X - Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells-Feb10

The Femto Forum Femtocell Market Status
www.femtoforum.org
Interference
Management in
UMTS Femtocells
Published by the Femto Forum

February 2010
1 www.femtoforum.org back to contents

What is the Femto Forum?
The Femto Forum is the only organisation devoted to promoting femtocell technology
worldwide. It is a not-for-profit membership organisation, with membership open to providers
of femtocell technology and to operators with spectrum licences for providing mobile services.
The Forum is international, representing more than 120 members from three continents and
all parts of the femtocell industry, including:
l Major operators
l Major infrastructure vendors
l Specialist femtocell vendors
l Vendors of components, subsystems, silicon and software necessary to create femtocells
The Femto Forum has three main aims:
l To promote adoption of femtocells by making available information to the industry and the
general public;
l To promote the rapid creation of appropriate open standards and interoperability for
femtocells;
l To encourage the development of an active ecosystem of femtocell providers to deliver

ongoing innovation of commercially and technically efficient solutions.
The Femto 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 femtocell market.
A full current list of Femto Forum members and further information is available at
www.femtoforum.org
Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells is published by the Femto Forum
© February 2010. All rights reserved.
www.femtoforum.org
telephone +44 (0)845 644 5823 • fax +44 (0)845 644 5824 • email info@femtoforum.org • PO Box 23 GL11 5WA UK
Femto Forum | Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells
Contents
1 Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 6
2 Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Femto Forum ............................................................... 8
2.1 What are Femtocell Access Points?................................................................................................. 8
2.2 What Do Femtocells Offer? ............................................................................................................. 9
2.3 What is the Femto Forum? ............................................................................................................ 10
3 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 11
3.1 Objectives and Methods of this Paper .......................................................................................... 11
4 Previous Work ................................................................................................................................... 13
5 Simulation Scenarios and Definitions ................................................................................................ 15
6 Abbreviations and Defined Terms ..................................................................................................... 19
7 Scenario A: Macrocell Downlink Interference to the Femtocell UE Receiver 20
7.1 Description..................................................................................................................................... 20
7.2 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 21
7.3 Extended scenario: HSDPA coverage............................................................................................. 25
7.4 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 26
8 Scenario B: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the Femtocell Receiver ........................................ 27
8.1 Description..................................................................................................................................... 27
8.2 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 27
8.2.1 HSUPA .................................................................................................................................... 31
8.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 33

8.3.1 Customer (MUE) impact ........................................................................................................ 34
8.3.2 Customer (FUE) Impact.......................................................................................................... 34
8.3.3 Mitigation techniques............................................................................................................ 34
9 Scenario C: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver ................................... 35

9.1 Description..................................................................................................................................... 35
9.2 Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 37
9.3 Scenario analysis and conclusions ................................................................................................. 39
10 Scenario D: Femtocell Uplink Interference to the Macrocell NodeB Receiver ................................. 40
10.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 40
10.2 Analysis of Scenario D - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA ........................................................................ 41
10.2.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 41
10.2.2 Macro Node B Noise Rise .................................................................................................. 43
10.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 46

10.4 Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 46
11 Scenario E: Femtocell Downlink Interference to nearby Femtocell UE Receiver.............................. 47
11.1 Description ............................................................................................................................... 47
11.2 Capacity Analysis.................................................................................................................... 48
11.3 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 51
© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 3

12 Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby Femtocell Receivers................................. 52

12.1 Description................................................................................................................................. 52
12.2 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 52
12.2.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 53
12.2.2 Analysis of Noise Rise received at the Victim AP............................................................... 53
12.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 56

12.4 Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 56
13 Scenario G: Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE Receiver ........ 57
13.1 Description................................................................................................................................. 57
13.2 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 57
13.2.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 58
13.2.2 Simulation Analysis ............................................................................................................ 58
13.2.3 Theoretical Analysis ........................................................................................................... 59
13.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 59

14 Scenario H: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the adjacent channel Femtocell Receiver ........... 60
14.1 Description................................................................................................................................. 60
14.2 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 61
14.2.1 Parameter settings ............................................................................................................ 61
14.2.2 Impact of MUE interference on AMR ................................................................................ 62
14.2.3 Impact of MUE interference on HSUPA............................................................................. 65
14.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 68

14.4 Femto System Impact ................................................................................................................ 68
14.5 Mitigation techniques................................................................................................................ 68
15 Scenario I: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the adjacent channel macrocell UE Receiver ........ 69
15.1 Description................................................................................................................................. 69
15.2 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................... 70
15.2.1 Parameter settings ............................................................................................................ 70
15.2.2 Impact of Femtocell interference on AMR service ............................................................ 72
15.2.3 Impact of Femtocell interference on HSDPA ..................................................................... 74
15.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 75

15.4 Customer (MUE) Impact ............................................................................................................ 76
15.5 Mitigation techniques................................................................................................................ 76
16 Scenario J: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to the adjacent channel Macrocell NodeB Receiver. 76
16.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 76
16.2 Analysis of Scenario J - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA ......................................................................... 77
16.2.1 Assumptions ...................................................................................................................... 77
16.2.2 Macro Node B Noise Rise .................................................................................................. 80
16.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 81

17 Downlink and Uplink Scenarios Modelling Power Control Techniques for Interference Mitigation 82
17.1 Modelling of Propagation loss ................................................................................................... 82
17.2 HNB transmit power calibration for 850 MHz ........................................................................... 82
17.3 Simulation results for Dense Urban Deployment...................................................................... 83
17.3.1 Idle Cell Reselection Parameters ....................................................................................... 83
17.3.2 Coverage Statistics at 850 MHz for Calibrated HNB Transmit Power ............................... 84
17.3.3 Downlink Throughput Simulations .................................................................................... 86
17.3.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 88
17.3.5 Uplink throughput simulations with adaptive attenuation ............................................... 88
17.3.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 93
18 Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................................... 94

19 Overall Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 105
20 Further Reading ............................................................................................................................... 106
20.1 Scenario A ................................................................................................................................ 106
20.2 Scenario B ................................................................................................................................ 106
20.3 Scenario C ................................................................................................................................ 106
20.4 Scenario D ................................................................................................................................ 107
20.5 Scenario E ................................................................................................................................ 107
20.6 Scenario F ................................................................................................................................ 107
20.7 Scenario G ................................................................................................................................ 108
20.8 Scenario H ................................................................................................................................ 108
20.9 Scenario I ................................................................................................................................. 108
20.10 Scenario J ................................................................................................................................. 109
20.11 Scenarios – Section 17 ............................................................................................................. 109
21 References ....................................................................................................................................... 110
22 Simulation Parameters and Path Loss Models ................................................................................ 115
22.1 Simulation parameters ............................................................................................................ 115
22.2 Path Loss Models ..................................................................................................................... 116
22.2.1 Okumura-Hata ................................................................................................................. 116
22.2.2 ITU-R P.1238 .................................................................................................................... 117
22.2.3 System Simulation (Section 17) Path Loss Models .......................................................... 118
23 Contact Information ........................................................................................................................ 119

1 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 W-CDMA as an air interface technology (other teams within Femto 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). An earlier study has been published with similar results for 2 GHz. 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 occur. In other cases, the extreme cases are avoided by uplink power-
capping, 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.

2 Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Femto Forum
2.1 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 operator’s network through the customer’s 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 2-1.
Figure 2-1: Typical femtocell deployment scenario.

2.2 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.
Backhaul via the end user’s fixed broadband connection: Femtocells will use the subscriber’s 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.

2.3 What is the Femto Forum?

The Femto Forum is the only organisation devoted to promoting femtocell technology worldwide. It is a not-
for-profit membership organisation, with membership open to providers of femtocell technology and to
operators with spectrum licences for providing mobile services. The Forum is international, representing
around 100 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 Femto 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 Femto 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 femtocell market. A
full current list of Femto Forum members and further information is available at www.femtoforum.org.

3 Introduction
3.1 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:

a) To develop an industry position on the interference risks from femtocell deployments.
b) To recommend mitigation techniques and any necessary associated RF parameters and
performance requirements, to ensure minimal disruption to the macro network or other
femtocells.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Two main steps were identified in order to accomplish the above goal:
a) 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.
b) 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. Non-authorised subscribers may suffer coverage and service impairment in
the vicinity of a closed-access femtocell (the so-called “deadzone”), which is important to assess.
6. 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.
7. This paper has limited itself in scope, according to perceived priorities, as follows:
a) It is exclusively concerned with W-CDMA as an air interface technology (other teams within
Femto Forum are looking at other air interfaces).
b) 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).
c) 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.

4 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 5.
Table 4-1:
Scenario 25.820 Summary of RAN4 conclusions

(this scenario
paper) id
A 4 Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as the femtocell
has sufficient transmit dynamic range.
B 3 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.
C 2 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.
D 1 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.
E 6 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.
F 5 It is difficult to avoid co-channel interference between CSG femtocells, and this
limits the interference reductions achieved by deploying the femtocell on a
separate carrier from the macro network. Again, interference management
techniques are required to manage femto-to-femto interference.
G 4 Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as the femtocell
has sufficient transmit dynamic range.

Scenario 25.820 Summary of RAN4 conclusions

(this scenario
paper) id
H 3 The femtocell receiver must reach a compromise between protecting itself
against uncoordinated interference from the macro UEs, and controlling the
interference caused by its own UEs towards the Macro Layer. This is generally an
easier compromise to arrive at with adjacent-channel deployments than it is
with co-channel.
I 2 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.
J 1 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.
In addition to the previous 3GPP analysis work, the Femto 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.

5 Simulation Scenarios and Definitions

The Femto 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.
Table 5-1: Femtocell Deployments in Shared Spectrum
Scenario Description
Macrocell Downlink Interference to A femtocell UE receiver, located on a table next to the apartment
the Femtocell UE Receiver (A) 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 A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment. Weak
Femtocell Receiver (B) 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 UE1 is connected to the macro network at the edge of macro
the Macrocell UE Receiver (C) 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 UE1 is located next to the apartment window, in direct bore sight
Macrocell Node B Receiver (D) of a macrocell (1 km distance). UE1 is connected to the femtocell
at the edge of its range, and is transmitting at full power.
Femtocell Downlink Interference to Two apartments are adjacent to each other. Femtocells (AP1 and
Nearby Femtocell UE Receivers (E) AP2) are located one within each apartment. The owner of AP2
visits their neighbour’s 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.
Femtocell Uplink Interference to Two apartments are adjacent to each other. Femtocells (AP1 and
Nearby Femtocell Receivers (F) AP2) are located one within each apartment. The owner of AP2
visits their neighbour’s 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 5-2: Femtocell Deployments in non-Shared Spectrum
Scenario Description
Macrocell Downlink Interference to A femtocell UE is located on a table next to the apartment window,
the adjacent-channel Femtocell UE in direct bore sight of a macrocell (1 km distance). The macrocell
Receiver (G) becomes fully loaded, while a femtocell UE is connected to the
femtocell at the edge of its range.
Macrocell Uplink Interference to the A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment. Weak
adjacent-channel Femtocell Receiver coverage of the macro network is obtained throughout the
(H) 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.
Femtocell Downlink Interference to Two users (UE1 and UE2) are within an apartment. UE1 is
the adjacent-channel Macrocell UE connected to a femtocell at the edge of coverage. UE2 is
Receiver (I) connected to the macrocell at the edge of coverage, and located
next to the femtocell transmitting at full power.
Femtocell Uplink Interference to the A femtocell is located in an apartment, in direct bore sight of a
adjacent-channel Macrocell NodeB macrocell (1 km distance). UE1 is connected to the femtocell at the
Receiver (J) edge of coverage, but next to the widow – thus, in the direct bore
sight of the macrocell antenna.
In addition to these extreme scenarios, we include shared-spectrum system level simulations specifically
modelling the mitigation of downlink interference and uplink noise rise by power control techniques (Section
16). These simulations also model the effect of femtocells on the total throughput and capacity of the
network.

The relationship between these scenarios and those already studied in RAN4 is summarised in the following
table and figure.
Victim
Macro Neighbour
Femto UE Femto AP Macro UE
NodeB Femto UE
DL Rx UL Rx DL Rx
UL Rx DL Rx
Macro NodeB A, G
DL Tx 4
Macro UE B, H
UL Tx 3
Aggressor
Femto AP C, I E
DL Tx 2 6
Femto UE D, J
UL Tx 1
Neighbour Femto UE F
UL Tx 5
A…F are the interference scenarios for co-channel deployments
G…J are the interference scenarios for adjacent-channel deployments
1…6 are the equivalent interference scenario IDs used in the 3GPP HNB analyses [TR25.820]

The following diagram illustrates and summarises the Femto Forum Scenarios A-J:
A,G
FUE D,J
Macro
FUE NodeB
F B,H
E MUE
UE Association
F C,I
Interference
path
F Femto AP
Apartments FUE Femto UE
MUE Macro UE

6 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
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.

7 Scenario A: Macrocell Downlink Interference to the Femtocell UE Receiver
7.1 Description
A UE is located on a table next to the apartment window that is 1 km distance away from a macrocell. The
macrocell is operating at 50% load, while the UE is connected to the femtocell (ie. FUE) at the edge of its
range. In this scenario the Victim link is the downlink from the femtocell to the FUE, while the Aggressor
transmitter is the downlink from the macrocell. This interpretation of Scenario A is summarised in Figure 7-1.
Figure 7-1: Scenario A

7.2 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.
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 7-1, which shows
the transmit EIRP of the macrocell. The link budget for the macrocell is defined in Table 7-2.

Table 7-1: Macro Node B assumptions and transmit EIRP calculation.
Value Units Comments
Macro Node B utilisation as percentage of total power 50 %
Macro Node B maximum Tx power 43 dBm Ptx_max
Macro Node B Tx power 40 dBm Ptx_m= Ptx_max + 10*log(0.5)
Antenna gain 17 dBi Gm
Feeders and cable losses 3 dB Lc
Tx EIRP 54 dBm EIRP_m=Ptx_m+Gm-Lc
Table 7-2: Link budget for the received power from macro Node B to UE.
Value Unit Comments
Distance macro
1000 m d_mu
nodeB to UE
Height macro
30 m hb
nodeB antenna
Height UE from
1.5 m hM
ground
PL_m is calculated from the Okumura-Hata Model, + 5dB window

Path loss 125.75 dB
loss
UE antenna gain 0 dBi Gue
UE connector and
3 dBi Lc_u
body losses
Macro nodeB -79.75

received power at dBm Prx_m=eirp_m-PL_m+Gue-Lc_u
UE
The value Prx_m in Table 7-2 is the power due to the macrocell at the scenario distance (1 km), and takes
account of the propagation, plus an allowance for the window loss (5dB).
The femtocell assumptions are presented in Table 7-3. Note that three types of femtocell are assumed with
the defined femto transmit power classes (10dBm, 15dBm and 21dBm).

Table 7-3: EIRP for the femtocell.
Value Unit Comments
10
Femtocell max transmit power 15 dBm Ptx_f for the three power classes modelled
21
Femtocell antenna gain 0 dBi Gf (same as UE)
Femtocell feeders/connector losses 1 dB Lc_f
9
eirp_f=Ptx_f+Gf-Lc_f, for the three power classes
Maximum transmit EIRP 14 dBm
modelled
20
P-CPICH power relative to

10 % pcp_pctage
maximum power
-1
P-CPICH transmit EIRP 4 dBm Eirp_pcp_f = eirp_f * pcp_pctage
10
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 7-2. We use the indoor propagation model ITU-R P.1238, assuming
a residential building and same floor operation, the femtocell characteristics from Table 7-3 as well as the
same UE characteristics as in Table 7-2. Figure 7-2 shows the femtocell P-CPICH power received at the UE,
and the power at the UE from the macrocell as taken from Table 7-2.
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

Figure 7-2: Received signal strengths at UE, from macrocell and femtocell.
Further, it can be seen that, based on Table 7-4, 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.
Table 7-4: Required Ec/No for voice connection.
Value Unit Comments
Chiprate 3.84e6 cps W
Bitrate of AMR voice call 12.2 kbps R
Eb/No requirement for voice

+7 dB Eb/No
connection
Ec/No requirement for voice

-18 dB Ec/Io=Eb/No-10*log10(W/R)
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].

7.3 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]:
P
S =
I S N1 F R H −D S S C
(1 − α ) Po +w Po n t+ hPn
6
e o
Equation 7-1
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,
• α 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 7-3.

Figure 7-3: HSDPA throughput vs. UE to femtocell distance

for various femtocell Tx powers.
It can be seen from Figure 7-3 that the maximum HSDPA throughput can be expected up to 25 m away from
the femto, even at the 10 dBm transmit power.
7.4 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.

8 Scenario B: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the Femtocell Receiver
8.1 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 8-1. In this case the Victim receiver belongs to the
femtocell access point (FAP), and the Aggressor transmitter is that of the nearby MUE.
Figure 8-1: Scenario B
8.2 Analysis
The general assumptions for the analysis of this scenario are presented in Table 8-1. The link budget for the
MUE is shown in Table 8-2; note that three separation distances between the MUE and the femtocell are
taken into account (5, 10 and 15m).

Table 8-1: Assumptions for Scenario B.
Value Unit Comments
Voice call service rate 12.2 kbps R
Chip rate 3.84 Mbps W
Processing gain 24.98 dB PG=10*log10(W/R)
Eb/No (performance requirement in

Required Eb/No for voice call 8.3 dB [TS25.104] for AWGN channel, no
diversity)
Frequency 850 MHz Fc (Band V)
Table 8-2: MUE link budget at the femtocell receiver.
Value Unit Comments
MUE uplink transmitted power 21 dBm Ptx_mue (power class 4)
Connectors/body loss 3 dB Lue
MUE Tx EIRP 18 dBm eirp_mue=Ptx_mue+Gue-Lue
Distance MUE-femtocell 5, 10, 15 m d_mue
50.16 (@5m) PL_mue, Indoor to indoor path

MUE-femtocell path loss 58.59(@10m) dB loss model , where d=d_mue,
63.52 (@15m) f=fc
Femtocell antenna gain 0 dBi Gf
Femtocell feeders/connector losses 1 dB Lf
Uplink power received by the -33.16(@5m)

femtocell from MUE at different -41.59(@10m) dBm Prx_mue=eirp_mue-PL_mue+Gf-
Lf
MUE-femtocell separation distances -46.52(@15m)
In Table 8-3, the FUE's minimum transmitted power requirement for holding a voice call is calculated. Note
that the power is well within the FUE's capabilities, even at the largest separation distance.

Value Units Comments
Distance between FUE and 15 m d_fue

femtocell
Path loss 63.51 dB PL_fue

Indoor to indoor path loss model
(d=d_fue, f=fc)
Eb/N0 requirements for a 8.3 dB Eb/No_fue

voice call [TS25.104]
Processing Gain 24.98 dB PG_fue
Noise power -103 dBm PN from [TS25.942]
FUE received power in order -49.84 (@5m) dBm Prx_fue is calculated from
to obtain required Eb/N0 for -58.27(@10m) equation [Hol06]:
different MUE distances -63.20 (@15m) PG fue ⋅ Prx , fue
(d_mue) (Eb / No ) fue =
Prx ,mue (d mue ) + PN
FUE transmitted power 17.68 (@5m) dBm Ptx_fue=Prx_fue-Gue+Lue+PL_fue-

requirements for different 9.25 (@10m) Gf+Lf
MUE distances (d_mue) 4.32 (@15m)
Table 8-3: FUE transmitter power requirements in order to hold a voice call
The values calculated in Table 8-3 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 8-2, the results are interpolated for different UE distances and power levels.
Note that the plot includes the downlink deadzones created by the femtocell, which affects the MUE.
Downlink deadzone assumptions are summarised in Table 8-4.

Table 8-4: Maximum co-channel DL deadzone created by the femtocell for MUEs, based on [R4-070969]
and assuming RSSI of -65dBm
DL Tx power Maximum co-channel MUE-femtocell

DL deadzone distance
(using ITU-P.1238 indoor
path loss model)
10dBm 60dB 11.3m
15dBm 65dB 17m
20dBm 70dB 25.7m
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 8-2: Interference Scenario B, voice call

8.2.1 HSUPA
In this section the affects of HSUPA are analysed. The link budget is shown in Table 8-5.
Table 8-5: Link budget for HSUPA
Value Unit Comments
FUE uplink transmitted power 21 dBm Ptx_fue
Connectors/body loss 3 dB Lue
FUE Tx EIRP 18 dBm eirp_fue=Ptx_fue+Gue-Lue
Distance FUE-femtocell 5 m d_fue
PL_fue
FUE-femtocell path loss 50.16 dB Indoor to indoor path loss model
(d=d_fue, f=fc)
MUE distance from femtocell 21 dBm Ptx_mue
MUE-femtocell separation 10 m d_mue
MUE power at femtocell (see Table 8-2

-41.59 dBm Prx_mue
for d_mue=10)
Noise level -103 dBm N0
Prx , fue
E-DPDCH Ec/No -2.57 dB (Ec / No ) fue =
Prx ,mue + N 0
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 8-3 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 R≥30% of max information bit rate
• Ec/No of 9.4dB: provides R≥70% 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).
Figure 8-3: HSUPA simulation, Scenario B. E-DPDCH Ec/No compared to throughput for RFC3.

The results in Figure 8-3 are mapped to the TS 25.104 throughput model for pedestrian A – no receiver
diversity. The results are shown in Figure 8-4. 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).
Figure 8-4: Throughput for HSUPA. 70% max bit rate for all FRCs.
8.3 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.
8.3.1 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.
8.3.2 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.
8.3.3 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.

9 Scenario C: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver
9.1 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 9-1: 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 9-2 below shows that path loss is dependent on the area within the house.
House Pathloss Map at 850MHz

10
-40
8
6
-50
4
Distance in meters
-60
2
0
-70
-2
-80
-4
-6
-90
-8
-100
-10
-10 -5 0 5 10
Distance in meters
Figure 9-2: Path loss model
The maximum indoor path loss is shown to be more than 90 dB in some locations. The minimum outdoor
path loss from an indoor Femto can be less than 60 dB. This will be a challenge for operators to balance good
indoor coverage while not causing excessive outdoor interference.
Studied in this section is a macrocell user (MUE) at cell edge, located in an apartment where an active
femtocell is operating with full capacity. Analysis is given for the following case:
For the MUE to detect the macrocell and camp on it, or to maintain a call, the P-CPICH Ec/No must be
sufficient. We assume a -20 dB threshold – ie. the received P-CPICH RSCP from the macro must be no more
than 20dB below the Rx P-CPICH RSCP of the femto. It is assumed that cell-edge PCPICH RSCP for the macro
is -103 dBm, and so we can infer that the femto PCPICH RSCP must be lower than -83dBm for the MUE to
camp on the macrocell. (Note that techniques for facilitating cell re-selection, such as the use of hysteresis,
cell re-selection parameters, HCS, HPLMN, etc, are not discussed here, and are beyond the scope of this
paper; the discussion in this paper is on the generic aspect of triggers for cell re-selection only.)
We have assumed two scenarios for the location of the femto relative to the macrocell: 100 metres and
1,000 metres away from the macro have been used. We have found that when the femto is deployed in an
area in close proximity to the macrocell (ie. 100 metres away), the maximum output power of the femto
should be increased beyond 100 mW in order to ensure operation in high coverage. Therefore, when we

study the 100 metres case, we assume the femto is able to radiate up to 125 mW, while maximum output
power is limited to 20 mW when the femto is deployed further away (ie. 1,000 metres).
Figure 9-3 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
2. Femto being 1,000 metres away from macrocell.
9.2 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.

MacroPercentage12k Macro Cell DL 12.2k Voice Power Requirement %

10 10
8 55 8 55
50 50
6 6
45 45
4 4
40 40
Distance in meters
Distance in meters
2 2
35 35
0 30 0 30
-2 25 -2 25
-4 20 -4 20
15 15
-6 -6
10 10
-8 -8
5 5
-10 -10
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
Distance in meters Distance in meters
Figure 9-3: 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 (ie. 1,000 metres away) and is behind
the building where the femto is deployed. In this case the MUE requires the macrocell
to transmit the radio link at a higher power to compensate for the high path loss
affecting the macro signal and the interference from the femtocell.
- When the MUE is in close proximity to the femtocell and the MUE is located inside the
house. In this case the wall loss is adding additional attenuation to the macro signal.
The following figures show the macro HSDPA throughput within the house in the two deployment scenarios
(based on how far the femto is from the macro).
Macro HSDPA User Throughput kbps for 1UE/Cell Macro HSDPA User Throughput kbps for 1UE/Cell
10 4000 10 4000
8 8
3500 3500
6 6
3000 3000
4 4
Distance in meters
Distance in meters
2500 2500
2 2
0 2000 0 2000
-2 -2
1500 1500
-4 -4
1000 1000
-6 -6
500 500
-8 -8
-10 0 -10 0
-10 -5 0 5 10 -10 -5 0 5 10
Distance in meters Distance in meters
Figure 9-4: MUE throughput with HSDPA for locations at 1,000 and 100 metres respectively.

9.3 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 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.

10 Scenario D: Femtocell Uplink Interference to the Macrocell NodeB Receiver
10.1 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 10-1 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 10.2, 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 Section10.4, a mitigation technique is suggested that would always ensure there is minimal
impact to macro Node Bs due to femtocell UEs.
10.2 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.
10.2.1 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 10-1.
Table 10-1: Macro Node B noise floor
Value Units Comment

Sensitivity @ 3GPP reference sensitivity level for
antenna connector -121 dBm Pue_rec Wide Area Node B
UE Service Rate 12.20 kbps R

Chip rate 3.84 MHz W
UE Processing Gain 24.98 dB PG = 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without rx diversity
Required EbNo 8.30 dB EbNo (see [FF09])
noise floor -104.32 dB nf_ant = Pue_rec +PG -EbNo
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 femto’s cell edge, and if the femtocell experiences a
noise rise, or its receiver is experiencing a blocking effect, caused by one of the following:
• A co-channel macro UE.

• An adjacent channel macro UE.

• Another femto UE located very close (~1m Free Space Loss) to the femtocell – eg. a laptop with a
3G data card doing a data upload on the same desk as the femtocell.
Subsequently, for the purposes of this scenario, the following assumptions are made:
• The femto is operating under extreme conditions, experiencing a total noise rise equivalent to
70% loading in the uplink.
• A 21 dBm class femto 1 is used in the scenario that can provide a coverage path loss of up to 120
dBs (path loss estimate based on minimum RSCP sensitivity of UE of -111 dBm and an 11 dBm
CPICH transmit power and assumption of negligible downlink interference from surrounding
Node Bs).
Based on these assumptions, the link budget in Table 10-2 estimates the likely femto UE uplink
transmission power at the femtocell edge of coverage for a 12K2 voice service and a 2Mbps HSUPA
service.
Table 10-2: Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B
Value
2Mbps
12K2 Voice HSUPA Units Comments
Frequency 850.00 850.00 MHz F
Bandwidth 3.84 3.84 MHz B
Thermal Noise Density -174.00 174.00 dBm/Hz tnd
Receiver Noise Figure 8.00 8.00 dB NF
Receiver Noise Density -166.00 -166.00 dBm/Hz rnd = tnd +NF
Receiver Noise Power -100.16 -100.16 dBm rnp =rnd +10*log(B*1e6)
Loading 70.00 70.00 % L
Noise Rise due to
Loading 5.23 5.23 dB IM = -10*log(1-L/100)
Femto Receiver Noise

Floor -94.93 -94.93 dBm trnp =rnp +IM
Femto UE Service Rate 12.2 kbps R
Femto UE Processing
Gain 24.98 dB PG = 10*log(W/R)
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

Value
2Mbps

Required EbNo 8.30 dB EbNo [FF09]
EbNo– PG for 12K2
Typical EcNo to achieve HSUPA rates
Required EcNo -16.68 0 dB of ~ 2Mbps [Hol06]
Minimum Required
Signal Level for Femto
UE -111.61 -94.93 dB Pfmin = trnp +EcNo
Femto UE Path loss to
Femto 120 120 dB DLcov
Femto UE Tx Power 8.39 21 dBm Pfue = min(21, max ((Pfmin + DLcov), -50)
10.2.2 Macro Node B Noise Rise
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 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.

Table 10-3 Noise rise calculation for Scenario D (femto UE is transmitting at 8.39dBm and 21dBm
1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service and 2Mbps HSUPA service)
Value
12K2
Voice HSUPA Units Comments
Node B Antenna Gain 17 17 dBi Gant [FF09]
Feeder/Connector Loss 3 3 dB Lf
Noise Floor at antenna
connector -104.32 -104.32 dBm nf_ant Table 10-1
Femto UE Tx Power 8.39 21 dBm Pfue

UE Antenna Gain 0 0 dBi Gmant
Pfue_eir
Femto UE Tx EIRP 8.39 21 dBm p =Pue – Gmant +m
Window/Wall Loss 5 5 dB Lw
dB Ltot =1000m Okumura-Hata(Node B
Path loss to Macro Node B 130.77 130.77 at30m and mobile at 1.5m) +Lw
Femto UE Interference @
macro antenna connector -108.38 -95.77 dB Pfue_rec = Pfue_eirp – Ltot + Gant –Lf
Rise above noise floor -4.06 8.55 dB R Pfue_rec- nf_ant
Noise rise 1.44 9.12 dB NR =10*log( 1+ 100.1*R))

Table 10-4 Macro UE Tx power 1,000m away from macro Node B receiver by window on a 12K2 voice
and 2Mbps HSUPA data service.
Value Value Units Comments

12K2 HSUPA
Frequency 850 850 MHz
Thermal Noise Density -174.00 -174.00 dBm/Hz tnd
Receiver Noise Density -169.00 -169.00 dBm/Hz rnd = tnd + NF
Loading 50.00 50.00 % L
Noise Rise due to Loading 3.01 3.01 dB IM =-10*log(1-L/100)
Macro Receiver Noise Floor -100.15 -100.15 dBm trnp = rnp +IM
-16.68 = EbNo - PG for 12k2 (see EbNo
in Table 10.2)
Typical EcNo to achieve HSUPA
Required EcNo 0.00 dB EcNo rates of ~ 2Mbps [Hol06]
Fade Margin 10 10 dB m
Antenna gain 17 17 dBi Gant
Minimum Required Signal -120.83
Level -104.15 dB Pfmin = Trnp –Gant +Lf +EcNo + m
130.77 =1000m Okumura-Hata(Node B
at 30m and mobile at 1.5m)
Macro UE Path loss to macro 130.77 dB DLcov +Lw
9.94 = min(21, max ((Pfmin + DLcov),
Macro UE Tx Power 21 dBm Pfue -50)

10.3 Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn:
 It is unlikely that a femto UE will be transmitting at maximum power, due to the relatively
smaller coverage of the femto compared to the macro.
 When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a 12k2 voice
service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will be transmitting in the region of
8.39 dBm and will cause a noise rise of approximately 1.44 dB. Further, a macro UE on a 12k2
voice service at the same location as the femto UE will transmit at 9.94 dBm and, hence, will
lead to a similar amount of noise rise.
 When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a femto UE
with 2Mbps HSUPA data service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will cause
a noise rise amounting to approximately 8.55 dB; however, it should also be noted that a macro
UE operating at the same position and on the same service (with the same service requirement)
is expected to cause the same amount of noise rise.
10.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made. They will help ensure harmonious coexistence of femtocells and
macro Node Bs:
 It is desirable to limit the allowed maximum transmission power of a femto UE, to avoid a noise
rise to the Macro Layer.
 Assuming the femtocell has certain capabilities, then:
o 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].
o The femtocell could also handover a femto UE to a macrocell if an in-service femto UE is at

the verge of the femtocell; thereafter, uplink interference to a macrocell from this UE is
avoided.

11 Scenario E: Femtocell Downlink Interference to nearby Femtocell UE Receiver.
11.1 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.
2. Two houses are detached with a femtocell being deployed within each house. The two femtocells
being considered are denoted AP1 and AP2. Each femtocell supports a corresponding UE –
namely, UE1 and UE2 respectively. The assumption is that UE2 is not located in its own house,
but rather in the house where AP1 is operating. Therefore, UE2 is at the edge of coverage of its
own femtocell, but very close (<3m) to AP1 (ie. a foreign femtocell). The scenario assumes UE1 to
be the Victim, while UE2 has an active call supported by AP2.
AP1 AP2
UE1
UE2
Apartment 1 Apartment 2
Figure 11-1. 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.
11.2 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 Figures 11-2 and 11-3.
15
10
-5
-10
-15
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Fig u re 11-2. Ap a rtm e n ts P la n – Fla ts la yo u t.
In the second scenario contained in this section, the effect of neighbouring femtocell interference on the
central house (located at coordinates 0,0) is investigated. In cases where a macrocell is present, it is located
at coordinates -500m, -500m.

Village Plan
80
60
40
Y Coordinate in Meter
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

X Coordinate in Meter
Figure 11-3. 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 auto-configuration)
• 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 acess point is located on the ceiling
UE height = 1.5m
Penetration loss:
External wall = 15 dB
Window = 1 dB
Doors = 3 dB
Outer door = 30 dB.

Simulation assumption for case 2 – when houses are considered – is found in the section describing
Scenario C, but is not repeated here.
The first simulation result obtained when the femtos use a dedicated carrier – shown in Figure 11-4 below.
The graph provides the cumulative distribution of HSDPA throughput for the UEs when located in the various
locations (ie. flat or house). The results show the CDF for HSDPA throughput for UE1 in two cases:
- when the AP1 is operating in isolation (ie. AP2 is not there, and nor is UE2)
- when AP2 is operating in the adjacent location, and AP2 is connected to AP1 in active
call.
It is evident that the neighbouring femtocells (AP2) and the presence of UE2 do result in throughput
degradation to UE1.
It is shown that the performance degradation sustained by UE1 is greater in the case of apartment. In the
case of users in apartments, the statistics for UE1 getting full throughput drops from more than 90%, to just
over 40%.
1
Flat no Neighbour
Flat with Neighbour
0.9
House no Neighbour
House with Neighbour
0.8
0.7
Cumulative Distribution Function
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Throughput in kbps
Figure 11-4. 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 11-5.
0.9
0.8
0.7
Cumulative Distribution Function
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Flat at (500 500)
Flat at (100 0)
0.1
House at (500 500)
House at (100 0)
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Throughput in kbps
Figure 11-5. Shared carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput.
11.3 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.

12 Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby Femtocell Receivers
12.1 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 12-1 below.
Figure 12-1: 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.
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
For the purposes of analysis the following assumptions are also made:
 AP1 and AP2 have equal Maximum DL powers, and CPICH channel power ratio is 10%;
 both AP1 and AP2 have only one 12.2K voice service ongoing; DL load factors are at about 50%;
and
 AP2 has 50% loading in the uplink.
12.2.2 Analysis of Noise Rise received at the Victim AP
Table 12-1 Femtocell Sensitivity and Noise Rise at AP1
value Unit comment

Femtocell Noise Figure
8 dB Performance requirements taken from [2]
(NF)
UE Processing Gain (G) 25 dB =10*log(3.84MHz/12.2kbps)
Required Eb/No (EbNo) 7 dB
Sensitivity (S) -118 dBm =-108+EbNo-G+NF
UL load factor of AP2
50 %
(LoadUL)
Noise rise due to UL
3 dB =-10*log(1-LoadUL)
loading (NRload)
50
DL load factor of AP1 %
(α )
50(
DL load factor of AP2 %
β)
RSCPAP1 − RSCPAP 2 10.6 dB According to formula(2)
The interference at AP1 -

dBm =S+NRload+ RSCPAP1 − RSCPAP 2
(Rx) 104.4
Noise floor at AP1 (PN) -100 dBm =No+NF
Noise rise due to PN Rx
1.3 dB
= 10 * log(10 + 10 ) − PN
10 10
interference (NRinterfer)

The sensitivity of a femtocell is based on the assumption that the noise figure is 8dB [FF09]. The sensitivity
calculation is shown in Table 12-1.
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.
10^ ( RSCPAP 2 / 10)

Ec / Io = 10 * log = −18dB (1)
α% β%
* 10 RSCPAP1 / 10 + * 10 RSCPAP 2 / 10
10% 10%
RSCPAP1 − RSCPAP 2 = 10 * log 10 0.−10*∂.1*β (dB)

1.8
(2)
In order to maintain a voice call, the transmit power of UE2 connected to AP2 can be calculated as follows:
TxpowerUE 2 = S AP 2 + NRload + PathLossUE 2 _ AP 2 (3)
The interference from UE2 to AP1 (InterfUE2_AP1) can be calculated as follows:
Interf UE 2 _ AP1= TxpowerUE 2 − PathLossUE 2 _ AP1
Then the interference from UE2 to AP1 can be derived as follows:
Inter UE 2 _ AP1 = S AP 2 + NRload + PathLossUE 2 _ AP 2 − PathLossUE 2 _ AP1

= S AP 2 + NRload + ( Pcpich , AP 2 − RSCPUE 2, AP 2 ) − ( Pcpich , AP1 − RSCPUE 2, AP1 ) (4)
= S AP 2 + NRload + ( Pcpich , AP 2 − Pcpich , AP1 ) + ( RSCPUE 2, AP1 − RSCPUE 2, AP 2 ) dB
The link budget in Table 12-1 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.
Distance between AP1 and UE2 with the maximum interference
7.5
distance between UE2 and AP1(m)
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
distance between AP cells(m)

12.3 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.
12.4 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.

13 Scenario G: Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent-channel Femtocell UE Receiver
13.1 Description
In this scenario, there are two NodeBs, a macro NodeB and a Femto one (AP1); UE (UE1) is camping on the
femtocell – see Figure 13-1 below.
Figure 13-1: 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.
13.2 Analysis
Analytical analysis is carried out for the above scenario based on link-budget calculations and transceiver
performance requirements taken from [FF09].

13.2.1 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).
 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.
13.2.2 Simulation Analysis
(a) with no interference from macrocell (left) (b) with downlink interference from adjacent-channel macrocell (right)
Figure. 13-2 CPICH Ec/Io for Femto
 Okumura-Hata model + window loss used for macrocell path loss to UE (approximately 1km
distance).
 The simulation showed that an adjacent macrocell causes little downlink interference to a
femtocell.

13.2.3 Theoretical Analysis
Table 13-1 Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE in

this worst-case scenario
value unit
Maximum Macro Node B Transmit Power 43 dBm
Macro Node B Loading 50 %
Macro NodeB output power
40 dBm
(TxPowerMacroNodeB)
Macro Node B Antenna Gain (GtMacroNodeB) 17 dBi
Distance from UE to Macro NodeB 1 km
Window loss 5 dB
=Okumura-Hata propagation loss
Path loss from UE to Macro NodeB (PL1) 131 dB
+window loss
Adjacent channel selectivity of the UE receiver
33 dB
(ACS)
UE Antenna Gain (AntG_UE) 0 dBi
’=TxPowerMacroNodeB +
Noise level at UE receiver from Macro NodeB -110 dBm GtMacroNodeB - PL - ACS-BL-
AntG_UE
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.
13.3 Conclusions
 Both theoretical analysis and simulation results show that Femtocell UE experiences little
adjacent channel interference from an outdoor macrocell in most cases.

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

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 uplink frequency is assumed to be 850
MHz (Band V), and the antenna gains of the Femtocell and UEs are equal to unity. The frequency separation
between Femtocell UE (FUE) and Macrocell UE (MUE) is 5 MHz. The assumptions used in the analysis are
given below.
14.2.1 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].
14.2.2 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) 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 14-1. 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.
Table 14-1: Uplink radio link-budget for AMR 12.2 kbps RAB.
Ref. Description Value Units Formula
Transmitter (UE)
Transmit power 0.003 mW Input, power allocation

A As above in dBm -25.00 dBm
Input, omni-directional antenna
b Antenna gain 0.00 dBi pattern.
c Body loss -3.00 dB Input
d Cable loss 0.00 dB Input
e Transmitter EIRP -28.00 dBm a+b+c+d
Receiver (Femtocell)
Thermal noise
f density -174.00 dBm/Hz Input
g Receiver noise figure 12.00 dB Input
Receiver noise
h density -162.00 dBm/Hz f+g
i Receiver noise power -96.16 dBm h + 10*log(3840000)
Input, corresponding to 50% load
j Interference margin -3.00 dB [FF09].
k Required Eb/N0 8.30 dB Input [TS25.104].
l Required Ec/I0 -16.68 dB Includes the SF gain.
i + l - j, minimum requirement is -107
m Receiver sensitivity -109.84 dBm dBm [TS25.104].
Receiver antenna
n gain 0.00 dBi Input

o Cable loss 0.00 dB Input

p Slow fading margin -8.00 dB Input
q Soft handover gain 0.00 dB Input, SHO is disabled in the Femto AP.
r Fast fading margin 0.00 dB Input
Allowed propagation
s loss for cell range 73.84 dB e-m-n+o+p+q+r+s
According to ITU P.1238 indoor loss
t Cell range 25.22 m model [FF09].
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 14-2 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
14.2. Assuming that the HUE is transmitting at -15 dBm and the total loss of signal strength up to the macro
Node B is 110 dB (cell edge scenario), the received signal level will be -125 dBm. Adding ACS rejection of
63dB the received in-band signal strength will be equal to -188 dBm. Thus, noise rise at the macro Node B
due to FUE will be insignificant. However, noise rise at neighbouring femtocells could become important as
they will normally operate on the same frequency and may not be separated from each other by large
distances. Thus, it is important to ensure that femtocell receiver de-sensitisation 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].

Impact of adjacent channel interference on the Home Node B

3.5
Interfering signal level = -28 dBm
Interfering signal level = -18 dBm
Minimum Home Node B-MUE separation [m]
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
MUE transmit power level [dBm]
Figure 14-2: Minimum separation between Femtocell and MUE to avoid blocking, for a given MUE
transmit power level.
14.2.3 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 14-3 illustrates the variation in E-
DPDCH Ec/No measured at the femto receiver for a given MUE transmit power level. It is assumed that the
FUE to FAP path loss is fixed at 90 dB (coverage edge scenario). Results show that in order to achieve 70% of
max information rate, the average transmit power of FUE should be at least -3 dBm. Additionally, MUE
transmit power should be kept to below 2.2 dBm. Maximum allowed FUE transmit power level can be
signalled by the femtocell (eg. in RRC signalling), while MUE transmit power level cannot be controlled by

the femtocell. As the likelihood of MUE transmitting at high power increases at the macrocell edge, HSUPA
throughput at the femtocell is likely to deteriorate under this interference scenario.
Femto - MUE separation = 2 m

12
FUE Tx. Power = 5 dBm
10
8
2.8 Mbps (=70% of 4.095 Mbps)
FUE E-DPDCH Ec/No [dB]
4 FUE Tx. Power = 0 dBm
0 1.2 Mbps (=30% of 4.095 Mbps)
-2 FUE Tx. Power = -3 dBm
-4
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
Figure 14-3: E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level.
Figure 14-4 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 14-5 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.


10
R = 1.2 Mbps
Required average FUE transmit power level [dBm] 8 R = 2.8 Mbps
-2
-4
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
Figure 14-4: Required average FUE transmit power level to meet HSUPA throughput requirements.

12
10
FUE E-DPDCH Ec/No [dB]
8
2.8 Mbps (=70% of 4.095 Mbps)
4 1.2 Mbps (=30% of 4.095 Mbps)
2
FUE Tx. Power = -3 dBm
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 14-5: E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level.

14.3 Conclusions
This section has considered a simple analysis of the interference Scenario H based on link-budget
calculations and 3GPP specifications. Analysis considers impact of interference on two services – AMR 12.2
kbps voice, and 5 Mbps HSUPA.
The relationship between minimum FAP to MUE separation and MUE transmit power level has been derived.
It was found that if the MUE is transmitting at the maximum power of 21 dBm it needs to be separated from
the femtocell by around 3.2 m. This separation can be reduced further by employing Automatic Gain Control
(AGC) at the femtocell receiver. It has been shown that the minimum MUE to FAP separation can be reduced
to 1.5 m if a reduction in gain of 10 dB is applied by AGC. The resulting loss in receiver sensitivity will not
deteriorate femtocell coverage of voice, as there is sufficient power headroom available at the UE.
The performance of HSUPA has been analysed in the presence of uplink interference from the macro UE,
which is operating on the adjacent frequency. The femtocell – MUE separation is fixed at 2 m and 5 m. The
FUE – femtocell path loss is fixed at 90 dB, representing the coverage edge scenario. It was seen that in
order to obtain 70% of nominal HSUPA bit rate with a category 6 UE, the MUE transmit power should be
below 7.5 dBm and 18.5 dBm, respectively. In both cases minimum transmit power required for HSUPA
transmission is equal to -3 dBm. As the likelihood of MUE transmitting at high power increases at the
macrocell edge, HSUPA throughput at femtocell is expected to deteriorate in this interference scenario.
14.4 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.
14.5 Mitigation techniques

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

15 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.
15.1 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 15-1 illustrates the interference Scenario I.
Figure 15-1: Illustration of the Interference Scenario I.

15.2 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.
15.2.1 Parameter settings
The parameter settings that are used in the analysis are given below [FF09]:
• ServicesAMR 12.2 kbps voice
• 14.4 Mbps HSDPA.
• Femtocell parametersStatic maximum total transmit power, including control and traffic channels,
Pmax = 10, 15, 20 [dBm]
• Downlink frequency = 850 MHz.
• Macrocell parametersMax transmit power on DCH = 33 dBm
• Total transmit power = 43 dBm
• HSDPA power allocation = 42 dBm (80% of total power)
• Antenna gain = 17 dBi
• Feeder/cable loss = 3 dB.
MUE receiver parameters
• Reference sensitivity level (DPCH_Ec_<REFSENS>) = -115 dBm (Band II), [TS25.101]
• REFIor = -104.7 dBm (Band II), [TS25.101]
• Max transmit power = 21 dBm (Power Class 4), [TS25.101]
• Maximum input power level = -25 dBm, [TS25.101]
• ACS = 33 dB, [TS25.101]
• HSDPA terminal category = 10 (14.4 Mbps).
The ACS specification is valid as long as the Femtocell Downlink signal is in the range [-25,-52] (dBm)
[TS25.101]. Additionally, the DPCH_Ec from the Macro Node B should be in the range [-74, -101] (dBm)
[TS25.101]. Figure 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).
Region of normal operation, AMR speech

-25
Max. Femtocell Downlink interference at MUE (Ioac) [dBm]
-30
Region of operation
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-100 -95 -90 -85 -80 -75
Min. Macro NB Downlink signal strength (Ior) [dBm]
Figure 15-2: Macro Node B signal strength relative to the interfering femtocell signal strength
measured at the MUE, required for successful decoding of AMR.

15.2.2 Impact of Femtocell interference on AMR service
The region of operation, shown in Figure 15-2, 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 15-3 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 15-3 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 15-3 also illustrates the merits
of adaptive control of maximum femto transmit power level, as for a fixed minimum femtocell – MUE
separation the appropriate femtocell transmit power level depends on the femtocell – macrocell path loss.
Table 15-1 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].

Interference Scenario I.1, AMR speech
2.4
2.2
Maximum Macro NB - MUE separation [km]
1.8
1.6
1.4
Pmax = 10 dBm
1.2
Pmax = 15 dBm
1 Pmax = 20 dBm
0.8
0.6
0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Minimum Femtocell - MUE separation [m]
Figure 15-3: Maximum MNB - MUE separation as a function of femtocell – MUE separation, assuming
AMR voice service.
Table 15-1: Maximum Macro NB – MUE separation for a given maximum Femtocell transmit power level,
when the Femtocell – MUE separation is fixed at 5 m.
Femtocell transmit Max. Macro NB - MUE

power (dBm) separation (km)
10 1.0
15 0.7
20 0.5

15.2.3 Impact of Femtocell interference on HSDPA
Next, performance of HSDPA under this interference scenario is analysed using link-budget type calculations.
Fixed Reference Channel definition H-Set 6 is selected for analysis purposes [TS25.101]. A Category 10 UE is
chosen, as it supports the maximum achievable HSDPA data rate (equal to 14.4 Mbps).
The nominal average information bit rate for this FRC is 3219 kbps with QPSK, and 4689 kbps with 16QAM.
The UE specification states that the receiver should meet or exceed the information bit throughput R
requirements given in Table 15-2.
Table 15-2: UE receiver performance requirement (HSDPA), [TS25.101].
Parameter Value
Channel model PA3 (Pedestrian A)
Ioc [dBm] -60
Ec / I or [dB] [TS25.133] -6, -3
Iˆor / I oc [dB] 10
R, QPSK [kbps] 1407, 2090
R, 16QAM [kbps] 887, 1664
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 15-4 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 ( Iˆor / I oc ) is maintained at 10 dB. Further, it is assumed that
macrocell has allocated 80% of total power to HSDPA, resulting in HS-PDSCH Ec/Ior of approx. -1 dB.
Interference Scenario I.1, HSDPA

650
Pmax = 10 dBm
600 Pmax = 15 dBm
Pmax = 20 dBm
550
Max. Macrocell-MUE separation [m]
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Femtocell-MUE separation [m]
Figure 15-4: 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 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.
15.3 Conclusions
A simple analysis of the interference Scenario I has been carried out based on link-budget 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.
15.4 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.
15.5 Mitigation techniques

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

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

Figure 16-1 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 16.2 analysis of Scenario J described in [Law08] is
presented, including the assumptions used. The analysis shows that the femto UE’s impact on the macro
Node B is negligible.
16.2 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.
16.2.1 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 -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 16-1.
Table 16-1: Macro Node B noise floor

Value Units Comment

Sensitivity @ antenna 3GPP reference sensitivity level for
connector -121 dBm Pue_rec Wide Area Node B
UE Service Rate 12.20 kbps R

UE Processing Gain 24.98 dB PG = 10*log(W/R)
Required EbNo 8.30 dB EbNo (see [FF09])
Noise floor -104.32 dB nf_ant = Pue_rec +PG -EbNo
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 femto’s 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 16-2 estimates the likely femto UE uplink transmission
power at the femtocell edge of coverage for a 12K2 voice service and a 2Mbps HSUPA service.
2
Under the same RF conditions, a 21 dBm class femtocell will provide larger downlink coverage than a
15dBm class or a 10dBm class femto.

Table 16-2: Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B
Value
2Mbps
Frequency 850.00 850.00 MHz F
Thermal Noise Density -174.00 174.00 dBm/Hz tnd
Receiver Noise Density -166.00 -166.00 dBm/Hz rnd = tnd +NF
Loading 70.00 70.00 % L
Noise Rise due to
Loading 5.23 5.23 dB IM = -10*log(1-L/100)
Femto Receiver Noise

Floor -94.93 -94.93 dBm trnp =rnp +IM
Femto UE Service Rate 12.2 kbps R
Femto UE Processing
Gain 24.98 dB PG = 10*log(W/R)

Required EbNo 8.30 dB EbNo [FF09]
EbNo– PG for 12K2
Typical EcNo to achieve HSUPA rates
Required EcNo -16.68 0 dB of ~ 2Mbps [Hol06]
Minimum Required
Signal Level for Femto
UE -111.61 -94.93 dB Pfmin = trnp +EcNo
Femto UE Path loss to
femto 120 120 dB DLcov
Femto UE Tx Power 8.39 21 dBm Pfue = min(21, max ((Pfmin + DLcov), -50)

16.2.2 Macro Node B Noise Rise
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 16-3 as 8.6×10-
4
dB and .02 dB, respectively.
Table 16-3: 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).
Value
12K2
Voice HSUPA Units Comments
Node B Antenna Gain 17 17 dBi Gant [FF09]
Noise Floor at antenna
connector -104.32 -104.32 dBm nf_ant Table 16-1
Femto UE Tx Power 8.39 21 dBm Pfue

UE Antenna Gain 0 0 dBi Gmant
Femto UE Tx EIRP 8.39 21 dBm Pfue_eirp =Pue – Gmant +m
Window/Wall Loss 5 5 dB Lw
dB Ltot =1000m Okumura-Hata(Node B
Path loss to Macro Node B 130.77 130.77 at30m and mobile at 1.5m) +Lw
Adjacent Channel Adjacent Channel selectivity (+/-
Selectivity 33 33 dB ACS 5MHz)
Femto UE Interference @
macro antenna connector -141.38 -128.77 dB Pfue_rec = Pfue_eirp – Ltot + Gant –Lf - ACS
Rise above noise floor -37.06 -24.45 dB R =Pfue_rec- nf_ant
-4
Noise rise 8.6 × 10 .02 dB NR =10*log( 1+ 100.1*R))

16.3 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.
 When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a 12k2 voice
service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will be transmitting in the region of
8.39 dBm, and will cause a negligible noise rise of approximately 8.6 × 10-4dB.
 When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a femto UE
with 2Mbps HSUPA data service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will cause
a negligible noise rise amounting to approximately .02 dB.
 The general conclusion is that a femto UE operating on the adjacent channel to a macro Node B
will not cause an impact to such an adjacent channel macro Node B.

17. 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.
17.1 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.
17.2 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].
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]).

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.
1. To maintain an Ecp/Io of -18dB for a MUE located 72.6 dB away from HNB (ie. to protect the
macro user).
2. 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.
3. 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.
17.3 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.
17.3.1 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.
Table 17-1 Parameters for the co-channel idle cell reselection procedure.
SIB/Parameter Macro HNB

Qqualmin -18 dB -18dB
SIB3 Sintrasearch 10 dB 4dB
Sintersearch NA NA
HNB cells: -50 dB HNB cells: 3dB
Qhyst+Qoffset
Macro cells: 3dB Macro cells: 5dB
SIB11
HNB cells: -12 dB
Qqualmin Not needed
Macro cells: not needed
17.3.2 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:
i) Calibrated HNB transmit power with Pmin=-20dBm and Pmax=20dBm
ii) Calibrated HNB transmit power with Pmin=-10dBm and Pmax=20dBm
iii) 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 matche those in Table 17.7 of [FF08]. Each
point on the cell sees a lower path loss in 850 MHz from both macro and femtocells and, consequently,

switching to 850 MHz makes the system slightly more interference limited compared to 2 GHz. As the
reduced path loss is taken into account to set the target cell edge coverage for femtocells, the calibrated
power for the femtocell remains nearly unchanged in 850 MHz compared to 2 GHz. This is evident in the
comparison of CDFs of calibrated power in 2 GHz and 850 MHz, as shown in Figure 16-1 where the CDF
corresponding to both bands coincide 4.
This also suggests that HNB with a given power will have similar coverage radius in both bands, irrespective
of the location.
It is also seen that in dense urban environment a significant number of HNBs reach their minimum power
limit.
Table 17-2: Pilot acquisition statistics at 850 MHz for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and
calibrated HNB transmit power.
Pmin=-20dBm, Pmin=-10dBm, Pmin=0dBm,

Pmax=20dBm Pmax=20dBm Pmax=20dBm
HUEs unable to
3.9% 1.9% 0.5%
acquire HNB pilot
HUEs unable to
acquire HNB or 0.6% 0.2% 0.2%
macro pilot
MUEs unable to
2.7% 5.2% 12.0%
acquire macro pilot
Table 17-3: Coverage statistics for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and calibrated HNB
transmit power.
Pmin=-20dBm, Pmin=-10dBm, Pmin=0dBm,

Pmax=10dBm Pmax=20dBm Pmax=20dBm
MUEs moved to 9.7% 13.5% 25.5%

another carrier
HUEs unable to camp 9.6% 4.9% 2.4%

on own HNB
HUEs switched to 7.7% 3.6% 1.1%
macro on shared
carrier
HUEs moved to 1.9% 1.3% 1.3%

another carrier
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.

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4 HNB Tx Power: 2 GHz,PL Edge 80 dB, PMin 0 dBm

HNB Tx Power: 2 GHz,PL Edge 80 dB, PMin -10 dBm
0.3 HNB Tx Power: 850MHz ,PL Edge 72.6 dB, PMin 0 dBm
HNB Tx Power: 850 MHz ,PL Edge 72.6 dB, PMin -10 dBm
0.2
0.1
0
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
HNB Calibrated Tx Power, dBm
Figure 17-1: In variance of HNB calibrated Tx Power in the two frequencies.
17.3.3 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 16.2. We assume a
Rician channel with Rician factor K=10 and 1.5 Hz Doppler frequency. Macrocells are loaded with HNBs,
HUEs and MUEs. There are 10 MUEs per cell, and 96 HNBs, of which 24 are active. Each active HNB has one

HUE. We assume a full-buffer traffic model and all active cells are transmitting at full power. HNBs that are
not active are only transmitting the overhead. The maximum number of HARQ transmissions is 4. The
maximum modulation is 64 QAM. A proportional fair scheduler is implemented for the macro users. Only
UEs that are not in outage on the shared channel are included in the simulations. However, those users in
outage are included in the following CDFs as zero throughput users. If the operator has another frequency
for macro operation, many of the MUEs, now considered in outage, will be switched to the other frequency
and will not be in outage. Figure 16-2 shows the throughput CDF of all user throughputs.
User Throughput Distributions, 10 MUEs, 24 HUEs

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
All UEs: No HNB present
0.2
All UEs: HNB Present, Pmin = -10 dBm
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
UEs: Average Throughput (bps) 7
x 10
Figure 17-2: DL user throughput distribution under different minimum powers,

User Throughput Distributions, 10 MUEs, 24 HUEs

1
0.8
0.6
All UEs: No HNB present
CDF
0.4 All UEs: HNB Present, Pmin = -20 dBm
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
UEs: Average Throughput (bps) 5
x 10
Figure 17-3: 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.
17.3.4 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 850
MHz, and results in nearly the same transmit power distribution on HNBs as that in 2 GHz.
17.3.5 Uplink throughput simulations with adaptive attenuation
In this section we study the HNB and macro uplink throughput performance in a co-channel deployment of
HNBs for 850 MHz. In [FF08] the benefits of uplink adaptive attenuation at an HNB were identified. This
section carries out the uplink throughput analysis and comparison of HNB deployment with and without
adaptive attenuation in 850 MHz in a dense urban scenario. The layout and deployment scenario is the
same as those in [FF08] and Section 16.2.
We assume a Rician channel with K factor of 10 dB and 1.5 Hz Doppler fading. The MUEs and HUEs are
assumed to transmit full-buffer traffic using 2ms TTI HSUPA. The maximum number of transmissions is set to

4. Power control is enabled for both MUEs and HUEs. The maximum transmit power for the UEs is set to
24dBm and the minimum transmit power is set to -50dBm.
Single-frequency co-channel deployment is considered. For the uplink simulations, we only keep those UEs
that are not in outage on the downlink.
An NF of 5dB and Noise Rise Threshold (NRT) of 5dB are assumed for MNBs. For HNBs, three cases are
considered:
a) Baseline 1: HNB NF=5dB and HNB NRT=5dB
b) Baseline 2: HNB NF=20dB and HNB NRT=10dB
c) Enhanced: Adaptive attenuation at HNB (max attenuation=40dB) and HNB NRT=6dB.
In Baseline 1, the NF setting at HNB is similar to MNB. In Baseline 2, a fixed NF of 20dB is assumed at the
HNB. This is similar to the 19dB NF used in local area basestation class specified in [TS25.104]. The Enhanced
case uses adaptive attenuation (or noise figure), which means additional attenuation is added only when
needed, depending on out-of-cell and in-cell signal strength.
We run uplink simulations for the scenario described in the previous section. Figure 16-4 and Figure 16-5
show the HUE and MUE uplink throughput CDFs for Baseline 1, Baseline 2 and Enhanced cases. The HUE and
MUE transmit power distributions are shown in Figure 16-6 and Figure 16-7.
It is seen from Figure 16-4 that the HUE Baseline 1 uplink throughput performance is poor, due to intra-HNB,
inter-HNB and Macro-to-HNB interference. Adding 15dB fixed attenuation at HNBs (ie. Baseline 2) improves
the HUE performance significantly, but there are still some HUEs that have poor uplink throughput. This is
because 15dB fixed attenuation does not solve inter-HNB interference problem. In addition, in some cases,
more than 15dB attenuation is needed to overcome Macro-to-HNB interference. With fixed uplink
attenuation (ie. Baseline 2), the HUE transmit powers are higher compared to adaptive attenuation. As seen
in Figure 16-4, adaptive UL attenuation completely eliminates HUE throughput outage and achieves good
throughput performance. It is also seen from Figure 16-5 that the MUE uplink performance is not impacted
by adding attenuation at HNBs. In addition, Figure 16-6 and Figure 16-7 show that the transmit power in
850MHz is roughly 7 to 10dB lower than that in 2GHz. The reduced power will both reduce interference and
improve battery life.

10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
Baseline 1
0.2
Baseline 2
0.1 Enhanced
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
HUE Throughput [kbps]
Figure 17-4 HUE uplink throughput distribution.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2 Baseline 1
Baseline 2
0.1 Enhanced
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
MUE Throughput [kbps]
Figure 17-5 MUE uplink throughput distribution.


1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
Baseline 1
Baseline 2
0.2
Enhanced
0.1
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
HUE Tx Power [dBm]
Figure 17-6 Transmit power distribution

1
0.9
Baseline 1
0.8 Baseline 2
Enhanced
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30
MUE Tx Power [dBm]
Figure 17-7 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.
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 34 MUEs + 0 HUEs per macro cell

10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell with adaptive uplink attenuation
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
UE Throughput [kbps]
Figure 17-8 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.

17.3.6 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.

18 Summary of Findings
Scenario Conclusions Impacts
A - Macrocell When a strong macro signal is present, customers Low, but a way of identifying customers who are unlikely to
Downlink already obtain excellent service; adding a co-channel benefit from femto because of already high macro coverage
Interference to the femtocell offers little additional coverage gain. would be desirable.
Femtocell UE Assuming standard models and parameters, it is shown If the macro is dominant, the consequence for the customer
Receiver that even at 10 dBm transmit power, the femtocell is is that they will be provided service by the macro carrier – so
able to comfortably provide voice to the UE when the the impact of this scenario is mainly on zonal-based
femtocell is located as far as 100 m away and maximum propositions.
HSDPA throughput can be expected up to 25 m away.

B - Macrocell UE The analysis results showed that in order to be able to From the point of view of the MUE, the femtocell is a source
Uplink maintain the uplink connection between the FUE and of interference to the macrocell. However, the macro
Interference to the femtocell, the transmitted power requirements are network can already cope with re-directing UEs to other
Femtocell Receiver within the capability of the UE. WCDMA frequencies, or RAT, if a user is affected by high
interference. Those locations with no coverage from
Additionally, the performance of HSUPA on the femto – alternative WCDMA frequencies, or RATs, may be adversely
FUE link has been analysed in the presence of uplink affected by poor Eb/No levels, leading to dropped calls.
interference from the Macro UE. By simulation, it has Due to femtocells, the macrocell may also be affected by an
been found that in order to obtain HSUPA throughput increase of uplink interference, as femto-UEs increase power
of at least 2.8Mbps with a category 6 UE, the FUE needs levels in order to achieve required quality levels. This may be
to be near to the femtocell (5m) and transmit at a limited by capping the maximum power level transmitted by
power level greater than 15dBm, if the MUE is within FUEs, or by limiting uplink throughput.
15m of the femtocell.
The minimum separation between MUE and femtocell has a
However, such analysis must take into account the strong effect on the capability to offer the required QoS to
downlink deadzone created by the femtocell. High the femtocell user. However, the FUE has enough power to
power from the femtocell in order to maintain the sustain a voice call while the MUE is in the coverage range of
downlink will interfere with the macrocell signal at the the femtocell. The downlink deadzone sets a minimum
MUE, and will force the macrocell to handover the call separation between MUE and femtocell, meaning that the
to another WCDMA frequency or RAT; or, if none of FUE transmit power is always within its capability. For
these are possible, the MUE call may be dropped. HSUPA, the user is required to go closer to the femtocell in
order to be provided with the best throughput. Simulation
has shown that at 5m from the femtocell, good throughput
can be achieved for MUEs further away than 12m.
Availability of alternative resources (a second carrier, or

underlay RAT) for handing off or reselecting macro-users is
the best way to provide good service when macro-users are
in the proximity of femtocells.

C - Femtocell In the scenario presented in this section, the For operators without a dedicated carrier on which to deploy
Downlink performance of MUE attached to the macrocell is femto, adaptive power control is essential for the success of
Interference to the shown to be affected by the femtocell in some the network
Macrocell UE locations. This can be mitigated by the use of adaptive Even though the intrinsic coverage of the macro network is
Receiver power control on the femto. Results show that in some reduced by the deployment of femto, other studies have
cases the MUE might experience “deadzone” when in shown (eg. Section 17) that the total capacity of the network
close proximity to the femto. One firm conclusion from (macro + femto) may increase a hundredfold.
this analysis is that adaptive power control is necessary
for the femtocells; another is that femtocells will
require higher output power when the femtocell is
deployed in locations near the centre of the macrocell.
Adaptive power control on the femtocell mitigates
interference by offering just the required transmit
power on the femto based on level of interference from
macro. However, it is shown that a macrocell UE (MUE)
might not receive adequate signal level from the macro
to compensate for the femto interference. This is
evident in all places in close proximity to the femto
when the macro and femtocells share the same carrier.
It is also concluded that there is no apparent and
fundamental performance change between the case
when 850 MHz or 2100 MHz is used for the carrier.
In general, if a macro network is designed to provide
fixed coverage in terms of cells radius, then the
macrocell requires lower output power when operating
at 850 MHz. Therefore, the interference level seen by a
femto is the same, regardless of the carrier frequency.
It is shown that the femto is an effective vehicle for

delivering a good carrier re-use. Furthermore,
femtocells are an efficient technique for delivering high-
speed data offered by HSPA to the femto users. This
should be compared to the macrocell case where cell
radius is larger resulting in the effect of distributing the
potential bandwidth of the HSDPA to a larger number of
users. It is also a well known that HSPA throughput is
affected by the location of the UE, the closer the UE to
the centre of the cell the higher the throughput. This
lead us to conclude that small cells like femto cells are
an optimum complimentary technique to macro cells
for addressing high data usage.

It is unlikely that a femto UE will be transmitting at The maximum allowed femto UE transmission power can be
D - Femtocell
maximum power, due to the relatively smaller coverage limited appropriately, such that the noise rise caused by a
Uplink
of the femto compared to the macro. femto UE when transmitting at its maximum allowed power
Interference to the
is limited based on the femtocells proximity to the
Macrocell NodeB
The analysis for a 12k2 voice service has shown that a surrounding Macro Layer Node Bs. This is important,
Receiver
femto UE in the described scenario will be transmitting especially when one considers the cumulative affect of
in the region of 8.39 dBm, and will cause a noise rise of multiple femto UEs spread across a network. A similar
approximately 0.07dB. Further, a macro UE at the same approach is suggested in [R4-071578].
location as the femto UE will cause a 0.09dB noise for
the same 12k2 voice service. The femtocell could also handover a femto UE to a macrocell
if an in-service femto UE is at the verge of the femtocell;
The analysis for a femto UE with 2Mbps HSUPA data thereafter, uplink interference to a macrocell from this UE is
service has shown that a femto UE in the described avoided.
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.

E - Femtocell The downlink throughput of the UE connected to the If the femto coverage is controlled through mechanisms such
Downlink femtocell is shown to be affected by downlink of as adaptive power control, then this scenario will generally
Interference to neighbouring femtocells. This case shows that driving result in the visiting UE being handled by a Macro Layer.
Nearby Femtocell femtocells to provide coverage to adjacent location
UE Receivers deemed to be covered by other femtocells yields These impacts exist when a UE femtocell experiences
performance degradation. interference levels in the order of -50dBm.
Consequently, there is a risk that for adjacent apartment
The closer the femtocells are, the higher the mutual deployments coverage may not be assured from the
interference and performance degradation. femtocell under all circumstances.
It is therefore strongly recommended that femtocells
use effective power control to confined coverage to
their premises, and where the UE can not get service
from the its femto, this UE should be supported by the
macro network. There is a need to make sure that the
pilot and transmit power of the femto is carefully
adjusted to provide coverage to UEs within the
intended area.
It can be concluded that the femto coverage should aim

to be restricted to a single apartment/ house only in
order to limit any undue interference between femtos.
Adaptive power control is one method to help this. This
leaves the issue of supporting visiting UEs to be under
the control of the macrocell.

F - Femtocell UE The following conclusions can be drawn: In typical cases, both wanted and Aggressor femtocells
Uplink The closer from UE2 to AP1, the greater interference should have dynamically optimised coverage to their
Interference to from UE2 to AP1. respective UE; hence, this co-channel scenario is unlikely to
Nearby Femtocell occur.
Receivers The interference reaches maximum at the point when
UE2 is disconnecting from AP2 (call is dropping). If this femtocell power optimisation does not occur, the co-
However, the analysis is based on the extreme channel interference can indeed occur, and range reduction
scenarios. Usually, UE2 will handover to a macrocell is the consequence. This range reduction can be mitigated to
before call drop, which will avoid the interference to an extent by the normal dynamic power control of the
AP1. wanted UE.
The following recommendations are made, which will Consequently, this is manageable as long as minimum
help ensure harmonious coexistence of co-channel performance requirements for adaptive power control are
femtocells: 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 Both theoretical analysis and simulation results show There is no impact.
Downlink that femtocell UE experiences little adjacent channel
Interference to the interference from an outdoor macrocell in most cases.
adjacent channel
Femtocell UE
Receiver

H - Macrocell UE It was found that if the MUE is transmitting at the If the minimum separation between the MUE and femtocell
Uplink maximum power of 21 dBm, it needs to be separated is not maintained, the femtocell receiver may not be able to
Interference to the from the femtocell by around 3.2 m. This separation can decode the wanted speech signal at the required QoS level.
adjacent channel be reduced further by employing Automatic Gain Similarly, the HSUPA performance will deteriorate gradually
Femtocell Receiver Control (AGC) at the femtocell receiver. It has been as the MUE transmit power is increased for a given
shown that the minimum MUE to FAP separation can be separation between the MUE and femtocell receiver.
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.

I - Femtocell In terms of AMR service, a minimum separation of 5 m In terms of AMR service, it was found that femtocell
Downlink between the femtocell and MUE can be achieved if the downlink interference can block macrocell signal if the MUE
Interference to the macrocell site is within 1.0 km, and the femtocell is not is located close to the macrocell edge and the femtocell
adjacent channel transmitting above 10dBm. It is recommended to transmit power is above 10 dBm. In terms of HSDPA
Macrocell UE implement adaptive control of maximum transmit performance, it is not clear that femtocell interference will
Receiver power level at the femtocell and restrict maximum significantly deteriorate HSDPA performance at the MUE.
transmit power to 10 dBm, in order to achieve a good
trade-off between femtocell coverage and adjacent Assuming dedicated spectrum deployment for the macro
channel deadzone. and femto cellular layers, the adjacent channel deadzone
created by the femtocell can be adjusted by performing
We have also analysed HSDPA performance under this adaptive control of maximum femtocell transmit power.
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.

J - Femtocell UE It is unlikely that a femto UE will be transmitting at The uplink noise rise experienced by the macro nodeB from
Uplink maximum power, due to the relatively smaller coverage the adjacent channel femto UE is likely to be significantly less
Interference to the of the femto compared to the macro. than the noise rise experienced by the macro Nodes Bs own
adjacent channel UE transmitting from the same location.
Macrocell NodeB The analysis for a 12k2 voice service has shown that a
Receiver femto UE in the described scenario will be transmitting Consequently, there is negligible impact to the adjacent
in the region of 8.39 dBm and will cause a negligible channel macro.
noise rise of approximately 3.4 × 10-5dB.
The analysis for a femto UE with 2Mbps HSUPA data

service has shown that a femto UE in the described
scenario will cause a negligible noise rise amounting to
approximately 6.2 × 10-4dB.
The general conclusion is that a Femto UE operating on

the adjacent channel to a macro Node B will not cause
an impact to such an adjacent channel macro Node B.

Section 16 System A simple adjustment of Power Calibration settings – The conclusions depend on the operation of important
Simulations namely, changing the HNB target coverage path loss – is techniques, such as adaptive CPICH power setting, adaptive
sufficient to make HNB deployments nearly equivalent attenuation (AGC) in the femto receiver, and UE transmit
in different frequency bands. Similar DL throughput power capping. With these techniques in play, the impact
performance is seen in Dense Urban deployment of on the performance of the networks is total available data
HNBs in 850 MHz and 2 GHz. UL throughputs are higher capacity gain of two orders of magnitude for the simulated
in Dense Urban deployments of HNBs in 850 MHz conditions.
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.

19 Overall Conclusions
By examining a series of scenarios, building on the work of 3GPP RAN4 as well as the previous Femto 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.
o In normal operation, the noise rise contribution from the UE is small (a decibel or less).
o 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.
o 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.
o An increase in the dynamic range specifications is required to accommodate femto
operation in both near and far cases.
• Downlink power management is equally key in managing the tradeoff between service range (in the
closed user group cases), and deadzone.
o By measuring its environment, the femto can set its transmit power appropriately for
both dense urban and suburban deployment, even in shared carrier situations.
o 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.

20 Further Reading
20.1 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]
20.2 Scenario B
Title: Macrocell Uplink Co-Channel Interference to the Femtocell Receiver
3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070825] [R4-070969] R4-070969, “Home B output power”, Ericsson, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, R4-070969, June 2007.
[R4-070970 [R4-071619] [R4-071941] R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home
[R4-072004] [R4-080097] [R4-080409] [R4-080153]
20.3 Scenario C
Title: Femtocell Downlink Co-Channel Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver
3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071231] [R4-071253] [R4-071263] [R4-071540] [R4-071554] [R4-071578]
[R4-071660] [R4-071661] R4-071661, "Impact of HNB with controlled output power on macro
HSDPA capacity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October
2007.
[R4-072004] R4-072004, Huawei, "Performance Evaluation about HNB coexistence with Macro
networks", 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-071941] R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-
existence considering the impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working

Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080151]
20.4 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.
[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]
20.5 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
20.6 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]

20.7 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
[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]
20.8 Scenario H
Title: Macrocell Uplink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Femtocell Receiver
3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070825] [R4-070971] [R4-071185] [R4-071941] R4-071941,
"Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence considering the
impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45,
November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080097] [R4-080409]
20.9 Scenario I
Title: Femtocell Downlink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver
3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071211] [R4-071231] [R4-071263] [R4-071540] [R4-071554] [R4-071660]
[R4-071661] R4-071661, "Impact of HNB with controlled output power on macro HSDPA
capacity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
[R4-071941] 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]

20.10 Scenario J
Title: Femtocell Uplink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Macrocell NodeB Receiver
3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070971] [R4-071185] [R4-071231] [R4-071619] [R4-071941] R4-071941,
"Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence considering the
impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45,
November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080152]
20.11 Scenarios – Section 16

Title: Downlink and Uplink Scenarios Modelling Power Control Techniques for Interference Mitigation
3GPP Analysis References: [R4-081344] [R4-081345] [R4-081346]

21 References
[FF08] Femto Forum, “Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells”, December 2008.
[FF09] Femto Forum Working Group 2, “Recommended Simulation Parameters 850 MHz”, April 2009.
[COST231] Commission of the European Communities, “Digital Mobile Radio: COST 231 View on the
Evolution Towards 3rd Generation Systems”, L-2920, Luxembourg, 1989.
[ITU1238] International Telecommunication Union, “ITU-R Recommendations P.1238: Propagation data

and prediction models for the planning of indoor radiocommunications systems and radio local
area networks in the frequency range 900MHz to 100GHz”, Geneva, 1997.
[ITU1411] International Telecommunication Union, “ITU-R Recommendations P.1411-3: Propagation data

and prediction methods for the planning of short range outdoor radiocommunication systems
and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz”, Geneva, 2005.
[Hol06] H. Holma and A. Toskala, “HSDPA/HSUPA for UMTS: High Speed Radio Access for Mobile
Communications”, J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006.
[Kob92] H. Kobayashi, G. Patrick, Preliminary Building Attenuation Model, NTIA Technical Memorandum
92-155, 1992.
[Stav03] Stavrou, S. Saunders, S.R., Factors influencing outdoor to indoor radio wave propagation, Intl
Conference on Antennas and Propagation (ICAP), 2003.
[Dav97] Davidson, A. and Hill C., Measurement of Building Penetration into Medium Buildings at 900
and 1500 MHz, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, February 1997.
[Kee90] J. M. Keenan, A. J. Motley, “Radio coverage in buildings”, British Telecom Technology Journal, vol.
8, no. 1, Jan. 1990, pp19-24.
[Lai02] J. Laiho, A. Wacker and T. Novosad, “Radio Network Planning and Optimization for UMTS”, J.
Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2002.
[Oku68] Y. Okumura, E. Ohmori, T. Kawano and K. Fukuda, “Field strength and its variability in VHF and
UHF land mobile radio service”, Rev. Electr. Commun. Lab., Vol. No 16, pp825-73, 1968.
[Sha88] K. S. Shanmugan and A. M. Breipohl, “Random Signals: Detection, Estimation and Data Analysis”,
J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1988.
[Law08] A. Law, “Interference Management Evaluation Scenarios”, April 2008.

[TR25.814] 3GPP, “Physical layer aspects for evolved Universal Terrestial Radio Access (UTRA)”. 3rd
Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks,
TR25.814, v7.1.0, 10-2006.
[TR25.820] “3G Home NodeB Study Item Technical Report”, 3rd Generation Partnership Project,
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks, TR25.820 v8.0.0, 03-2008.
[TR25.848] 3GPP, “Physical layer aspects of UTRA High Speed Downlink Packet Access”, 3rd Generation
Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks , TR25.848 v4.0.0, 03-
2001.
[TR25.942] 3GPP, “Radio Frequency (RF) system scenarios”, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical
Specification Group Radio Access Networks, TR25.942, v.7.0.0, 03-2007.
[TR101.112] 3GPP, “Selection procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies of the UMTS”,
3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks,
TR101.112, v3.2.0, 04-1998.
[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.
[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.
[R4-071941]R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence
considering the impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004]R4-072004, "Performance Evaluation about HNB coexistence with Macro networks",

Huawei, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.

[R4-072025] R4-072025, "Proposed HNB Output Power Range", Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-080097] R4-080097, "Minutes of Home NodeB/ ENodeB" Telephone Conference #7, Jan 31, 2008.
[R4-080409] R4-080409, "Simple Models for Home NodeB Interference Analysis", Qualcomm Europe,
3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080151] R4-080151, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to macro UE downlink co-existence within
the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46,
February 2008.
[R4-080152] R4-080152, "Simulation results for Home NodeB uplink performance in case of adjacent
channel deployment within the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group
4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080153] R4-080153, "Simulation results for Home NodeB uplink performance in case of co-channel
deployment within the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4
(Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080154] R4-080154, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Macro NodeB uplink interference within
the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46,
February 2008.
[R4-080149] R4-080149, Ericsson, "Simulation assumptions for the block of flats scenario”, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080150]R4-080150, "Simulation results for the Home NodeB downlink performance within the block
of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February
2008.
[R4-080154] R4-080154, Ericsson, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Macro NodeB uplink
interference within the block of flats scenario", 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080939] R4-080939, Ericsson, “Downlink co-existence between macro cells and adjacent channel
Home NodeBs”, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47, May 2008.
[R4-080940] R4-080940, Ericsson, “Downlink co-existence between a realistic macro cell network and
adjacent channel Home NodeBs”, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47, May
2008.
[R4-081344]R4-081344, “HNB and Macro Downlink performance with Calibrated HNB Transmit Power”,

Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.
[R4-081345] R4-081345, “HNB and Macro Uplink Performance with Adaptive Attenuation at HNB”,
Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.
[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.

22 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.
22.1 Simulation parameters

Table 21-1 lists the simulation parameter values that were used in this paper unless otherwise stated in the
text.
Table 21-1: Recommended simulation parameters.
Parameter Value
External Wall Loss 10dB [COST231]
Window Loss 5dB
Maximum Macro Node B Tx Power 43dBm
Maximum Micro Node B Tx Power 38dBm
Macro Node B Antenna Gain 17dBi
Macro Node B Feeder/Cable Losses 3dB
Micro Node B Antenna Gain 2dBi
Micro Antenna Feeder Loss 1dB
Node B sensitivity Based on reference sensitivity in 3GPP Spec [TS25.104]
Femtocell Noise Figure 8dB (and 12dB)
Macro Node B Loading 50%
Femto Loading 50%
Downlink/Uplink Channel performance Minimum performance requirements based on 3GPP specs
(ie. EbNos & EcNos for various services) [TS25.101][TS25.104]
UE transmission power range Based on 3GPP spec [TS25.101]
Femtocell Maximum DL powers Up to 21dBm. Analysis to cover 10dBm, 15dBm & 21dBm power
levels
Maximum co-channel DL deadzone • 60dB for 10dBm Femto DL Tx Power
created by femto for non-femto UEs [R4- • 65dB for 15dBm Femto DL Tx Power
• 70dB for 21dBm Femto DL Tx Power
070969]
Maximum adjacent DL deadzone created Corresponding co channel deadzone less 33dB ACS loss
by femto for non-femto UEs
Height of mobile 1.5 m
Height of femto 1m
Height of macro basestation 30 m
Frequency 850 MHz

Building dimensions (width by length) • Apartment – 10m by 10m

• House – 15 by 15m
Indoor to indoor path loss modelling ITU P.1238 [ITU1238]
Indoor to outdoor path loss modelling Okumura-Hata [COST231] + Wall/Window loss (d > 1 km)
Outdoor to outdoor path loss modelling Okumura-Hata [COST231] (d > 1 km)
Outdoor to indoor path loss modelling Okumura-Hata [COST231] + Wall/Window loss (d > 1 km)
22.2 Path Loss Models

Several path loss models are used within the study to calculate the signal attenuation as it propagates within
different environments. These have been chosen from the range of models in the public domain that are
widely accepted within the industry. They are, therefore, not ‘tuned’ to a specific environment or set of
measurements. The models should, however, be indicative of the realistic range of path loss values that are
likely to be encountered in a realistic deployment. The path loss models are described in this section.
22.2.1 Okumura-Hata
Although the Okumura-Hata (OH) model is a fully empirical model, entirely derived from the best fit of
measurement data without real physical basis, the model remains widely used and is well-accepted by the
mobile cellular community. It is the most widely implemented model and is available as the main model in
most radio planning tools.
The expression of OH for built-up urban areas is as follows:
L = 69.55 + 26.16 log( f ) − 13.82 log(hB ) + (44.9 − 6.55 log(hB )) log(d ) − F (hM )
(1.1 × log( f ) − 0.7) × hM − (1.56 × log( f ) − 0.8) medium to small cities

F (hM ) = 
3.2 × (log(11.75 × h M )) − 4.97
2
for large cities
The parameters in the above expressions stand for:
f : frequency [MHz]
hB : base station height above ground level [m]
hM : mobile station height above ground [m]
d: distance from basestation [km]

The range of validity of OH is as follows:
150 MHz < f < 1000MHz

30m ≤ hB ≤ 200m
1m ≤ hM ≤ 10m
d > 1km
22.2.2 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 doesn’t 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.
22.2.3 System Simulation (Section 16) Path Loss Models
In Section 17 the following simplified path loss models were used:
The free-space component for the micro-urban model is given by
PL fs ,micro (dB) = 28 + 40 log10 d

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

23 Contact Information
The Radio and Physical Layer working group (WG2) of the Femto Forum would be pleased to respond to
further queries on the aspects examined in this paper.
Contact details:
Email: info@femtoforum.org
Web: www.femtoforum.org
Postal:
The Femto Forum
PO Box 23
GL11 5WA
UK

X - Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells-Feb10

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

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

X - Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells-Feb10

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Femto Forum Femtocell Market Status

Published by the Femto Forum

1 www.femtoforum.org back to contents

The Femto Forum has three main aims:

l To encourage the development of an active ecosystem of femtocell providers to deliver

Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells is published by the Femto Forum

© February 2010. All rights reserved.

8.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 33

8.3.2 Customer (FUE) Impact.......................................................................................................... 34

8.3.3 Mitigation techniques............................................................................................................ 34

9 Scenario C: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver ................................... 35

10.2.2 Macro Node B Noise Rise .................................................................................................. 43

10.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 46

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 3

12 Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby Femtocell Receivers................................. 52

12.2.2 Analysis of Noise Rise received at the Victim AP............................................................... 53

12.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 56

13.2.2 Simulation Analysis ............................................................................................................ 58

13.2.3 Theoretical Analysis ........................................................................................................... 59

13.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 59

14.2.2 Impact of MUE interference on AMR ................................................................................ 62

14.2.3 Impact of MUE interference on HSUPA............................................................................. 65

14.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 68

15.2.2 Impact of Femtocell interference on AMR service ............................................................ 72

15.2.3 Impact of Femtocell interference on HSDPA ..................................................................... 74

15.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 75

16.2.2 Macro Node B Noise Rise .................................................................................................. 80

16.3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 81

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 4

17.3.3 Downlink Throughput Simulations .................................................................................... 86

17.3.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 88

17.3.5 Uplink throughput simulations with adaptive attenuation ............................................... 88

17.3.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 93

18 Summary of Findings ......................................................................................................................... 94

22.2.2 ITU-R P.1238 .................................................................................................................... 117

23 Contact Information ........................................................................................................................ 119

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 5

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 6

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 7

2 Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Femto Forum

2.1 What are Femtocell Access Points?

A typical deployment scenario is shown in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1: Typical femtocell deployment scenario.

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 8

2.2 What do Femtocells offer?

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 9

2.3 What is the Femto Forum?

• major infrastructure vendors,

• specialist femtocell vendors, and

• vendors of components, subsystems, silicon and software necessary to create femtocells.

The Femto Forum has three main aims:

• to encourage the development of an active ecosystem of femtocell providers, to deliver ongoing

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 10

3.1 Objectives and Methods of this Paper

1. The principal objectives of this study are:

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 11

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 12

The scenarios for this paper are defined in Section 5.

Scenario 25.820 Summary of RAN4 conclusions

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 13

Scenario 25.820 Summary of RAN4 conclusions

© 2010 Femto Forum Limited | www.femtoforum.org page 14