009 Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

SMALL CELL FORUM
RELEASE 6.0
scf.io
URBAN
RURAL
& REMO
TE
HOME
ENTERP
RISE
17:25
VIRTUAL
IZATIO
DOCUMENT
009.06.02
Interference management in UMTS femtocells

Low-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 [3] provides detailed results of in-depth studies of interference between
femtocells and macrocells deployed in the UMTS low bands around 850/900MHz [2].
An accompanying study is also available for the UMTS high bands around 2GHz. 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 UMTS femtocells

Issue date: 01 December 2013
Version: 009.06.02
Executive summary
Femtocells, by virtue of their simultaneous small size, low cost and high performance,
are a potentially industry-changing 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? How can they be managed? 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). This paper 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).
Another study has also been published with similar results for 2 GHz [2]. It is
exclusively a theoretical treatment, using link level and system level simulations to
draw its conclusions, although 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 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 femto-enabled network include femtocells
themselves, which can be interacting in their downlinks with other nearby femtocells
and macrocells; macrocells, which interact with nearby femtocells; and 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 macrocell 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
instance, that the high noise rise that a UE could in principle cause will happily never

Version: 009.06.02
occur. In other cases, the extreme cases are avoided by uplink powercapping, or by
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 non-members 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 non-group 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 more than a hundredfold with the introduction of
femtocells.

Version: 009.06.02
Contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
2.1
3.
4.
5.
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.
7.1
7.2
7.2.1
7.3
7.3.1
7.3.2
7.3.3
8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.
9.1
9.2
9.2.1
9.2.2
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
Introduction .....................................................................3
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
HSUPA ............................................................................. 21
Conclusions ...................................................................... 24
Customer (MUE) impact ..................................................... 25
Customer (FUE) Impact ...................................................... 25
Mitigation techniques ......................................................... 25
Scenario C: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the
Macrocell UE Receiver ....................................................26
Description ....................................................................... 26
Analysis ........................................................................... 28
Scenario analysis and conclusions........................................ 29
Scenario D: Femtocell Uplink Interference to the
Macrocell NodeB Receiver ..............................................31
Introduction ...................................................................... 31
Analysis of Scenario D - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA .................... 32
Assumptions ..................................................................... 32
Macro Node B Noise Rise .................................................... 34

Version: 009.06.02
9.3
9.4
10.
10.1
10.2
10.3
11.
11.1
11.2
11.2.1
11.2.2
11.3
11.4
12.
12.1
12.2
12.2.1
12.2.2
12.2.3
12.3
13.
13.1
13.2
13.2.1
13.2.2
13.2.3
13.3
13.4
13.5
14.
14.1
14.2
14.2.1
14.2.2
Conclusions ...................................................................... 36
Recommendations ............................................................. 36
Scenario E: Femtocell Downlink Interference to nearby
Femtocell UE Receiver. ...................................................37
Description ....................................................................... 37
Capacity Analysis .............................................................. 38
Conclusions ...................................................................... 41
Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby
Femtocell Receivers........................................................42
Description ....................................................................... 42
Analysis ........................................................................... 42
Assumptions ..................................................................... 42
Analysis of Noise Rise received at the Victim AP .................... 43
Conclusions ...................................................................... 45
Recommendations ............................................................. 46
Scenario G: Macrocell Downlink Interference to an
adjacent-channel Femtocell UE Receiver ........................47
Description ....................................................................... 47
Analysis ........................................................................... 47
Assumptions ..................................................................... 47
Simulation Analysis............................................................ 48
Theoretical Analysis ........................................................... 48
Conclusions ...................................................................... 49
Scenario H: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the
adjacent channel Femtocell Receiver..............................50
Description ....................................................................... 50
Analysis ........................................................................... 51
Parameter settings ............................................................ 51
Impact of MUE interference on AMR ..................................... 51
Impact of MUE interference on HSUPA ................................. 54
Conclusions ...................................................................... 57
Femto System Impact ........................................................ 58
Scenario I: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the
adjacent channel macrocell UE Receiver.........................59
Description ....................................................................... 59
Analysis ........................................................................... 60
Parameter settings ............................................................ 60
Impact of Femtocell interference on AMR service ................... 61

Version: 009.06.02
14.2.3
14.3
14.4
14.5
15.
15.1
15.2
15.2.1
15.2.2
15.3
16.
16.1
16.2
16.3
16.3.1
16.3.2
16.3.3
16.3.4
16.3.5
16.3.6
17.
18.
19.
19.1
19.2
19.3
19.4
19.5
19.6
19.7
19.8
19.9
19.10
19.11
20.
Impact of Femtocell interference on HSDPA .......................... 62

Conclusions ...................................................................... 65
Customer (MUE) Impact ..................................................... 65
Scenario J: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to the
adjacent channel Macrocell NodeB Receiver ...................66
Introduction ...................................................................... 66
Analysis of Scenario J - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA ..................... 66
Assumptions ..................................................................... 66
Macro Node B Noise Rise .................................................... 69
Conclusions ...................................................................... 70
Downlink and Uplink Scenarios Modelling Power
Control Techniques for Interference Mitigation ..............71
Modelling of Propagation loss .............................................. 71
HNB transmit power calibration for 850 MHz ......................... 71
Simulation results for Dense Urban Deployment .................... 72
Idle Cell Reselection Parameters.......................................... 72
Coverage Statistics at 850 MHz for Calibrated HNB Transmit
Power .............................................................................. 73
Downlink Throughput Simulations........................................ 74
Conclusions ...................................................................... 76
Uplink throughput simulations with adaptive attenuation ........ 76
Conclusions ...................................................................... 82
Summary of Findings ......................................................83
Overall Conclusions ........................................................93
Further Reading .............................................................94
Scenario A ........................................................................ 94
Scenario B ........................................................................ 94
Scenario C ........................................................................ 94
Scenario D........................................................................ 94
Scenario E ........................................................................ 95
Scenario F ........................................................................ 95
Scenario G........................................................................ 95
Scenario H ........................................................................ 95
Scenario I......................................................................... 96
Scenario J ........................................................................ 96
Scenarios Section 16 ....................................................... 96
Simulation Parameters and Path Loss Models ................97

Version: 009.06.02
20.1
Simulation parameters ....................................................... 97
20.2
Path Loss Models ............................................................... 98
20.2.1 Okumura-Hata .................................................................. 98
20.2.2 ITU-R P.1238 .................................................................... 99
20.2.3 System Simulation (Section 16) Path Loss Models ................. 99
References ..............................................................................101
Tables
Table 3-1
Scenarios ....................................................................................... 6
Table 4-1
Femtocell Deployments in Shared Spectrum ....................................... 7
Table 4-2
Femtocell Deployments in non-Shared Spectrum ................................ 8
Table 4-3
Scenario relationships ..................................................................... 9
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 .......................21
Table 7-5
Link budget for HSUPA ...................................................................22
Table 9-1
Macro Node B noise floor ................................................................32
Table 9-2
Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B ................................34
Table 9-3
Noise rise calculation for Scenario D (femto UE is transmitting at

8.39dBm and 21dBm1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service
and 2Mbps HSUPA service) .............................................................35
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 .....................36
Table 11-1
Femtocell Sensitivity and Noise Rise at AP1 .......................................43
Table 12-1
Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE

in this worst-case scenario ..............................................................49
Table 13-1
Uplink radio link-budget for AMR 12.2 kbps RAB ................................53
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 ...............................................................................62
Table 14-2
UE receiver performance requirement (HSDPA), [TS25.101] ...............64
Table 15-1
Macro Node B noise floor ................................................................68
Table 15-2
Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B ................................69
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) .............................................................70
Table 16-1
Parameters for the co-channel idle cell reselection procedure ..............72

Version: 009.06.02
Table 16-2
Pilot acquisition statistics at 850 MHz for dense-urban model with 24

active HNBs and calibrated HNB transmit power ................................73
Table 16-3
Coverage statistics for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and

calibrated HNB transmit power ........................................................74
Table 20-1
Recommended simulation parameters ..............................................98
Figures
Figure 1-1
Typical femtocell deployment scenario. .............................................. 1
Figure 4-1
Small Cell Forum Scenarios A-J ........................................................ 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 .....................................................................................16
Figure 7-1
Scenario B ....................................................................................18
Figure 7-2
Interference Scenario B, voice call ...................................................21
Figure 7-3
HSUPA simulation, Scenario B. E-DPDCH Ec/No compared to

throughput for RFC3.......................................................................23
Figure 7-4
Throughput for HSUPA. 70% max bit rate for all FRCs ........................24
Figure 8-1
Illustration of the interference analysis for Scenario C ........................26
Figure 8-2
Path loss model .............................................................................27
Figure 8-3
TX power needed for 12.2 kbps for MUE (1000 metres away and 100
metres away respectively) ..............................................................28
Figure 8-4
MUE throughput with HSDPA for locations at 1,000 and 100 metres
respectively ..................................................................................29
Figure 9-1
Interference Scenario D ..................................................................31
Figure 10-1 Scenario E. Adjacent femto with UEs connected to each AP .................37
Figure 10-2 Apartments Plan Flats layout ........................................................38
Figure 10-3 Macrocell location relative to the house where the femtos are located ..39
Figure 10-4 Dedicated carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput ....................................40
Figure 10-5 Shared carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput ........................................41
Figure 11-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario F .........................................42
Figure 12-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario G ........................................47
Figure 12-2 CPICH Ec/Io for Femto ...................................................................48
Figure 13-1 Illustration of the interference Scenario H .........................................50
Figure 13-2 Minimum separation between Femtocell and MUE to avoid blocking,
for a given MUE .............................................................................54
Figure 13-3 E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level ....55
Figure 13-4 Required average FUE transmit power level to meet HSUPA
throughput requirements. ...............................................................56
Figure 13-5 E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level ....57
Figure 14-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario I .........................................59
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 ............................................................................61
Figure 14-3 Maximum MNB - MUE separation as a function of femtocell MUE
separation, assuming AMR voice service ...........................................62

Version: 009.06.02
Figure 14-4 Maximum macrocell-MUE separation as a function of femtocell-MUE

separation, for reception of HSDPA ..................................................64
Figure 15-1 Interference Scenario J ...................................................................66
Figure 16-1 In variance of HNB calibrated Tx Power in the two frequencies ............74
Figure 16-2 DL user throughput distribution under different minimum powers,
User Throughput Distributions, 10 MUEs, 24 HUEs .............................75
Figure 16-3 Magnified version of Figure 1-2 showing outage statistics ...................76
Figure 16-4 HUE uplink throughput distribution...................................................78
Figure 16-5 MUE uplink throughput distribution ..................................................79
Figure 16-6 Transmit power distribution.............................................................80
Figure 16-7 Transmit power distribution.............................................................81
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. ......82

Version: 009.06.02
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.

Version: 009.06.02
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.
1.3
What is the Small Cell Forum?
The Small Cell Forum is the only organisation devoted to promoting small cell
technology worldwide. It is a not-for-profit membership organisation, with
membership open to providers of small cell technology and to operators with spectrum
licences for providing mobile services. The Forum is international, representing around
140 members from three continents and all parts of the femtocell industry, including:
major operators,
major infrastructure vendors,
specialist femtocell vendors, and
vendors of components, subsystems, silicon and software necessary to create
femtocells.
The Small Cell Forum has three main aims:
to promote adoption of femtocells by making information available to the

industry and the general public,
to promote the rapid creation of appropriate open standards and
interoperability for femtocells, and
to encourage the development of an active ecosystem of femtocell providers,
to deliver ongoing innovation of commercially and technically efficient
solutions.
The Small Cell Forum is technology agnostic and independent. It is not a standards
setting body, but works with standards organisations and regulators worldwide to
provide an aggregated view of the small cell market. A full current list of Small Cell
Forum members and further information is available at www.smallcellforum.org.
Version: 009.06.02
2. Introduction
2.1
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:
2.
3.
4.
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:
5.
6.
To develop an industry position on the interference risks from femtocell

deployments.
To recommend mitigation techniques and any necessary associated RF
parameters and performance requirements, to ensure minimal disruption
to the macro network or other femtocells.
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.
5. 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.

Version: 009.06.02
7.
This paper has limited itself in scope, according to perceived priorities, as

follows:
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.

Version: 009.06.02
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 4-1
below.
The scenarios for this paper are defined in Section 4.
Scenario
(this
paper)
25.820
scenario
id
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-tofemto interference.
Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as the

femtocell has sufficient transmit dynamic range.

Version: 009.06.02
Scenario
(this
paper)
25.820
scenario
id
Summary of RAN4 conclusions
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 adjacentchannel deployments than it is with co-channel.
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 3-1
Scenarios
In addition to the previous 3GPP analysis work, the Small Cell 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 850 MHz.
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.

Version: 009.06.02
4. Simulation Scenarios and Definitions

The Small Cell 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
Description
Macrocell Downlink Interference

to the Femtocell UE Receiver (A)
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.
Macrocell Uplink Interference to

the
Femtocell Receiver (B)
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.
Femtocell Downlink Interference

to the Macrocell UE Receiver (C)
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.
Femtocell Uplink Interference to

the
Macrocell Node B Receiver (D)
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.

to
Nearby Femtocell UE Receivers
(E)
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.

Nearby Femtocell Receivers (F)
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).
Table 4-1
Femtocell Deployments in Shared Spectrum

Version: 009.06.02
Scenario
Description
Macrocell Downlink Interference

to the adjacent-channel Femtocell
UE Receiver (G)
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.
Macrocell Uplink Interference to

the adjacent-channel Femtocell
Receiver (H)
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.

to the adjacent-channel Macrocell
UE Receiver (I)
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.

the adjacent-channel Macrocell
NodeB Receiver (J)
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.
Table 4-2
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 15). 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.

Version: 009.06.02
Victim
Aggressor
Femto UE Femto AP
DL Rx
UL Rx
Macro NodeB
A, G
DL Tx
Macro UE
B, H
UL Tx
Macro UE
DL Rx
Macro
Neighbour
NodeB UL
Rx
Femto UE
DL Rx
Femto AP
C, I
DL Tx
Femto UE
D, J
UL Tx
Neighbour Femto UE
UL Tx
Table 4-3
Scenario relationships
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 the Small Cell Forum Scenarios A-J:
Figure 4-1
Small Cell Forum Scenarios A-J

Version: 009.06.02
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
Version: 009.06.02
10
Deadzone Is 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.

Version: 009.06.02
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 1km 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.

Version: 009.06.02
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.
Macro Node B utilisation as percentage of total
power
Macro Node B maximum Tx power
Macro Node B Tx power
Antenna gain
Feeders and cable losses
Tx EIRP
Table 6-1
Units
%
Comments
43
40
dBm
dBm
17
3
54
dBi
dB
dBm
Ptx_max
Ptx_m= Ptx_max +
10*log(0.5)
Gm
Lc
EIRP_m=Ptx_m+Gm-Lc
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
Table 6-2
Value
50
Value
1000
Unit
m
Comments
d_mu
30
hb
1.5
hM
125.75
dB
dBi
PL_m is calculated from the Okumura-Hata Model, + 5dB

window loss
Gue
dBi
Lc_u
-79.75
dBm
Prx_m=eirp_m-PL_m+Gue-Lc_u
Link budget for the received power from macro Node B to UE
The value Prx_m in Table 6-2 is the power due to the macrocell at the scenario
distance (1km), and takes account of the propagation, plus an allowance for the
window loss (5dB).
The femtocell assumptions are presented in Table 6-3. Note that three types of
femtocell are assumed with the defined femto transmit power classes (10dBm, 15dBm
and 21dBm).

Version: 009.06.02
13
Femtocell max transmit power
Femtocell antenna gain

Femtocell feeders/connector
losses
Maximum transmit EIRP
P-CPICH power relative to

maximum power
P-CPICH transmit EIRP
Table 6-3
Value
10
15
21
0
1
Unit
dBm
Comments
Ptx_f for the three power classes modelled
dBi
dB
Gf (same as UE)
Lc_f
9
14
20
10
dBm
eirp_f=Ptx_f+Gf-Lc_f, for the three power

classes modelled
pcp_pctage
-1
4
10
dBm
Eirp_pcp_f = eirp_f * pcp_pctage
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 6-2. We use the indoor propagation model ITU-R P.1238, assuming
a residential building and same floor operation, the femtocell characteristics from
Table 6-2 as well as the same UE characteristics as in Table 6-2. 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 6-2.
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 Figure
7-2 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

Version: 009.06.02
14
Figure 6-2
Received signal strengths at UE, from macrocell and femtocell.
Further, it can be seen that, based on Table 6-4, 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.
Chiprate
Bitrate of AMR voice call
Eb/No requirement for voice
connection
Ec/No requirement for voice
connection
Table 6-4
Value
3.84e6
12.2
+7
Unit
cps
kbps
dB
Comments
W
R
Eb/No
-18
dB
Ec/Io=Eb/No-10*log10(W/R)
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.
In this work, SINR is calculated using the formula in [Hol06]:
Version: 009.06.02
15
Equation 6-1
where:
SF16 is the spreading factor,

PHS-DSCH is the received power of the HS-DSCH, summing over all active
HS-PDSCH 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.
Figure 6-3
HSDPA throughput vs. UE to femtocell distance for various femtocell Tx powers

Version: 009.06.02
16
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.

Version: 009.06.02
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 Figure 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).
Voice call service rate
Chip rate
Processing gain
Required Eb/No for voice
call
Frequency
Table 7-1
Value
12.2
3.84
24.98
8.3
Unit
kbps
Mbps
dB
dB
850
MHz
Comments
R
W
PG=10*log10(W/R)
Eb/No (performance requirement in
[TS25.104] for AWGN channel, no
diversity)
Fc (Band V)
Assumptions for Scenario B

Version: 009.06.02
18
MUE uplink transmitted

power
UE antenna gain
Connectors/body loss
MUE Tx EIRP
Distance MUE-femtocell
MUE-femtocell path loss
Femtocell antenna gain

Femtocell feeders/connector
losses
Uplink power received by
the femtocell from MUE at
different MUE-femtocell
separation distances
Table 7-2
Value
21
Unit
dBm
Comments
Ptx_mue (power class 4)
0
3
18
5, 10, 15
50.16 (@5m)
58.59(@10m)
63.52 (@15m)
0
1
dBi
dB
dBm
m
dB
Gue
Lue
eirp_mue=Ptx_mue+Gue-Lue
d_mue
PL_mue, Indoor to indoor path
loss model , where d=d_mue,
f=fc
dBi
dB
Gf
Lf
-33.16(@5m)
-41.59(@10m)
-46.52(@15m)
dBm
Prx_mue=eirp_muePL_mue+Gf- Lf
MUE link budget at the femtocell receiver
In Table 7-3, 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
15
Units
m
Comments
d_fue
63.51
dB
Eb/N0 requirements
for a voice call
Processing Gain
Noise power
FUE received power in
order to obtain
required Eb/N0 for
different MUE
distances (d_mue)
8.3
dB
PL_fue
Indoor to indoor path loss model
(d=d_fue, f=fc)
Eb/No_fue [TS25.104]
24.98
-103
-49.84 (@5m)
-58.27(@10m)
-63.20 (@15m)
dB
dBm
dBm
PG_fue
PN from [TS25.942]
Prx_fue is calculated from equation
[Hol06]:
FUE transmitted
power requirements
for different MUE
distances (d_mue)
17.68 (@5m)
9.25 (@10m)
4.32 (@15m)
dBm
Ptx_fue=Prx_fue-Gue+Lue+PL_fue-Gf+Lf
Distance between FUE

and femtocell
Path loss
Table 7-3
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.

Version: 009.06.02
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.

Version: 009.06.02
20
DL Tx power
10dBm
15dBm
20dBm
Table 7-4
Maximum co-channelDL
deadzone
60dB
65dB
70dB
MUE-femtocell distance(using ITUP.1238 indoor path loss model)

11.3m
17m
25.7m
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.
FUE uplink transmitted power
UE antenna gain
Connectors/body loss
FUE Tx EIRP
Distance FUE-femtocell
FUE-femtocell path loss
MUE distance from femtocell
MUE-femtocell separation
MUE power at femtocell (see Table
7-2 for d_mue=10)
Noise level
E-DPDCH Ec/No
Value
21
0
3
18
5
50.16
Unit
dBm
dBi
dB
dBm
m
dB
21
10
-41.59
dBm
m
dBm
-103
dBm
dB

Version: 009.06.02
Comments
Ptx_fue
Gue
Lue
eirp_fue=Ptx_fue+Gue-Lue
d_fue
PL_fueIndoor to indoor path loss
model(d=d_fue, f=fc)
Ptx_mue
d_mue
Prx_mue
N0
21
-2.57
Table 7-5
Link budget for HSUPA
The simulation results in Figure 8-3 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).

Version: 009.06.02
22
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).

Version: 009.06.02
23
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.

Version: 009.06.02
24
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.

Version: 009.06.02
25
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
in-house 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 8-2 below shows that path loss is dependent on the area within the house.

Version: 009.06.02
26
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

Version: 009.06.02
27
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.
1. Femto being 100 metres away from macrocell
10. Femto being 1,000 metres away from macrocell.
8.2
Analysis
Macrocell configuration:
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)
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 (i.e. 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

Version: 009.06.02
28
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.
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
Version: 009.06.02
29
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.

Version: 009.06.02
30
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.

Version: 009.06.02
31
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 (ie. 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
Units
Sensitivity @
antenna connector
-121
dBm
Pue_rec
UE Service Rate
12.20
kbps
Chip rate
3.84
MHz
UE Processing Gain
24.98
dB
PG
= 10*log(W/R)
Required EbNo
8.30
dB
EbNo
DCH performance without rx diversity

(see [FF09])
noise floor
-104.32
dB
nf_ant
= Pue_rec +PG -EbNo
Table 9-1
Comment
3GPP reference sensitivity level for
Wide Area Node B
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).
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

Version: 009.06.02
32
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.

Version: 009.06.02
33
Frequency
Bandwidth
Thermal Noise
Density
Receiver Noise
Figure
Receiver Noise
Density
Receiver Noise
Power
Loading
Noise Rise due to
Loading
Value
12K2
2Mbps
Voice
HSUPA
850.00
850.00
3.84
3.84
-174.00
174.00
Units
Comments
MHz
MHz
dBm/Hz
F
B
tnd
8.00
8.00
dB
NF
-166.00
-166.00
dBm/Hz
rnd
= tnd +NF
-100.16
-100.16
dBm
rnp
=rnd +10*log(B*1e6)
70.00
70.00
5.23
5.23
dB
IM
= -10*log(1-L/100)
-94.93
-94.93
dBm
trnp
=rnp +IM
12.2
kbps
3.84
MHz
24.98
dB
PG
Required EbNo
8.30
dB
EbNo
Required EcNo
-16.68
dB
-111.61
-94.93
dB
Pfmin
120
120
dB
DLcov
8.39
21
dBm
Pfue
Femto Receiver
Noise
Floor
Femto UE
Service Rate
Chip rate
Femto UE
Processing
Gain
Minimum
Required
Signal Level for
Femto
UE
Femto UE Path
loss to
Femto
Femto UE Tx
Power
Table 9-2
Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B
9.2.2
Macro Node B Noise Rise
= 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 10-3), 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

Version: 009.06.02
34
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.
Node B Antenna Gain
Value
12K2
2Mbps
Voice
HSUPA
17
17
dBi
Gant
Feeder/Connector Loss
dB
Lf
104.32
-104.32
dBm
nf_ant
Femto UE Tx Power
8.39
21
dBm
Pfue
UE Antenna Gain
dBi
Gmant
Femto UE Tx EIRP
8.39
21
dBm
Pfue_eir
p
Window/Wall Loss
dB
Lw
Path loss to Macro Node

B
130.77
130.77
dB
Ltot
=1000m OkumuraHata(Node B
at30m and mobile at 1.5m)
Femto UE Interference
@
macro antenna
108.38
-95.77
dB
Pfue_rec
= Pfue_eirp Ltot + Gant

Lf
Rise above noise floor
-4.06
8.55
dB
Pfue_rec- nf_ant
Noise rise
1.44
9.12
dB
NR
=10*log( 1+ 100.1*R))
Noise Floor at antenna

connector
Table 9-3
Fade Margin
Comments
[FF09]
Table 9-1
=Pue Gmant +m
Noise rise calculation for Scenario D (femto UE is transmitting at 8.39dBm and

21dBm1000m 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
Required EcNo
Units
Value
12K2
850
3.84
-174.00
5.00
-169.00
-103.16
50.00
3.01
-100.15
-16.68
10
Value
HSUPA
850
3.84
-174.00
5.00
-169.00
-103.16
50.00
3.01
-100.15
Units
MHz
MHz
dBm/Hz
dB
dBm/Hz
dBm
%
dB
dBm
B
tnd
NF
rnd
rnp
L
IM
trnp
0.00
dB
EcNo
10
dB

Version: 009.06.02
Comments
= tnd + NF
=rnd +10*log(B*1e6)
=-10*log(1-L/100)
= rnp +IM
= EbNo - PG for 12k2
(see EbNo
in Table 9-2)
HSUPA
rates of ~ 2Mbps
[Hol06]
35
Antenna gain
Minimum Required Signal
Level
Macro UE Path loss to

macro
Macro UE Tx Power
Table 9-4
9.3
Value
17
3
-120.83
130.77
9.94
Value
17
3
Units
dBi
dB
Comments
Gant
Lf
-104.15
dB
Pfmin
130.77
dB
DLcov
21
dBm
Pfue
= Trnp Gant +Lf +EcNo

+m
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:
9.4
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.
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.
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 inservice femto UE is at the verge of the femtocell; thereafter, uplink
interference to a macrocell from this UE is avoided.

Version: 009.06.02
36
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:
1.
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.
11. 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.
Figure 10-1
Scenario E. Adjacent femto with UEs connected to each AP
We also assume two cases for macrocells: that the femtocells are or are not deployed
in the corresponding residential premises where macrocell coverage is present.
Interference and performance degradation to the home user (ie. UE1) from the
presence of UE2 and the macrocell is analysed in this section.

Version: 009.06.02
37
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.
Figure 10-2
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.

Version: 009.06.02
38
Figure 10-3
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
Macrocell location = -500, -500
Macrocell antenna height = 25m.
Apartment layout:
Two-story building, height = 7m.
Femto access 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

Version: 009.06.02
39
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%.
Figure 10-4
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.

Version: 009.06.02
40
Figure 10-5
10.3
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.

Version: 009.06.02
41
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 contribution 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

Version: 009.06.02
42
AP2 has 50% loading in the uplink.
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 AP1
50
()
DL load factor of AP2
50(
)
RSCPAP1 RSCPAP 2
10.6
dB
The interference at AP1

(Rx)
104.4
Noise floor at AP1 (PN)
-100
Noise rise due to

interference (NRinterfer)
1.3
=-108+EbNo-G+NF
=-10*log(1-Load)
According to formula(2)
dBm
dBm
=No+NF
PN
Rx
dB
Table 11-1
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 Table 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.

Version: 009.06.02
43
In order to maintain a voice call, the transmit power of UE2 connected to AP2 can be
calculated as follows:
The interference from UE2 to AP1 (InterfUE2_AP1) can be calculated as follows:
Then the interference from UE2 to AP1 can be derived as follows:
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 at 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.

Version: 009.06.02
44
11.3
Conclusions
The closer from UE2 to AP1, the greater interference from UE2 to AP1.
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.

Version: 009.06.02
45
11.4
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.

Version: 009.06.02
46
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 12-1 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 contribution, 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).

Version: 009.06.02
47
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)
Figure 12-2
12.2.3
(b) with downlink interference

from adjacent-channel macrocell
(right)
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.
Theoretical Analysis
value
43
50
unit
dBm
%
40
17
dBm
dBi
1
5
km
dB
Path loss from UE to Macro NodeB (PL1)

Adjacent channel selectivity of the UE
receiver
(ACS)
UE Antenna Gain (AntG_UE)
131
dB
33
dB
dBi
Noise level at UE receiver from Macro

NodeB
-110
dBm
Maximum Macro Node B Transmit Power

Macro Node B Loading
Macro NodeB output power
(TxPowerMacroNodeB)
Macro Node B Antenna Gain
(GtMacroNodeB)
Distance from UE to Macro NodeB
Window loss

Version: 009.06.02
=Okumura-Hata propagation loss

+window loss
=TxPowerMacroNodeB +
GtMacroNodeB - PL - ACS-BLAntG_UE
48
Table 12-1
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.

Version: 009.06.02
49
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 13-1 illustrates the interference Scenario H.
Figure 13-1
Illustration of the interference Scenario H

Version: 009.06.02
50
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 850MHz (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)
Version: 009.06.02
51
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.

Version: 009.06.02
52
Ref.
Value
Units
Formula
0.003
-25.00
0.00
mW
dBm
dBi
Input, power allocation
-3.00
0.00
-28.00
dB
dB
dBm
-174.00
12.00
dBm/Hz
dB
Input
Input
H
I
Body loss
Cable loss
Transmitter EIRP
Receiver (Femtocell)
Thermal noise
density
Receiver noise figure
Receiver noise
density
Receiver noise power
Input, omni-directional
antenna pattern.
Input
Input
a+b+c+d
-162.00
-96.16
dBm/Hz
dBm
J
K
L
Interference margin
Required Eb/N0
Required Ec/I0
-3.00
8.30
-16.68
dB
dB
dB
f+g
h + 10*log(3840000)
Input, corresponding to
50% load
[FF09].
Input [TS25.104].
Includes the SF gain.
i + l - j, minimum
requirement is -107
Receiver sensitivity
Receiver antenna
gain
Cable loss
Slow fading margin
Soft handover gain
-109.84
dBm [TS25.104]
0.00
0.00
-8.00
0.00
dBi
dB
dB
dB
Fast fading margin

Allowed propagation
loss for cell range
According to ITU P.1238
indoor loss
Cell range
0.00
dB
Input
Input
Input
Input, SHO is disabled in
the Femto AP.
Input
73.84
db
e-m-n+o+p+q+r+s
25.22
model [FF09].
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
N
O
P
Q
R
S
Description
Transmitter (UE)
Transmit power
As above in dBm
Antenna gain
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
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 13.2. 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
Version: 009.06.02
53
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 eg. as suggested in [R4-071578].
Figure 13-2
Minimum separation between Femtocell and MUE to avoid blocking, for a given
MUE
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
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 13-3 illustrates the variation in E- DPDCH Ec/No measured at the femto
Version: 009.06.02
54
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.
Figure 13-3
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.

Version: 009.06.02
55
Figure 13-4
Required average FUE transmit power level to meet HSUPA throughput

requirements.

Version: 009.06.02
56
Figure 13-5
13.3
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

Version: 009.06.02
57
transmitting at high power increases at the macrocell edge, HSUPA throughput at

femtocell is expected to deteriorate in this interference scenario.
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
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.

Version: 009.06.02
58
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

Version: 009.06.02
59
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]:
Services
AMR 12.2 kbps voice
14.4 Mbps HSDPA.

Femtocell parameters
Static maximum total transmit power, including control and traffic channels,
Pmax = 10, 15, 20 [dBm]
Downlink frequency = 850 MHz.

Macrocell parameters
Max 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 15-2 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).

Version: 009.06.02
60
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.

Version: 009.06.02
61
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
suggests that maximum transmit power of a femtocell should be limited to 10 dBm for
the adjacent channel deployment scenario [R4-090940].
Figure 14-3
Maximum MNB - MUE separation as a function of femtocell MUE separation,

assuming AMR voice service
Femtocell transmit power (dBm)

10
Max. Macro NB MUE separation (km)

1.0
15
0.7
20
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

Version: 009.06.02
62
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.

Version: 009.06.02
63
Parameter
Channel model
Ioc [dBm]
Ec / Ior [dB] [TS25.133]
Ior / Ioc [dB]
Value
PA3 (Pedestrian A)
-60
-6, -3
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 ( I / I ) 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.
Figure 14-4
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
Version: 009.06.02
64
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.
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
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.

Version: 009.06.02
65
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 15-1. 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 derived based on the assumption that the
sensitivity of the Wide macro Node B for 12k2 voice service at the time is equal to -

Version: 009.06.02
66
121 dBm (ie. 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 micro Node B. The noise floor calculation is shown in
Table 15-1.

Version: 009.06.02
67
Value
Units
Sensitivity @ antenna
connector
-121
dBm
Pue_rec
UE Service Rate
Chip rate
UE Processing Gain
12.20
3.84
24.98
kbps
MHz
dB
R
W
PG
Required EbNo
8.30
dB
EbNo
= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without rx diversity
(see [FF09])
Noise floor
-104.32
dB
nf_ant
= Pue_rec +PG -EbNo
Table 15-1
Comment
3GPP reference sensitivity level for
Wide Area Node B
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
Value
12K2
2Mbps
Voice
HSUPA
850.00
850.00
3.84
3.84
-174.00 174.00
Units
Comments
MHz
MHz
dBm/Hz
F
B
tnd
8.00
8.00
dB
NF
-166.00
-166.00
dBm/Hz
rnd
= tnd +NF
Under the same RF conditions, a 21 dBm class femtocell will provide larger downlink
coverage than a 15dBm class or a 10dBm class femto.

Version: 009.06.02
68
Receiver Noise Power

Loading
Noise Rise due to
Loading
Value
12K2
2Mbps
Voice
HSUPA
-100.16 -100.16
70.00
70.00
Units
Comments
dBm
%
rnp
L
=rnd +10*log(B*1e6)
5.23
5.23
dB
IM
= -10*log(1-L/100)
-94.93
-94.93
dBm
trnp
=rnp +IM
12.2
kbps
3.84
MHz
24.98
dB
PG
Required EbNo
8.30
dB
EbNo
Required EcNo
-16.68
dB
-111.61
-94.93
dB
Pfmin
120
8.39
120
21
dB
dBm
DLcov
Pfue
Femto Receiver
Noise
Floor
Femto UE Service
Rate
Chip rate
Femto UE Processing
Gain
Minimum Required
Signal Level for
Femto
UE
Femto UE Path loss
to femto
Femto UE Tx Power
Table 15-2
Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B
15.2.2
Macro Node B Noise Rise
= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without
rx diversity
[FF09]
EbNo PG for 12K2
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.
Node B Antenna Gain

Noise Floor at antenna
connector
Femto UE Tx Power
UE Antenna Gain
Femto UE Tx EIRP
12K2
Voice
17
3
Value
2Mbps
HSUPA
17
3
Unit
s
dBi
dB
Comments
Gant
Lf
[FF09]
104.32
-104.32
dBm
nf_ant
Table 16-1
8.39
0
8.39
21
0
21
dBm
dBi
dBm
Pfue
Gmant
Pfue_eir
=Pue Gmant +m

Version: 009.06.02
69
Value
12K2
2Mbps
Voice
HSUPA
p
Lw
Ltot
33
dB
ACS
-128.77
dB
-24.45
.02
dB
dB
Pfue_re
c
R
NR
Path loss to Macro Node

B
130.77
130.77
33
141.38
-37.06
8.6
10-4
Femto UE Interference @
macro antenna
connector
Rise above noise floor
Noise rise
Table 15-3
15.3
Comments
dB
dB
Window/Wall Loss
Adjacent Channel
Selectivity
Unit
s
at30m and mobile at 1.5m)
+Lw
Adjacent Channel selectivity
(+/5MHz)
= Pfue_eirp Ltot + Gant
Lf - ACS
=Pfue_rec- nf_ant
=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
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.
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.
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.

Version: 009.06.02
70
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 done 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.
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.
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 (eg. see [Kob92, Stav03, Dav97]).

Version: 009.06.02
71
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.
SIB3
SIB11
Table 16-1
SIB/Parameter
Qqualmin
Sintrasearch
Sintersearch
Qhyst+Qoffset
Qqualmin
Macro
-18dB
10dB
NA
HNB cells: -50dB
Macro cells: 3dB
HNB cells: -12dB
Macro cells: not
needed
HNB
-18dB
4dB
HNB cells: 3dB
Macro cells: 5dB
Not needed
Parameters for the co-channel idle cell reselection procedure

Version: 009.06.02
72
16.3.2
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 16-2 and Table 16-3 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 16-2 and Table 16-3 closely matchs 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 161 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
pilot
MUEs unable to
acquire macro pilot
Table 16-2
Pmin=-20dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
Pmin=-10dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
Pmin=0dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
3.9%
1.9%
0.5%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
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
MUEs moved to
another carrier
HUEs unable to camp
on own HNB
HUEs switched to
Pmin=-20dBm,
Pmax=10dBm
9.7%
Pmin=-10dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
13.5%
Pmin=0dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
25.5%
9.6%
4.9%
2.4%
7.7%
3.6%
1.1%
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.

Version: 009.06.02
73
macro on shared
carrier
HUEs moved to
another carrier
1.9%
1.3%
1.3%
Table 16-3
Coverage statistics for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and calibrated
HNB transmit power
Figure 16-1
In variance of HNB calibrated Tx Power in the two frequencies
16.3.3
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 15.2. 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

Version: 009.06.02
74
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.
Figure 16-2
DL user throughput distribution under different minimum powers, User

Throughput Distributions, 10 MUEs, 24 HUEs

Version: 009.06.02
75
Figure 16-3
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.
16.3.4
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 850MHz, and results in nearly the same transmit
power distribution on HNBs as that in 2 GHz.
16.3.5
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 15.2.
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.

Version: 009.06.02
76
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:
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.

Version: 009.06.02
77
Figure 16-4
HUE uplink throughput distribution

Version: 009.06.02
78
Figure 16-5
MUE uplink throughput distribution

Version: 009.06.02
79
Figure 16-6
Transmit power distribution

Version: 009.06.02
80
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, 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.

Version: 009.06.02
81
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.
16.3.6
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.

Version: 009.06.02
82
17. Summary of Findings

Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
AMacrocell
Downlink
Interference
to the
Femtocell
UE Receiver
When a strong macro signal is

present, customers already
obtain excellent service; adding a
co-channel 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.
BMacrocell
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.
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.
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

Version: 009.06.02
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 zonalbased propositions.
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
83
MUE call may be dropped.
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 macrousers are in the proximity of
femtocells.

Version: 009.06.02
84
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
CFemtocell
Downlink
Interference
to the
Macrocell
UE Receiver
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.
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 16)
that the total capacity of the
network (macro + femto) may
increase a hundredfold.
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
Version: 009.06.02
85
technique for delivering highspeed 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 conclude that small cells
like femto cells are an optimum
complimentary technique to
macro cells for addressing high
data usage.

Version: 009.06.02
86
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 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 [R4-071578].
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 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.
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
EFemtocell
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.
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.
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
Version: 009.06.02
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.
87
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.
Scenario
Conclusions

Version: 009.06.02
Impacts
88
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
FFemtocell
UE Uplink
Interference
to Nearby
Femtocell
Receivers
The following conclusions can be

drawn:
In typical cases, both wanted and

Aggressor femtocells should have
dynamically optimised coverage to
their respective UE; hence, this cochannel scenario is unlikely to occur.
The closer from 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:
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.
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.
G Macrocell
Downlink
Interference
to the
adjacent
channel
Femtocell
Receiver
Both theoretical analysis and

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

Version: 009.06.02
There is no impact.
89
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
HMacrocell
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.

Version: 009.06.02
90
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
IFemtocell
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.
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.
We have also analysed HSDPA

performance under this
interference scenario using linkbudget 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.
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.
Thus, it is not apparent whether

downlink interference from
femtocell will significantly
deteriorate HSDPA performance
at the MUE.

Version: 009.06.02
91
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
JFemtocell
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 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.
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.
Consequently, there is negligible

impact to the adjacent channel
macro.
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.
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.
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.
In summary, HNB deployment

continues to provide expected
benefits in 850 MHz band as
well.

Version: 009.06.02
92
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.

Version: 009.06.02
93
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, R4070969, 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] [R4071554] [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] [R4080409] [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, R4-070969, June
2007.
Version: 009.06.02
94
[R4-070970 [R4-071231] [R4-071578] [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] [R4-080154]
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 coexistence 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]
Version: 009.06.02
95
19.9
Scenario I
Title: Femtocell Downlink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071211] [R4-071231] [R4-071263] [R4-071540] [R4071554] [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.
#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] [R4071941] 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]

Version: 009.06.02
96
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 [R4070969]
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
Power
Power
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)
Corresponding co channel deadzone less

33dB ACS loss
1.5 m
1m
30 m
850 MHz
Indoor to indoor path loss modelling

Indoor to outdoor path loss modelling
ITU P.1238 [ITU1238]

Okumura-Hata [COST231] + Wall/Window
loss (d > 1 km)
Okumura-Hata [COST231] (d > 1 km)
Okumura-Hata [COST231] + Wall/Window
Outdoor to outdoor path loss modelling

Outdoor to indoor path loss modelling

Version: 009.06.02
Apartment 10m by 10m

House 15 by 15m
97
loss (d > 1 km)

Table 20-1
20.2
Recommended simulation parameters
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:
The parameters in the above expressions stand for:
The range of validity of OH is as follows:

Version: 009.06.02
98
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:
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
Version: 009.06.02
99
Where d is the distance in m.

Other models used in this section are similar to those in [R4-071617].

Version: 009.06.02
100
References
[FF08] Small Cell Forum, Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells, December
2008. 008.01.02 scf.io/doc/008
[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, L2920, 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.14113: 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.
Version: 009.06.02
101
[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.
[TS25.101] 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.
[TS25.104] 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] R4-070825, "Home BTS consideration and deployment scenarios for
UMTS", Orange, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43, May 2007.
[R4-070969] R4-070969, Home B output power, Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working
Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, R4-070969, June 2007.
[R4-070970]R4-070970, "Initial simulation results for Home Node B receiver
sensitivity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, June
2007.
[R4-070971] 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] R4-071185, "The analysis for Home NodeB receiver blocking
requirements", Huawei, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44, August
2007.
[R4-071211] R4-071211, "Recommendations on transmit power of Home NodeB",
Alcatel-Lucent, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44, August 2007.
[R4-071231] R4-071231, "Open and Closed Access for Home NodeBs", "Nortel,
Vodafone", , 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44, August 2007.
[R4-071253] 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] 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] 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.

Version: 009.06.02
102
[R4-071554] 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]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] R4-071617, HNB and HNB-Macro Propagation Models, Qualcomm
Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
[R4-071618]R4-071618, "Home Node B HSDPA Performance Analysis", Qualcomm
Europe, 3GPP TSG- RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
[R4-071619] 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] 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.
[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.
#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
[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.

Version: 009.06.02
103
[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 TSGRAN 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
[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
[R4-080154] R4-080154, Ericsson, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Macro
NodeB uplink interference within the block of flats scenario", 3GPP TSG-RAN Working
[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.
[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 co-channel
interference from an un-coordinated UE on the Home Node B, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.

Version: 009.06.02
104

009 Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

009 Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

SMALL CELL FORUM

Interference management in UMTS femtocells

Solving the HetNet puzzle

SMALL CELL FORUM

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

Femtocell downlink power if femtocells transmit inappropriately loudly, then

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Small Cell

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

Impact of Femtocell interference on HSDPA .......................... 62

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

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

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

Scenario relationships ..................................................................... 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link budget for HSUPA ...................................................................22

Macro Node B noise floor ................................................................32

Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B ................................34

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

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

Femtocell Sensitivity and Noise Rise at AP1 .......................................43

Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE

Uplink radio link-budget for AMR 12.2 kbps RAB ................................53

Maximum Macro NB MUE separation for a given maximum

UE receiver performance requirement (HSDPA), [TS25.101] ...............64

Macro Node B noise floor ................................................................68

Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B ................................69

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

Parameters for the co-channel idle cell reselection procedure ..............72

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

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

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

Recommended simulation parameters ..............................................98

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

Small Cell Forum Scenarios A-J ........................................................ 9

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

HSDPA throughput vs. UE to femtocell distance for various femtocell

Interference Scenario B, voice call ...................................................21

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

Illustration of the interference analysis for Scenario C ........................26

Path loss model .............................................................................27

Interference Scenario D ..................................................................31

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

Figure 14-4 Maximum macrocell-MUE separation as a function of femtocell-MUE

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

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

What are Femtocell Access Points?

Typical femtocell deployment scenario.

What do femtocells offer?

Report title: Interference management in UMTS femtocells

What is the Small Cell Forum?

The Small Cell Forum has three main aims:

to promote adoption of femtocells by making information available to the

Objectives and Methods of this Paper

The principal objectives of this study are: