is


transmitting at the maximum power
of 21 dBm, it needs to be separated
from the femtocell by around 3.2 m.
This separation can be reduced
further by employing Automatic Gain
Control (AGC) at the femtocell
receiver. It has been shown that the
minimum MUE to FAP separation can
be reduced to 1.5 m if a reduction in
gain of 10 dB is applied by AGC. The
resulting loss in receiver sensitivity
will not deteriorate femtocell
coverage of voice, as there is
sufficient power headroom available
at the UE.
The performance of HSUPA has been
analysed in the presence of uplink
interference from the macro UE,
which is operating on the adjacent
frequency. The femtocell MUE
separation is fixed at 2 m and 5 m.
The FUE femtocell path loss is fixed
at 90 dB, representing the coverage
edge scenario. It was seen that in
order to obtain 70% of nominal
HSUPA bit rate with a category 6 UE,
the MUE transmit power should be
below 7.5 dBm and 18.5 dBm,
respectively. In both cases minimum
transmit power required for HSUPA
transmission is equal to -3 dBm. As
the likelihood of MUE transmitting at
high power increases at the
macrocell edge, HSUPA throughput
at femtocell is expected to
deteriorate in this interference
scenario.

If the minimum separation


between the MUE and femtocell is
not maintained, the femtocell
receiver may not be able to
decode the wanted speech signal
at the required QoS level.
Similarly, the HSUPA performance
will deteriorate gradually as the
MUE transmit power is increased
for a given separation between
the MUE and femtocell receiver.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

81

Scenario

Conclusions

Impacts

I - Femtocell
Downlink
Interference to
the adjacent
channel
Macrocell UE
Receiver

In terms of AMR service, a minimum


separation of 5 m between the
femtocell and MUE can be achieved if
the macrocell site is within 1.0 km,
and the femtocell is not transmitting
above 10dBm. It is recommended to
implement adaptive control of
maximum transmit power level at
the femtocell and restrict maximum
transmit power to 10 dBm, in order
to achieve a good trade-off between
femtocell coverage and adjacent
channel deadzone.
We have also analysed HSDPA
performance under this interference
scenario using link-budget type
calculations and UE specifications. At
the minimum supported femtocell
MUE separation of 5 m, it was found
that the macrocell MUE separation
should not be more than 185 m 360 m, in order to decode the HSPDSCH at the specified rate. Analysis
was performed for a fully loaded
femtocell transmitting at 10 dBm, 15
dBm and 20 dBm. It is well known
that a macrocell allocates highest
HSDPA data rates only when UEs are
located close to the cell site. Thus, it
is not apparent whether downlink
interference from femtocell will
significantly deteriorate HSDPA
performance at the MUE.

In terms of AMR service, it was


found that femtocell downlink
interference can block macrocell
signal if the MUE is located close
to the macrocell edge and the
femtocell transmit power is above
10 dBm. In terms of HSDPA
performance, it is not clear that
femtocell interference will
significantly deteriorate HSDPA
performance at the MUE.
Assuming dedicated spectrum
deployment for the macro and
femto cellular layers, the adjacent
channel deadzone created by the
femtocell can be adjusted by
performing adaptive control of
maximum femtocell transmit
power.

J - Femtocell UE
Uplink
Interference to
the adjacent
channel
Macrocell NodeB
Receiver

It is unlikely that a femto UE will be


transmitting at maximum power, due
to the relatively smaller coverage of
the femto compared to the macro.
The analysis for a 12k2 voice service
has shown that a femto UE in the
described scenario will be
transmitting in the region of 8.39
dBm and will cause a negligible noise
rise of approximately 3.4 10-5dB.
The analysis for a femto UE with
2Mbps HSUPA data service has
shown that a femto UE in the
described scenario will cause a
negligible noise rise amounting to
approximately 6.2 10-4dB.
The general conclusion is that a
Femto UE operating on the adjacent
channel to a macro Node B will not
cause an impact to such an adjacent
channel macro Node B.

The uplink noise rise experienced


by the macro nodeB from the
adjacent channel femto UE is
likely to be significantly less than
the noise rise experienced by the
macro Nodes Bs own UE
transmitting from the same
location.
Consequently, there is negligible
impact to the adjacent channel
macro.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

82

Scenario

Conclusions

Impacts

Section 16
System
Simulations

A simple adjustment of Power


Calibration settings namely,
changing the HNB target coverage
path loss is sufficient to make HNB
deployments nearly equivalent in
different frequency bands. Similar DL
throughput performance is seen in
Dense Urban deployment of HNBs in
850 MHz and 2 GHz. UL throughputs
are higher in Dense Urban
deployments of HNBs in 850 MHz
compared to 2GHz. The UE transmit
powers are seen to be smaller for
850 MHz compared to 2 GHz.
In summary, HNB deployment
continues to provide expected
benefits in 850 MHz band.

The conclusions depend on the


operation of important techniques,
such as adaptive CPICH power
setting, adaptive attenuation
(AGC) in the femto receiver, and
UE transmit power capping. With
these techniques in play, the
impact on the performance of the
networks is total available data
capacity gain of two orders of
magnitude for the simulated
conditions.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

83

18. Overall Conclusions


By examining a series of scenarios, building on the work of 3GPP RAN4 as well as the
previous Small Cell Forum work at 2 GHz, we have reached and confirmed the
following conclusions:

Femtocell performance at 850 MHz is very much similar to that at 2 GHz.


Power management of the UE is important to manage the noise rise in the
macro network.

Downlink power management is equally key in managing the tradeoff


between service range (in the closed user group cases), and deadzone.

In normal operation, the noise rise contribution from the UE is small (a


decibel or less).
Power capping of the UE when operating in the femto environment
ensures that, even in difficult radio conditions, the UE hands-off to the
macro network before its transmit power increases to the point where
macro noise rise is a problem.
Dynamic receiver gain management in the femto (AGC or adaptive
attenuation) ensures that femtos can offer good service to both near and
far UEs, without unnecessarily increasing the UE transmit power, and,
therefore, keeping the noise rise contribution to a minimum.
An increase in the dynamic range specifications is required to
accommodate femto operation in both near and far cases.

By measuring its environment, the femto can set its transmit power
appropriately for both dense urban and suburban deployment, even in
shared carrier situations.
Given a reasonable distribution of indoor and outdoor users, the link
budget indoors with femto is so good in comparison with the
corresponding macro link budget that the total air interface capacity can
be a hundred times greater with femto than without it.

With these power management techniques in place, femto operation in the


co-channel deployment with macro is possible. A second carrier is preferred,
to give macro users service even within the deadzones of the femtocells.

Some of these factors (adaptive attenuation, power capping, and downlink power
management) are becoming widely available in the industry. Others (increased
receiver dynamic range) are already approved in standards. All of them will deliver the
performance and capacity gains required for next-generation cellular networks.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

84

19. Further Reading


19.1

Scenario A

Title: Macrocell Downlink Co-Channel Interference to the Femtocell UE Receiver


3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071941]
R4-071941, "Simulation results for
Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence considering the
impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group
4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080149] R4-080149, Ericsson, "Simulation
assumptions for the block of flats scenario, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working
Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080150]

19.2

Scenario B

Title: Macrocell Uplink Co-Channel Interference to the Femtocell Receiver


3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070825] [R4-070969]
R4-070969, Home B
output power, Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #43bis, R4-070969, June 2007.
[R4-070970 [R4-071619] [R4-071941] R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home
NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence considering the impact of
HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080097] [R4-080409] [R4-080153]

19.3

Scenario C

Title: Femtocell Downlink Co-Channel Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver


3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071231] [R4-071253] [R4-071263] [R4-071540]
[R4-071554] [R4-071578] [R4-071660] [R4-071661] R4-071661,
"Impact of HNB with controlled output power on macro HSDPA
capacity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#44bis, October 2007.
[R4-072004]
R4-072004, Huawei, "Performance Evaluation about HNB
coexistence with Macro networks", 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4
(Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-071941]
R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB
downlink co-existence considering the impact of HNB HS utilization",
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45,
November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080151]

19.4

Scenario D

Title: Femtocell Uplink Co-Channel Interference to the Macrocell NodeB Receiver


3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070969]
R4-070969, Home B output power,
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, R4070969, June 2007.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

85

[R4-070970 [R4-071231] [R4-071578] [R4-071619] [R4-071941] R4-071941,


"Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink coexistence considering the impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080154]

19.5

Scenario E

Title: Femtocell Downlink Interference to Nearby Femtocell UE Receivers


3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071617]
R4-071617, HNB and HNB-Macro
Propagation Models, Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group
4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
[R4-071618] [R4-080409] [R4-080151] [R4-080149] R4-080149, Ericsson,
"Simulation assumptions for the block of flats scenario, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080150] R4-081344

19.6

Scenario F

Title: Femtocell Uplink Interference to Nearby Femtocell Receivers


3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070971] [R4-071185] [R4-071617] R4-071617,
HNB and HNB-Macro Propagation Models, Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
[R4-071618] [R4-080409] [R4-080152] [R4-080153]

19.7

Scenario G

Title: Macrocell Downlink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Femtocell UE Receiver


3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071941]
R4-071941, "Simulation results for
Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence considering the
impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group
4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080149] R4-080149, Ericsson, "Simulation
assumptions for the block of flats scenario, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working
Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080150]

19.8

Scenario H

Title: Macrocell Uplink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Femtocell Receiver


3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070825] [R4-070971] [R4-071185] [R4-071941]
R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB
downlink co-existence considering the impact of HNB HS utilization",
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45,
November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080097] [R4-080409]

19.9

Scenario I

Title: Femtocell Downlink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

86

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071211] [R4-071231] [R4-071263] [R4-071540]


[R4-071554] [R4-071660] [R4-071661] R4-071661, "Impact of HNB
with controlled output power on macro HSDPA capacity", Ericsson, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
[R4-072004]
R4-072004, Huawei, "Performance Evaluation about HNB
coexistence with Macro networks", 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4
(Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-071941]
R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB
downlink co-existence considering the impact of HNB HS utilization",
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45,
November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-072025] [R4-080409] [R4-080151]

19.10 Scenario J
Title: Femtocell Uplink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Macrocell NodeB Receiver
3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070971] [R4-071185] [R4-071231] [R4-071619]
[R4-071941] R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home
NodeB downlink co-existence considering the impact of HNB HS
utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080152]

19.11 Scenarios Section 16


Title: Downlink and Uplink Scenarios Modelling Power Control Techniques for
Interference Mitigation
3GPP Analysis References:

[R4-081344] [R4-081345] [R4-081346]

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

87

20. Simulation Parameters and Path Loss Models


This section provides a set of recommended values and path loss models for the
interference studies at 850 MHz.

20.1

Simulation parameters

Table 20-1 lists the simulation parameter values that were used in this paper unless
otherwise stated in the text.
Parameter
External Wall Loss
Window Loss
Maximum Macro Node B Tx Power
Maximum Micro Node B Tx Power
Macro Node B Antenna Gain
Macro Node B Feeder/Cable Losses
Micro Node B Antenna Gain
Micro Antenna Feeder Loss
Node B sensitivity
Femtocell Noise Figure
Macro Node B Loading
Femto Loading
Downlink/Uplink Channel
performance (ie. EbNos & EcNos for
various services)
UE transmission power range
Femtocell Maximum DL powers
Maximum co-channel DL deadzone
created by femto for non-femto UEs
[R4-070969]
Maximum adjacent DL deadzone
created by femto for non-femto UEs
Height of mobile
Height of femto
Height of macro basestation
Frequency
Building dimensions (width by
length)
Indoor to indoor path loss
modelling
Indoor to outdoor path loss
modelling
Outdoor to outdoor path loss
modelling
Outdoor to indoor path loss
modelling
Table 20-1

Value
10dB [COST231]
5dB
43dBm
38dBm
17dBi
3dB
2dBi
1dB
Based on reference sensitivity in 3GPP Spec [TS25.104]
8dB (and 12dB)
50%
50%
Minimum performance requirements based on 3GPP specs
[TS25.101][TS25.104]
Based on 3GPP spec [TS25.101]
Up to 21dBm. Analysis to cover 10dBm, 15dBm & 21dBm
power levels
60dB for 10dBm Femto DL Tx Power
65dB for 15dBm Femto DL Tx Power
70dB for 21dBm Femto DL Tx Power
Corresponding co channel deadzone less 33dB ACS loss
1.5 m
1m
30 m
850 MHz
Apartment 10m by 10m
House 15 by 15m
ITU P.1238 [ITU1238]
Okumura-Hata [COST231] + Wall/Window loss (d > 1
km)
Okumura-Hata [COST231] (d > 1 km)
Okumura-Hata [COST231] + Wall/Window loss (d > 1
km)

Recommended simulation parameters

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

88

20.2

Path Loss Models

Several path loss models are used within the study to calculate the signal attenuation
as it propagates within different environments. These have been chosen from the
range of models in the public domain that are widely accepted within the industry.
They are, therefore, not tuned to a specific environment or set of measurements. The
models should, however, be indicative of the realistic range of path loss values that
are likely to be encountered in a realistic deployment. The path loss models are
described in this section.
20.2.1

Okumura-Hata

Although the Okumura-Hata (OH) model is a fully empirical model, entirely derived
from the best fit of measurement data without real physical basis, the model remains
widely used and is well-accepted by the mobile cellular community. It is the most
widely implemented model and is available as the main model in most radio planning
tools.
The expression of OH for built-up urban areas is as follows:

L = 69.55 + 26.16 log( f ) 13.82 log(hB ) + (44.9 6.55 log(hB )) log(d ) F (hM )
(1.1 log( f ) 0.7) hM (1.56 log( f ) 0.8) medium to small cities
F (hM ) =
2
for large cities
3.2 (log(11.75 h M )) 4.97
The parameters in the above expressions stand for:

f : frequency [MHz]
hB : base station height above ground level [m]
hM : mobile station height above ground [m]
d:

distance from basestation [km]

The range of validity of OH is as follows:

150 MHz < f < 1000 MHz


30m hB 200m
1m hM 10m
d > 1km
20.2.2

ITU-R P.1238

This model predicts path loss between two indoor terminals assuming an aggregate
loss through furniture, internal walls and doors represented by a power loss exponent
N that depends on the type of building (residential, office, commercial, etc.). Unlike
other site-specific models (such as Keenan and Motley 0), this method does not
require the knowledge of the number of walls between the two terminals, and
therefore offers a simpler implementation.
The expression for the path loss is provided below:

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

89

where:

In the frequency range 900 MHz, P.1238 suggests using the following power loss
coefficients N:

Residential:
Office:
33
Commercial:

--20

And the following values for the floor penetration loss factor Lf:

Residential: --Office:
9 (1 floor), 19 (2 floors), 24 (3 floors)
Commercial:
---

P.1238 doesnt provide power loss coefficient or floor penetration loss for residential
buildings at 900 Mhz, but does say that for the power loss coefficient it is acceptable
to use the value given for office buildings. After some discussion among the members
of the simulation team it was decided to use a value of 28, which is slightly less than
that for office buildings but consistent with measured data. It was also decided by the
members of the simulation team that a floor penetration loss factor of 4 dB per floor
penetrated would be used, since that is consistent with measured data. For fading, a
log-normal distribution is assumed with a standard deviation of 8 dB.
20.2.3

System Simulation (Section 16) Path Loss Models

In Section 17 the following simplified path loss models were used:


The free-space component for the micro-urban model is given by

PL fs ,micro (dB ) = 28 + 40 log10 d


Where d is the distance in m.
Other models used in this section are similar to those in [R4-071617].

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

90

References
[FF08]

Small Cell Forum, Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells,


December 2008.
[FF09]
Small Cell Forum Working Group 2, Recommended Simulation
Parameters 850 MHz, April 2009.
[COST231]
Commission of the European Communities, Digital Mobile Radio: COST
231 View on the Evolution Towards 3rd Generation Systems, L-2920,
Luxembourg, 1989.
[ITU1238]
International Telecommunication Union, ITU-R Recommendations
P.1238: Propagation data and prediction models for the planning of
indoor radiocommunications systems and radio local area networks in
the frequency range 900MHz to 100GHz, Geneva, 1997.
[ITU1411]
International Telecommunication Union, ITU-R Recommendations
P.1411-3: Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of
short range outdoor radiocommunication systems and radio local area
networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz, Geneva, 2005.
[Hol06]
H. Holma and A. Toskala, HSDPA/HSUPA for UMTS: High Speed Radio
Access for Mobile Communications, J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006.
[Kob92]
H. Kobayashi, G. Patrick, Preliminary Building Attenuation Model, NTIA
Technical Memorandum 92-155, 1992.
[Stav03]
Stavrou, S. Saunders, S.R., Factors influencing outdoor to indoor radio
wave propagation, Intl Conference on Antennas and Propagation (ICAP),
2003.
[Dav97]
Davidson, A. and Hill C., Measurement of Building Penetration into
Medium Buildings at 900 and 1500 MHz, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, February 1997.
[Kee90]
J. M. Keenan, A. J. Motley, Radio coverage in buildings, British
Telecom Technology Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, Jan. 1990, pp19-24.
[Lai02]
J. Laiho, A. Wacker and T. Novosad, Radio Network Planning and
Optimization for UMTS, J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2002.
[Oku68]
Y. Okumura, E. Ohmori, T. Kawano and K. Fukuda, Field strength and
its variability in VHF and UHF land mobile radio service, Rev. Electr.
Commun. Lab., Vol. No 16, pp825-73, 1968.
[Sha88]
K. S. Shanmugan and A. M. Breipohl, Random Signals: Detection,
Estimation and Data Analysis, J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1988.
[Law08]
A. Law, Interference Management Evaluation Scenarios, April 2008.
[TR25.814] 3GPP, Physical layer aspects for evolved Universal Terrestial Radio
Access (UTRA). 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical
Specification Group Radio Access Networks, TR25.814, v7.1.0, 10-2006.
[TR25.820] 3G Home NodeB Study Item Technical Report, 3rd Generation
Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access
Networks, TR25.820 v8.0.0, 03-2008.
[TR25.848] 3GPP, Physical layer aspects of UTRA High Speed Downlink Packet
Access, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification
Group Radio Access Networks , TR25.848 v4.0.0, 03-2001.
[TR25.942] 3GPP, Radio Frequency (RF) system scenarios, 3rd Generation
Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access
Networks, TR25.942, v.7.0.0, 03-2007.
[TR101.112] 3GPP, Selection procedures for the choice of radio transmission
technologies of the UMTS, 3rd Generation Partnership Project,
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks, TR101.112,
v3.2.0, 04-1998.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

91

[TS25.101]
[TS25.104]
[R4-070825]
[R4-070969]
[R4-070970]
[R4-070971]
[R4-071185]
[R4-071211]
[R4-071231]
[R4-071253]
[R4-071263]
[R4-071540]
[R4-071554]
[R4-071578]
[R4-071617]
[R4-071618]
[R4-071619]
[R4-071660]

3GPP, User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception (FDD),


3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio
Access Networks, TS25.101, v7.12.0, 05-2008.
3GPP, Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception (FDD), 3rd
Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio
Access Networks, TR 25.104, v7.9.0, 01-2008.
R4-070825, "Home BTS consideration and deployment scenarios for
UMTS", Orange, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43,
May 2007.
R4-070969, Home B output power, Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working
Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, R4-070969, June 2007.
R4-070970, "Initial simulation results for Home Node B receiver
sensitivity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#43bis, June 2007.
R4-070971, "Initial simulation results for Home Node B receiver
blocking", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#43bis, June 2007.
R4-071185, "The analysis for Home NodeB receiver blocking
requirements", Huawei, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #44, August 2007.
R4-071211, "Recommendations on transmit power of Home NodeB",
Alcatel-Lucent, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44,
August 2007.
R4-071231, "Open and Closed Access for Home NodeBs", "Nortel,
Vodafone", , 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44,
August 2007.
R4-071253, "Minutes of Home NodeB/ ENodeB Telephone Conference
#3. Aug 7, 2007", Motorola, , 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #44, August 2007.
R4-071263, "System simulation results for Home NodeB interference
scenario #2", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #44, August 2007.
R4-071540, "LTE Home Node B downlink simulation results with flexible
Home Node B power", Nokia Siemens Networks, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-071554, "The analysis for low limit for Home NodeB transmit power
requirement", Huawei, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-071578, "Simulation results of macro-cell and co-channel Home
NodeB with power configuration and open access", Alcatel-Lucent, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-071617, HNB and HNB-Macro Propagation Models, Qualcomm
Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis,
October 2007.
R4-071618, "Home Node B HSDPA Performance Analysis", Qualcomm
Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis,
October 2007.
R4-071619, "Analysis of Uplink Performance under Co-channel Home
NodeB-Macro Deployment", Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working
Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-071660, "Impact of HNB with fixed output power on macro HSDPA
capacity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#44bis, October 2007.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

92

[R4-071661] R4-071661, "Impact of HNB with controlled output power on macro


HSDPA capacity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #44bis, October 2007.
[R4-072004]
R4-072004, Huawei, "Performance Evaluation about HNB
coexistence with Macro networks", 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4
(Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-071941] R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB
downlink co-existence considering the impact of HNB HS utilization",
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45,
November 2007.
[R4-072004] R4-072004, "Performance Evaluation about HNB coexistence with Macro
networks", Huawei, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#45, November 2007.
[R4-072025] R4-072025, "Proposed HNB Output Power Range", Qualcomm Europe,
3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-080097] R4-080097, "Minutes of Home NodeB/ ENodeB" Telephone Conference
#7, Jan 31, 2008.
[R4-080409] R4-080409, "Simple Models for Home NodeB Interference Analysis",
Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#46, February 2008.
[R4-080151] R4-080151, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to macro UE downlink
co-existence within the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080152] R4-080152, "Simulation results for Home NodeB uplink performance in
case of adjacent channel deployment within the block of flats scenario",
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46,
February 2008.
[R4-080153] R4-080153, "Simulation results for Home NodeB uplink performance in
case of co-channel deployment within the block of flats scenario",
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46,
February 2008.
[R4-080154] R4-080154, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Macro NodeB uplink
interference within the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080149] R4-080149, Ericsson, "Simulation assumptions for the block of flats
scenario, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46,
February 2008.
[R4-080150] R4-080150, "Simulation results for the Home NodeB downlink
performance within the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080154] R4-080154, Ericsson, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Macro
NodeB uplink interference within the block of flats scenario", 3GPP TSGRAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080939] R4-080939, Ericsson, Downlink co-existence between macro cells and
adjacent channel Home NodeBs, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4
(Radio) meeting #47, May 2008.
[R4-080940] R4-080940, Ericsson, Downlink co-existence between a realistic macro
cell network and adjacent channel Home NodeBs, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47, May 2008.
[R4-081344] R4-081344, HNB and Macro Downlink performance with Calibrated HNB
Transmit Power, Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4
(Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.
[R4-081345] R4-081345, HNB and Macro Uplink Performance with Adaptive
Attenuation at HNB, Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group
4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.
Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells
Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

93

[R4-081346] R4-081346, Interference Management Methods for HNBs, Qualcomm


Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June
2008.
[R4-081597]
R4-081597, Airvana, Vodafone, ipAccess, Impact of uplink cochannel interference from an un-coordinated UE on the Home Node B,
3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.

Report title: Interference management in UTMS UMTS femtocells


Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 003.06.02

94