3GPP TR 36.828 V11.0.

0 (2012-06)
Technical Report

3rd Generation Partnership Project;

Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA);
Further enhancements to LTE Time Division Duplex (TDD)
for Downlink-Uplink (DL-UL) interference management and
traffic adaptation
(Release 11)

The present document has been developed within the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP TM) and may be further elaborated for the purposes of 3GPP.
The present document has not been subject to any approval process by the 3GPP Organizational Partners and shall not be implemented.
This Report is provided for future development work within 3GPP only. The Organizational Partners accept no liability for any use of this Specification.
Specifications and Reports for implementation of the 3GPP TM system should be obtained via the 3GPP Organizational Partners' Publications Offices.

Keywords
UMTS, radio

3GPP
Postal address

3GPP support office address

650 Route des Lucioles - Sophia Antipolis
Valbonne - FRANCE
Tel.: +33 4 92 94 42 00 Fax: +33 4 93 65 47 16

Internet
http://www.3gpp.org

Copyright Notification
No part may be reproduced except as authorized by written permission.
The copyright and the foregoing restriction extend to reproduction in all media.
2012, 3GPP Organizational Partners (ARIB, ATIS, CCSA, ETSI, TTA, TTC).
All rights reserved.
UMTS is a Trade Mark of ETSI registered for the benefit of its members
3GPP is a Trade Mark of ETSI registered for the benefit of its Members and of the 3GPP Organizational Partners
LTE is a Trade Mark of ETSI currently being registered for the benefit of its Members and of the 3GPP Organizational Partners
GSM and the GSM logo are registered and owned by the GSM Association

Contents
Foreword............................................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
1

Scope ........................................................................................................................................................ 6

References ................................................................................................................................................ 6

Definitions, symbols and abbreviations ................................................................................................... 6

3.1
3.2
3.3

Definitions ......................................................................................................................................................... 6
Symbols ............................................................................................................................................................. 6
Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................................................... 6

Objectives of study ................................................................................................................................... 7

Feasibility study ....................................................................................................................................... 7

5.1
5.2
5.2.1
5.2.2
5.3
5.3.1
5.3.2
5.4
5.4.1
5.4.2
5.5
5.5.1
5.5.2
5.6
5.6.1
5.6.2
5.7
5.7.1
5.7.2
5.8
5.8.1
5.8.2
5.9
5.9.1
5. 10

6
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.3.1
6.3.2
6.4
6.4.1
6.4.2
6.5
6.6

7
7.1
7.1.1
7.1.2
7.2
7.2.1

Methodologies ................................................................................................................................................... 7
Scenario 1 .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
Deterministic evaluations ............................................................................................................................. 8
System simulation evaluations ..................................................................................................................... 8
Scenario 2 ........................................................................................................................................................ 12
Deterministic evaluations ........................................................................................................................... 12
System simulation evaluations ................................................................................................................... 13
Scenario 3 ........................................................................................................................................................ 17
Deterministic evaluations ........................................................................................................................... 17
System simulation evaluations ................................................................................................................... 18
Scenario 4 ........................................................................................................................................................ 22
Deterministic evaluations ........................................................................................................................... 22
System simulation evaluations ................................................................................................................... 24
Scenario 5 ........................................................................................................................................................ 29
Deterministic evaluations ........................................................................................................................... 29
System simulation evaluations ................................................................................................................... 30
Scenario 6 ........................................................................................................................................................ 32
Deterministic evaluations ........................................................................................................................... 32
System simulation evaluations ................................................................................................................... 33
Scenario 7 ........................................................................................................................................................ 38
Deterministic evaluations ........................................................................................................................... 38
System simulation evaluations ................................................................................................................... 38
Scenario 8 ........................................................................................................................................................ 41
Deterministic evaluations ........................................................................................................................... 41
Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 41

Performance evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 42

Methodologies ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Scenario 1: Isolated pico cell ........................................................................................................................... 42
Scenario 2: Multi-cell pico scenario ................................................................................................................ 59
Evaluation results without interference mitigation ..................................................................................... 61
Evaluation results with interference mitigation .......................................................................................... 70
Scenario 3: Co-channel multi-cell macro-pico scenario .................................................................................. 76
Evaluation results without interference mitigation ..................................................................................... 80
Evaluation results with interference mitigation .......................................................................................... 88
Scenario 4: Adjacent-channel multi-cell macro-pico scenario ........................................................................ 92
Summary .......................................................................................................................................................... 97

Methods to support different time scales for TDD UL-DL reconfiguration .......................................... 99
Method 1 System information signaling ....................................................................................................... 99
Description ................................................................................................................................................. 99
Specification impact ................................................................................................................................... 99
Method 2 RRC signaling ............................................................................................................................ 100
Description ............................................................................................................................................... 100

7.2.2
7.3
7.3.1
7.3.2
7.4
7.4.1
7.4.2

8
8.1
8.1.1
8.1.2
8.2
8.2.1
8.2.2
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.2
8.4
8.4.1
8.4.2

Specification impact ................................................................................................................................. 100

Method 3 MAC Control Element Signaling ............................................................................................... 100
Description ............................................................................................................................................... 100
Specification impact ................................................................................................................................. 101
Method 4 Physical layer signaling .............................................................................................................. 101
Description ............................................................................................................................................... 101
Specification impact ................................................................................................................................. 101

Potential interference mitigation schemes ............................................................................................ 101

Scheme 1: Cell clustering interference mitigation ......................................................................................... 101
Description ............................................................................................................................................... 101
Specification impact ................................................................................................................................. 102
Scheme 2: Scheduling dependent interference mitigation ............................................................................. 102
Description ............................................................................................................................................... 102
Specification impact ................................................................................................................................. 102
Scheme 3: Interference mitigation based on eICIC/FeICIC schemes ............................................................ 103
Description ............................................................................................................................................... 103
Specification impact ................................................................................................................................. 103
Scheme 4: Interference suppressing interference mitigation ......................................................................... 103
Description ............................................................................................................................................... 103
Specification impact ................................................................................................................................. 103

Conclusion and recommendations ....................................................................................................... 103

Annex A:

Co-existence simulation assumptions ............................................................................... 105

Annex B:

Change history ................................................................................................................... 109

Foreword
This Technical Report has been produced by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP).
The contents of the present document are subject to continuing work within the TSG and may change following formal
TSG approval. Should the TSG modify the contents of the present document, it will be re-released by the TSG with an
identifying change of release date and an increase in version number as follows:
Version x.y.z
where:
x the first digit:
1 presented to TSG for information;
2 presented to TSG for approval;
3 or greater indicates TSG approved document under change control.
y the second digit is incremented for all changes of substance, i.e. technical enhancements, corrections,
updates, etc.
z the third digit is incremented when editorial only changes have been incorporated in the document.

Introduction
TDD offers flexible deployments without requiring a pair of spectrum resources. For TDD deployments in general,
interference between UL and DL including both basestation-to-basestation and UE-to-UE interference needs to be
considered. One example includes layered heterogeneous network deployments, where it may be of interest to consider
different uplink-downlink configurations in different cells. Also of interest are deployments involving different carriers
deployed by different operators in the same band and employing either the same or different uplink-downlink
configurations, where possible interference may include adjacent channel interference as well as co-channel
interference such as remote basestation-to-basestation interference.
Currently, LTE TDD allows for asymmetric UL-DL allocations by providing seven different semi-statically configured
uplink-downlink configurations. These allocations can provide between 40% and 90% DL subframes. The semi-static
allocation may or may not match the instantaneous traffic situation. The current mechanism for adapting UL-DL
allocation is based on the system information change procedure. Additional mechanisms could include e.g. dynamic
allocation of subframes to UL or DL.

Scope

The scope of this study item is given in [2]

References

The following documents contain provisions which, through reference in this text, constitute provisions of the present
document.
-

References are either specific (identified by date of publication, edition number, version number, etc.) or
non-specific.

For a specific reference, subsequent revisions do not apply.

For a non-specific reference, the latest version applies. In the case of a reference to a 3GPP document (including
a GSM document), a non-specific reference implicitly refers to the latest version of that document in the same
Release as the present document.

[1]

3GPP TR 21.905: "Vocabulary for 3GPP Specifications".

[2]

RP-110450, Study Item Description for Further Enhancements to LTE TDD for DL-UL
Interference Management and Traffic Adaptation

Definitions, symbols and abbreviations

Delete from the above heading those words which are not applicable.
Clause numbering depends on applicability and should be renumbered accordingly.

3.1

Definitions

For the purposes of the present document, the terms and definitions given in TR 21.905 [x] and the following apply. A
term defined in the present document takes precedence over the definition of the same term, if any, in TR 21.905 [x].
Definition format (Normal)
<defined term>: <definition>.
example: text used to clarify abstract rules by applying them literally.

3.2

Symbols

For the purposes of the present document, the following symbols apply:
Symbol format (EW)
<symbol>

3.3

<Explanation>

Abbreviations

For the purposes of the present document, the abbreviations given in TR 21.905 [x] and the following apply. An
abbreviation defined in the present document takes precedence over the definition of the same abbreviation, if any, in
TR 21.905 [1].

Objectives of study

Objectives of the study item include:

For the isolated cell scenario, i.e. without co-channel interference:

RAN1 should evaluate the benefits of uplink-downlink re-configuration dependent upon traffic conditions.
o

Identify the proper simulation assumptions, including traffic models.

Assess the appropriate time scale for uplink-downlink re-configuration.

Assess the benefits at least in terms of performance and energy saving.

RAN4 should perform coexistence analysis with multiple operator deployments in adjacent channels.

For the multi-cell scenario, i.e. with co-channel interference:

RAN1 should evaluate the benefits of uplink-downlink re-configuration dependent upon traffic conditions.
o

Identify the proper simulation assumptions, including traffic models.

Assess the appropriate time scale for uplink-downlink re-configuration.

Assess the benefits at least in terms of performance and energy saving.

RAN1 and RAN4 should identify the multi-cell scenarios for which TDD DL-UL interference may arise and
additional TDD DL-UL interference mitigation would be beneficial.
o

Deployments comprising the same or different uplink-downlink configurations should be investigated.

RAN4 should perform co-existence analysis for the above identified scenarios, including co-channel and
adjacent channel interference, where adjacent channel interference may be from other operator(s).

For all the studies above, deployment scenarios should include regular homogeneous macro deployments and
layered heterogeneous deployments.

For both isolated cell scenario and multi-cell scenario:

If significant benefits are identified by RAN1 evaluations, RAN1 should identify potential air interface
solutions, including necessary EUTRAN/UE measurements, to mitigate DL-UL interference, taking into
account the RAN4 co-existence analysis.

Backward compatibility of Rel-8/9/10 terminals should be maintained.

Specification impact should be identified and assessed.

Feasibility study

5.1

Methodologies

The following two approaches are used for the feasibility study.

Approach 1: Deterministic calculations mainly for BS-BS interference case

o

Obtain the minimum required site separation distance in certain scenarios when different TDD
configurations are applied in neighbouring cells.

0.8dB de-sensitivity criteria is applied for negligible interference level for BS.

Approach 2: Monte Carlo simulations for both BS-BS and UE-UE interference case

Obtain the DL/UL geometry and/or throughput to see the performance loss due to different TDD
configurations in the network based on the agreed simulation assumptions.

For approach 2, the difference of the DL/UL geometry with and without different TDD configurations and the absolute
DL/UL geometry with different TDD configurations are used as criteria to evaluate the feasibility of applying different
TDD configurations in different cells. Further studies of the criteria are not precluded. It is noted that the feasibility
study in this section assumes full buffer traffic model.

5.2

Scenario 1

This scenario assumes multiple Femto cells deployed on the same carrier frequency. The simulation assumptions are
included in Annex A.

5.2.1

Deterministic evaluations

The evaluation results using the deterministic approach are shown in Tables 5.2.1-1, 5.2.1-2, and 5.2.1-3
Table 5.2.1-1: Results of deterministic approach
Minimum separation distance (km)
Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

Source 5

0.04

0.07

0.040

0.04

0.057

Note: the reference sensitivity of 10MHz BW is taken as the victim acceptable interference, i.e. -98.5 dBm

Table 5.2.1-2: Results of deterministic approach from Source 6

Minimum separation distance (m)
HeNB placed in 1st next apartment

2523.48

2nd next apartment

633.87

3rd next apartment

159.22

4th next apartment

39.99

5th next apartment

10.046

Table 5.2.1-3: Results of deterministic approach from Source 7

Minimum separation distance (km)
Requirement 1

0.040

Requirement 2

0.0046

Note: Requirement 1 means Interference signal mean power is 7 dB lower than noise floor; Requirement 2 means
Interference signal mean power is the level in dynamic range requirement.

5.2.2

System simulation evaluations

The evaluation results by system simulations for scenario 1 are shown in Figures 5.2.2-1 to 5.2.2-6. The following cases
are simulated:

Case 1: Baseline is the transmission directions of all cells are the same

Case 2: The transmission direction of Femto cells is randomly set as DL and UL with a 50% probability.

Femto-Femto co-channel with DL power control

UL Geometry of HUE (co-channel)

DL Geometry of HUE (co-channel)

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

Baseline: all Femto cells UL

Femto cells UL/DL random

0.7
0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

Baseline: all Femto cells DL

Femto cells UL/DL random

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-5

5
10
15
UL Geometry of femto UE(dB)

20

0
-5

25

10
15
20
25
DL Geometry of femto UE(dB)

30

35

40

Femto-Femto co-channel without DL power control

DL Geometry of HUE(co channel)

UL Geometry of HUE(co channel)

1

0.9

0.9
0.8

0.8
Baseline:all Femto cells UL
Femto cells UL/DL random

0.7

0.6

CDF

0.6

CDF

Baseline:all Femto cells DL

Femto cells UL/DL random

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-40

-30

-20

-10
0
UL Geometry of femto UE(dB)

10

20

0
-20

30

-10

10
20
30
40
DL Geometry of femto UE(dB)

50

60

70

Figure 5.2.2-1: Simulation results from Source 1

Femto-Femto co-channel with DL power control

Femto-Femto UL geometry (Co-Channel)

Femto-Femto DL geometry (Co-Channel)

100

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

CDF[%]

CDF[%]

90

100
Baseline:All Femto Cells UL
Femto Cells UL/DL Random

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10
0
-30

Baseline:All Femto Cells DL

Femto Cells UL/DL Random

10

-20

-10

0
UE UL SINR [dB]

10

20

30

Femto-Femto co-channel without DL power control

0
-30

-20

-10

10
UE DL SINR [dB]

20

30

40

50

Femto-Femto UL geometry (Co-Channel)

Femto-Femto DL geometry (Co-Channel)

100

80

70

70

60

60

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10
0
-50

Baseline:All Femto Cells DL

Femto Cells UL/DL Random

90

80

CDF[%]

CDF[%]

90

100
Baseline:All Femto Cells UL
Femto Cells UL/DL Random

10

-40

-30

-20

-10
UE UL SINR [dB]

10

20

0
-40

30

-20

20
UE DL SINR [dB]

40

60

80

Figure 5.2.2-2: Simulation results from Source 2

Femto-Femto co-channel without DL power control

Co-channel, without interference management

Co-channel, without interference management

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

-40

-30

Fdl:FDL
Fdl:FR

0.9

0.8

CDF

CDF

0.9

1
Ful:FUL
Ful:FR

-20
-10
0
UL geometry (dB)

10

20

30

0
-20

-10

10

20
30
DL geometry (dB)

Figure 5.2.2-3: Simulation results from Source 3

Femto-Femto co-channel with and without DL power control

Figure 5.2.2-4: Simulation results from Source 4

Femto-Femto co-channel with DL power control

40

50

60

70

FUE UL SINR, Co-channel, Femto Tx Power -10 dBm

FUE DL SINR, Co-channel, Femto Tx Power -10 dBm

0.8

100% UL Femto
20% DL+80% UL
40% DL+60% UL
50% DL+50% UL
60% DL+40% UL
80% DL+20% UL

Femto
Femto
Femto
Femto
Femto

0.8

0.6

FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:

20% DL+80% UL
40% DL+60% UL
50% DL+50% UL
60% DL+40% UL
80% DL+20% UL
100% DL Femto

Femto
Femto
Femto
Femto
Femto

CDF

CDF

0.6

1
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0
-40

-30

-20

-10

0
SINR, dB

10

20

30

0
-40

40

-20

20
SINR, dB

40

60

Femto-Femto co-channel without DL power control

FUE UL SINR, Co-channel, Femto Tx Power 20 dBm

FUE DL SINR, Co-channel, Femto Tx Power 20 dBm

0.8

100% UL Femto
20% DL+80% UL Femto
40% DL+60% UL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto
60% DL+40% UL Femto
80% DL+20% UL Femto

0.8

0.6

FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:

20% DL+80% UL Femto

40% DL+60% UL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto
60% DL+40% UL Femto
80% DL+20% UL Femto
100% DL Femto

CDF

CDF

0.6

FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0
-40

-30

-20

-10

0
SINR, dB

10

20

30

40

0
-40

-20

Figure 5.2.2-5: Simulation results from Source 5

Femto-Femto co-channel with DL power control

Femto-Femto co-channel without DL power control

20
SINR, dB

40

60

Figure 5.2.2-6: Simulation results from Source 6

5.3

Scenario 2

This scenario assumes multiple Femto cells deployed on the same carrier frequency and multiple Macro cells deployed
on an adjacent carrier frequency where all Macro cells have the same UL-DL configuration and Femto cells can adjust
UL-DL configuration. The simulation assumptions are included in Annex A.

5.3.1

Deterministic evaluations

The evaluation results using the deterministic approach are shown in Tables 5.3.1-1 to 5.2.1-5.
Table 5.3.1-1: Results of deterministic approach
Minimum separation distance(km)
aggressor -> victim

Aggressor Tx power
(dBm)

Victim Acceptable Interference

(dBm)
Source 1 & 2

Source 3 & 4 & 5

Femto ->Macro

20

-106.5

0.05

0.048

Macro ->Femto

46

-98.5

0.14

0.144

Table 5.3.1-2: Results of deterministic approach from Source 6

aggressor -> victim

minimum distance R (km)

Macro->Femto

0.49

Femto->Macro

0.16

Macro->Femto

0.36

Femto->Macro

0.12

Macro->Femto

0.16

Femto->Macro

0.05

1st adjacent channel

2nd adjacent channel

Spurious domain

Table 5.3.1-3: Results of deterministic approach from Source 7

Minimum separation distance(km)
aggressor -> victim
Requirement 1

Requirement 2

Macro-> Femto

0.144

0.003

Femto ->Macro

0.048

0.009

Note: Requirement 1 means Interference signal mean power is 7 dB lower than noise floor; Requirement 2 means
Interference signal mean power is the level in dynamic range requirement.

Table 5.3.1-4: Required Additional Isolation, ISD = 500m from Source 8

Deployment Scenarios

Macro-Femto

BS-BS Isolation (dB)

Co-channel

19.2 dB

Adjacent channel

- 25.8 dB

Non Adjacent Channel

-31.8 dB

Notes
Indoor BS with 20dB wall loss

Table 5.3.1-5: Required Additional Isolation, ISD = 1732m from Source 8

Deployment Scenarios

Macro-Femto

5.3.2

BS-BS Isolation (dB)

Co-channel

- 1.1 dB

Adjacent channel

- 46.1 dB

Non Adjacent Channel

- 52.1 dB

Notes
Indoor BS with 20dB wall loss

System simulation evaluations

The evaluation results by system simulations for scenario 2 are shown in Figures 5.3.2-1 to 5.3.2-6. The following cases
are simulated:

Case 1: Baseline is the transmission directions of all cells (including Macro and Femto) are the same.

Case 2: All Macro cells are of the same transmission direction (i.e. either DL or UL) and the transmission
direction of Femto cells is randomly set as DL and UL with a 50% probability.

Femto-Macro adjacent channel without DL power control

UL Geometry (adjacent channel)

DL Geometry (adjacent channel)

0.9

0.9

MUE baseline: all Macro and Femto cells UL

HUE baseline: all Macro and Femto cells UL
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Femto cells UL/DL random
HUE: all Macro cells UL and Femto cells UL/DL random
HUE: all Macro cells DL and Femto cells UL/DL random

0.8
0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

MUE baseline: all Macro and Femto cells DL

HUE baseline: all Macro and Femto cells DL
MUE: all Macro cells DL and Femto cells UL/DL random
HUE: all Macro cells DL and Femto cells UL/DL random
HUE: all Macro cells UL and Femto cells UL/DL random

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-5

10
UL Geometry(dB)

15

20

25

0
-20

-10

10

20

30

40

DL Geometry(dB)

Figure 5.3.2-1: Simulation results from Source 1

Femto-Macro adjacent channel without DL power control

Hetnet UL geometry (Adj-Channel)

Hetnet DL geometry (Adj-Channel)

100
90

90
80

70

70

60

60
CDF[%]

CDF[%]

80

100
MUE Baseline:All Macro and LPN Cells UL
LPN UE Baseline:All Macro and LPN Cells UL
MUE:All Macro Cells UL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random
LPN UE:All Macro Cells UL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random
LPN UE:All Macro Cells DL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10
0
-40

MUE Baseline:All Macro and LPN Cells DL

LPN UE Baseline:All Macro and LPN Cells DL
MUE:All Macro Cells DL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random
LPN UE:All Macro Cells DL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random
LPN UE:All Macro Cells UL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random

10

-30

-20

-10
0
UE UL SINR[dB]

10

20

0
-40

30

-30

-20

-10

0
10
UE DL SINR[dB]

20

30

40

50

Femto-Macro adjacent channel without DL power control

Hetnet UL geometry (Adj-Channel)

Hetnet DL geometry (Adj-Channel)

100
90

90
80

70

70

60

60
CDF[%]

CDF[%]

80

100
MUE Baseline:All Macro and LPN Cells UL
LPN UE Baseline:All Macro and LPN Cells UL
MUE:All Macro Cells UL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random
LPN UE:All Macro Cells UL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random
LPN UE:All Macro Cells DL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10
0
-50

MUE Baseline:All Macro and LPN Cells DL

LPN UE Baseline:All Macro and LPN Cells DL
MUE:All Macro Cells DL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random
LPN UE:All Macro Cells DL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random
LPN UE:All Macro Cells UL and LPN Cells UL/DL Random

10
-40

-30

-20

-10
UE UL SINR[dB]

10

20

30

0
-40

-20

Figure 5.3.2-2: Simulation results from Source 2

20
UE DL SINR[dB]

40

60

80

Femto-Macro adjacent channel without DL power control

Adj-channel, without interference management

Adj-channel, without interference management

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

1
Mul:MUL/FUL
Ful:MUL/FUL
Mul:MUL/FR
Ful:MUL/FR
Ful:MDL/FR

0.8
0.7
0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

Mdl:MDL/FDL
Fdl:MDL/FDL
Mdl:MDL/FR
Fdl:MDL/FR
Fdl:MUL/FR

0.9

-40

-30

-20
-10
0
UL geometry (dB)

10

20

30

0
-20

-10

10

20
30
DL geometry (dB)

Figure 5.3.2-3: Simulation results from Source 3

Femto-Macro adjacent channel without DL power control

Femto-Macro adjacent channel with DL power control

Figure 5.3.2-4: Simulation results from Source 4

40

50

60

70

Femto-Macro adjacent channel with DL power control

MUE UL SINR, Adjacent Channel, Femto Tx Power -10dBm
1

MUE DL SINR, Adjacent Channel, Femto Tx Power -10dBm

1

0.6

0.6

CDF

0.8

CDF

0.8

0.4

0.4
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Femto
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto

0.2

0.2
MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% DL Femto
MUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto

0
-40

-30

-20

-10
0
SINR, dB

10

0
-10

20

10

20

30

40

SINR, dB

FUE UL SINR, Adjacent Channel, Femto Tx Power -10dBm

FUE DL SINR, Adjacent Channel, Femto Tx Power -10dBm

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.4

0.4

0.2

0
-40

FUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Femto

FUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto
FUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto

-30

-20

-10
0
SINR, dB

10

FUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% DL Femto

FUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto
FUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto

0.2

0
-10

20

10

20

30

40

SINR, dB

Femto-Macro adjacent channel without DL power control

MUE UL SINR, Adjacent Channel, Femto Tx Power 20 dBm
1

MUE DL SINR, Adjacent Channel, Femto Tx Power 20 dBm

1

0.8

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.8

0.4

0.4
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Femto
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto

0.2

0.2
MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% DL Femto
MUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto

0
-40

-30

-20

-10
SINR, dB

10

20

0
-10

10

20

30
40
SINR, dB

50

60

70

FUE DL SINR, Adjacent Channel, Femto Tx Power 20 dBm

FUE UL SINR, Adjacent Channel, Femto Tx Power 20 dBm

1

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.4

0.4

0.2

0
-40

FUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Femto

FUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto
FUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto

0
-10

-30

-20

-10
0
SINR, dB

10

FUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% DL Femto

FUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto
FUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto

0.2

10

20

20

30
40
SINR, dB

50

60

70

Figure 5.3.2-5: Simulation results from Source 5

Femto-Macro adjacent channel without DL power control

Figure 5.3.2-6: Simulation results from Source 6

5.4

Scenario 3

This scenario assumes multiple outdoor Pico cells deployed on the same carrier frequency. The simulation assumptions
are included in Annex A.

5.4.1

Deterministic evaluations

The evaluation results using the deterministic approach are shown in Tables 5.4.1-1 and 5.4.1-2.
Table 5.4.1-1: Results of deterministic approach

aggressor -> victim

Pathloss
model

Aggressor Tx
power
(dBm)

Minimum separation
distance (km)
Victim acceptable
interference (dBm)
Sources 1 7

LOS

Outdoor Pico>outdoor Pico

5.8
24

-98.5

NLOS

0.12

Table5.4.1-2: Results of deterministic approach from Source 8

Minimum separation distance (km)
aggressor -> victim

Pathloss - LOS

Pathloss - NLOS

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 1 Requirement 2

Outdoor Pico->Outdoor Pico

5.807

1.2307

0.120

0.025

Note: Requirement 1 means Interference signal mean power is 7 dB lower than noise floor; Requirement 2 means
Interference signal mean power is the level in dynamic range requirement.

5.4.2

System simulation evaluations

The evaluation results by system simulations for scenario 3 are shown in Figures 5.4.2-1 to 5.3.2-9. The following cases
are simulated:

Case 1: Baseline is the transmission directions of all cells are the same

Case 2: The transmission direction of outdoor Pico cells is randomly set as DL or UL with a 50% probability.

Case 3 (optional): Pico with interference management. The transmission direction of outdoor Pico cells shall
be controlled by the interference management method.

Pico-Pico co-channel without any interference mitigation scheme

UL Geometry (co-hannel)

DL Geometry (co-channel)

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8
Baseline: all Pico cells UL
Pico cells UL/DL random

0.7

0.7
0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
UL Geometry(dB)

10

20

Baseline: all Pico cells DL

Pico cells UL/DL random

Pico-Pico co-channel with interference mitigation scheme

10

20

30
DL Geometry(dB)

40

50

60

UL Geometry (co-hannel)
1
0.9

Baseline: all Pico cells UL

Pico cells UL/DL random
Threshold Y=60dB
Threshold Y=70dB
Threshold Y=80dB

0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-60

-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
UL Geometry(dB)

10

20

30

Figure 5.4.2-1: Simulation results from Source 1

Pico-Pico co-channel without any interference mitigation scheme

DL Geometry (co-channel)

UL Geometry (co-channel)
1

1
Pico cells UL/DL random
Baseline: all pico cells UL

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.9

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10
SINR [dB]

10

0
-10

20

Baseline: all pico cells DL

Pico cells UL/DL random

-5

10
SINR [dB]

15

20

25

30

Figure 5.4.2-2: Simulation results from Source 2

Pico-Pico co-channel without any interference mitigation scheme

Outdoor Pico - Outdoor Pico deployment (Co-Channel)

Outdoor Pico - Outdoor Pico deployment (Co-Channel)

100

100
Baseline: Pico All UL
Pico UL/DL Random

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

CDF[%]

CDF[%]

90

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0
-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
0
UL Geometry[dB]

10

20

30

0
-10

Baseline: Pico All DL

Pico UL/DL Random
0

10

20
30
40
DL Geometry[dB]

Figure 5.4.2-3: Simulation results from Source 3

50

60

70

Pico-Pico co-channel without any interference mitigation scheme

Figure 5.4.2-4: Simulation results from Source 4

Pico-Pico co-channel without any interference mitigation scheme

Co-channel, without interference managment

Co-channel, without interference managment

1
Pul:PUL
Pul:PR

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.9

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

-40

Pdl:PDL
Pdl:PR

-30

-20
-10
0
UL geometry (dB)

10

20

0
-10

30

10

20
30
40
DL geometry (dB)

50

60

70

Pico-Pico co-channel with interference mitigation scheme

Co-channel, with interference managment

Co-channel, with interference managment

1
Pul:PUL
Pul:PR

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.9

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-20

-15

-10

Pdl:PDL
Pdl:PR

-5

0
5
UL geometry (dB)

10

15

20

25

0
-10

10

20
30
40
DL geometry (dB)

Figure 5.4.2-5: Simulation results from Source 5

Pico-Pico adjacent channel with and without interference mitigation scheme

50

60

70

Figure 5.4.2-6: Simulation results from Source 6

Pico-Pico co-channel without any interference mitigation scheme

DL Geometry of PUE (co-channel)

UL Geometry of PUE (co-channel)

1.00
0.90

0.90

[DL PUE] Pico cells UL/DL random

[DL PUE Baseline] all Pico cells DL

0.80

0.70

0.70

0.60

0.60
CDF

CDF

0.80

1.00

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.30

0.20

0.20

0.10

0.10

-10.00

[UL PUE Baseline] all Pico cells UL

0.50

0.40

0.00

[UL PUE] Pico cells UL/DL random

0.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

DL Geometry [dB]

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

UL Geometry [dB]

[Note 1]: In all these simulations, UEs are connected to Pico base stations.
[Note 2]: Pico cells UL/DL random in above figures refers to the case where the transmission direction of a Pico cell is
randomly set as DL or UL with a probability of 50%.
Figure 5.4.2-7: Simulation results from source 7

Pico-Pico co-channel without any interference mitigation scheme

PUE DL SINR, Co-Channel

PUE UL SINR, Co-Channel

1

1
0.9

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

100% DL Pico
50% UL+50% DL Pico
50% UL Pico, 50% Pico Off
50% DL Pico, 50% Pico Off

0.9

CDF

CDF

0.8

100% UL Pico
50% UL+50% DL Pico
50% UL Pico, 50% Pico Off
50% DL Pico, 50% Pico Off

-10
SINR, dB

10

20

30

-10

10

20
30
SINR, dB

40

50

60

Figure 5.4.2-8: Simulation results from Source 8

Pico-Pico co-channel without any interference mitigation scheme

Outdoor Pico - Ourdoor Pico,DL Geometry (co-channel)

Outdoor Pico - Ourdoor Pico, UL Geometry (co-channel)

100

100

90

80

80

70

70

60

60
CDF [%]

CDF [%]

90

baseline:all pico cells DL

pico cells UL/DL random

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10
0
UL geometry [dB]

10

20

30

0
-10

baseline:all pico cells UL

pico cells UL/DL random
0

10

20

30
40
DL geometry [dB]

50

60

70

80

Figure 5.4.2-9: Simulation results from Source 9

5.5

Scenario 4

This scenario assumes multiple outdoor Pico cells deployed on the same carrier frequency and multiple Macro cells
deployed on an adjacent carrier frequency where all Macro cells have the same UL-DL configuration and outdoor Pico
cells can adjust UL-DL configuration. The simulation assumptions are included in Annex A.

5.5.1

Deterministic evaluations

The evaluation results using the deterministic approach are shown in Tables 5.5.1-1 to 5.5.1-5.
Table 5.5.1-1: Results of deterministic approach

aggressor ->
victim

Pathloss
model

Aggressor Tx
power
(dBm)

Victim acceptable
interference (dBm)

Minimum separation
distance
(km)
Source 1 5

Source 6

Outdoor Pico
->Macro

Macro BS
->outdoor Pico

LOS
24

1.95

0.73

0.33

0.33

7.68

7.68

0.79

0.79

-106.5

NLOS
LOS
46

-98.5

NLOS

Table 5.5.1-2: Results of deterministic approach from Source 7

aggressor -> victim

used path loss model

minimum distance R (km)

100.7+23.5log10(R)

7.68

125.2+36.3log10(R)

0.79

100.7+23.5log10(R)

1.95

125.2+36.3log10(R)

0.32

100.7+23.5log10(R)

4.7

125.2+36.3log10(R)

0.58

100.7+23.5log10(R)

1.19

125.2+36.3log10(R)

0.24

100.7+23.5log10(R)

1.32

125.2+36.3log10(R)

0.25

100.7+23.5log10(R)

0.33

125.2+36.3log10(R)

0.1

Macro->Pico

1st adjacent channel

Pico->Macro

Macro->Pico
2nd adjacent channel
Pico->Macro

Macro->Pico
Spurious domain
Pico->Macro

Table 5.5.1-3: Results of deterministic approach from Source 8

Minimum separation distance (km)
aggressor -> victim

Pathloss - LOS

Pathloss - NLOS

Requirement 1 Requirement 2 Requirement 1 Requirement 2

Macro->Pico

7.644

0.545

0.789

0.143

Pico->Macro

1.939

0.138

0.325

0.0587

Note: Requirement 1 means Interference signal mean power is 7 dB lower than noise floor; Requirement 2 means
Interference signal mean power is the level in dynamic range requirement.

Table 5.5.1-4: Required Additional Isolation, ISD = 500m from Source 9

Deployment Scenarios

BS-BS Isolation (dB)

Co-channel

46.7 dB

Adjacent channel

1.7 dB

Macro-Outdoor Pico

Notes
NLOS path loss model is used

Non Adjacent Channel

- 4.3 dB

Table 5.5.1-5: Required Additional Isolation, ISD = 1732m from Source 9

Deployment Scenarios

Macro-Outdoor Pico

5.5.2

BS-BS Isolation (dB)

Co-channel

27.1 dB

Adjacent channel

- 17.9 dB

Non Adjacent Channel

- 23.9 dB

Notes
NLOS path loss model is used

System simulation evaluations

The evaluation results by system simulations for scenario 4 are shown in Figures 5.5.2-1 to 5.5.2-9. The following cases
are simulated:

Case 1: Baseline is the transmission directions of all cells are the same

Case 2: The transmission direction of outdoor Pico cells is randomly set as DL or UL with a 50% probability.

Case 3 (optional): Pico with interference management. The transmission direction of outdoor Pico cells shall
be controlled by the interference management method

Pico-Macro adjacent channel without any interference mitigation scheme

UL Geometry (adjacent channel)

DL Geometry (adjacent channel)

1
0.9

0.9
0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6
CDF

CDF

0.8

1
MUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells UL
PUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells UL
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
UL Geometry(dB)

10

20

MUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells DL

PUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells DL
MUE: all Macro cells DL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells DL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells UL/DL random
0

10

Pico-Macro adjacent channel with interference mitigation scheme

20

30
40
DL Geometry(dB)

50

60

70

UL Geometry (adjacent channel)

1

MUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells UL

PUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells UL
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells UL/DL random
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=70,Y=80dB
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=70,Y=80dB
PUE: all Macro cells DL and Pico cells threshold X=70,Y=80dB
PUE: all Macro cells DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.9
0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

UL Geometry(dB)

Figure 5.5.2-1: Simulation results from Source 1

Pico-Macro adjacent channel without any interference mitigation scheme

UL Geometry (adjacent channel)

DL Geometry (adjacent channel)

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.9

PUE: all macro cells UL and pico cells UL/DL random

PUE Baseline: all pico and macro cells UL

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10
SINR [dB]

10

20

0
-10

Baseline: all macro and pico cells DL

PUE: all macro cells DL and pico cells UL/DL random
-5

Figure 5.5.2-2: Simulation results from Source 2

Pico-Macro adjacent channel without any interference mitigation scheme

10
15
SINR [dB]

20

25

30

35

Macro - Outdoor Pico deployment (Adjacent-Channel)

Macro - Outdoor Pico deployment (Adjacent-Channel)

100

100
Macro UE Baseline: Macro and Pico All UL
Pico UE Baseline: Macro and Pico All UL
Macro UE: Macro All UL, Pico UL/DL Random
Pico UE: Macro All UL, Pico UL/DL Random
Pico UE: Macro All DL, Pico UL/DL Random

90
80
70

90
80
70
60
CDF[%]

CDF[%]

60
50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0
-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
0
UL Geometry[dB]

10

20

Macro UE Baseline: Macro and Pico All DL

Pico UE Baseline: Macro and Pico All DL
Macro UE: Macro All DL, Pico UL/DL Random
Pico UE: Macro All DL, Pico UL/DL Random
Pico UE: Macro All UL, Pico UL/DL Random

0
-10

30

10

20

30
40
DL Geometry[dB]

50

60

70

80

Figure 5.5.2-3: Simulation results from Source 3

Pico-Macro adjacent channel without any interference mitigation scheme

Figure 5.5.2-4: Simulation results from Source 4

Pico-Macro adjacent channel without any interference mitigation scheme

Adj-channel, without interference managment

Adj-channel, without interference managment

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

1
Mul:MUL/PUL
Pul:MUL/PUL
Mul:MUL/PR
Pul:MUL/PR
Pul:MDL/PR

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-50

Mdl:MDL/PDL
Pdl:MDL/PDL
Mdl:MDL/PR
Pdl:MDL/PR
Pdl:MUL/PR

-40

-30

-20
-10
0
UL geometry (dB)

10

20

30

0
-10

10

20
30
40
DL geometry (dB)

50

60

70

Pico-Macro adjacent channel with interference mitigation scheme

Adj-channel, with interference managment

Adj-channel, with interference managment

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

1
Mul:MUL/PUL
Pul:MUL/PUL
Mul:MUL/PR
Pul:MUL/PR
Pul:MDL/PR

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-30

Mdl:MDL/PDL
Pdl:MDL/PDL
Mdl:MDL/PR
Pdl:MDL/PR
Pdl:MUL/PR

-20

-10

0
UL geometry (dB)

10

20

30

0
-10

10

20
30
40
DL geometry (dB)

Figure 5.5.2-5: Simulation results from Source 5

Macro-Pico adjacent channel with/without any interference mitigation scheme

Figure 5.5.2-6: Simulation results from Source 6

Pico-Macro adjacent channel without interference mitigation scheme

50

60

70

DL Geometry (adjacent channel)

UL Geometry (adjacent channel)

1.00

1.00

0.90

0.90

0.80

0.80

0.70

0.70

0.60

0.60

[UL MUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random

[UL PUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random
[UL PUE] all Macro DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

CDF

CDF

[UL MUE Baseline] all Macro and Pico cells UL

[UL PUE Baseline] all Macro and Pico cells UL

0.50

0.50

[DL MUE] all Macro DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.40

[DL PUE] all Macro DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.40

0.30

[DL PUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.30

0.20

[DL MUE Baseline] all Macro and Pico cells DL

0.10

[DL PUE Baseline] all Macro and Pico cells DL

0.00
-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

0.20
0.10
0.00
-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

UL Geometry [dB]

DL Geometry [dB]

[Note 1]: Pico cells UL/DL random in above figures refers to the case where the transmission direction of a Pico
cell is randomly set as DL or UL with a probability of 50%.
Figure 5.5.2-7: Simulation results from Source 7

Pico-Macro adjacent channel without interference mitigation scheme

MUE DL SINR, Adjacent Channel

MUE UL SINR, Adjacent Channel

1

0.8

0.8
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Pico
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% UL+50% DL Pico
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% DL Pico

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0.2

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10
SINR, dB

10

20

MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% DL Pico

MUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% UL+50% DL Pico

PUE UL SINR, Adjacent Channel

10

20

30
40
SINR, dB

50

60

70

PUE DL SINR, Adjacent Channel

PUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Pico

PUE, 100% DL Macro, 100% UL Pico
0.8 PUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% UL+50% DL Pico
PUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% UL+50% DL Pico

0.8

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6

0.4

0.4

0.2

0
-50

PUE: 100%
PUE: 100%
PUE: 100%
PUE: 100%

0.2

-40

-30

-20

-10
SINR, dB

10

20

10

20

DL Macro, 100% DL Pico

UL Macro, 100% DL Pico
DL Macro, 50% UL+50% DL Pico
UL Macro, 50% UL+50% DL Pico

30
40
SINR, dB

Figure 5.5.2-8: Simulation results from Source 8

50

60

70

Pico-Macro adjacent channel without interference mitigation scheme

Macro - Outdoor Pico (Adjacent channel)

Macro - Outdoor Pico (Adjacent channel)

100

100
MUE baseline: all UL
PUE baseline: all UL
MUE: pico random UL/DL
PUE: macro UL,pico random UL/DL
PUE:macro DL, pico random UL/DL

90
80

80
70

60

60
CDF [%]

CDF [%]

70

90

50

50

40

40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0
-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

0
-20

30

MUE baseline:all DL
PUE baseline: all DL
MUE:macro DL,pico random UL/DL
PUE:macro DL,pico random UL/DL
PUE:macro UL,pico random UL/DL
-10

10

UL geometry [dB]

20
30
40
DL geometry [dB]

50

60

70

80

Pico-Macro adjacent channel with interference mitigation scheme

Macro - Outdoor Pico (Adjacent channel)
100

90

80

MUE baseline: all UL

PUE baseline: all UL
MUE: pico random UL/DL
MUE: pico random UL/DL Interf. Mitig.
PUE: macro UL,pico random UL/DL
PUE:macro UL,pico random UL/DL, interf Mitig.
PUE:macro DL, pico random UL/DL
PUE:macro DL,pico random UL/DL, interf Mitig.

70

CDF [%]

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

30

UL geometry [dB]

Figure 5.5.2-9: Simulation results from Source 9

5.6

Scenario 5

This scenario assumes multiple Femto cells and multiple Macro cells deployed on the same carrier frequency where all
Macro cells have the same UL-DL configuration and Femto cells can adjust UL-DL configuration. The simulation
assumptions are included in Annex A.

5.6.1

Deterministic evaluations

The evaluation results using the deterministic approach are shown in Table 5.6.1-1.
Table 5.6.1-1: Results of deterministic approach
aggressor ->
victim

Aggressor Tx
power

Victim cell acceptable interference

1
(dBm)

Minimum BS separation
distance

(dBm)

(km)
Sources 1 4

Femto ->Macro

20

-106.5

0.67

Macro ->Femto

46

-98.5

2.0

5.6.2

System simulation evaluations

The evaluation results by system simulations for scenario 5 are shown in Figures 5.6.2-1 to 5.6.2-5. The following cases
are simulated:

Case 1: Baseline is the transmission directions of all cells (including Macro and Femto) are the same.

Case 2: All Macro cells are of the same transmission direction (i.e. either DL or UL) and the transmission
direction of Femto cells is randomly set as DL and UL with a 50% probability.

Femto-Macro co-channel with Femto DL power control

Figure 5.6.2-1: Simulation results from Source 1

Femto-Macro co-channel with Femto DL power control

UL Geometry (co-channel)

DL Geometry (co-channel)

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

MUE baseline: all Macro and Femto cells UL

HUE baseline: all Macro and Femto cells UL
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Femto cells UL/DL random
HUE: all Macro cells UL and Femto cells UL/DL random
HUE: all Macro cells DL and Femto cells UL/DL random

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-40

MUE baseline: all Macro and Femto cells DL

HUE baseline: all Macro and Femto cells DL
MUE: all Macro cells DL and Femto cells UL/DL random
HUE: all Macro cells DL and Femto cells UL/DL random
HUE: all Macro cells UL and Femto cells UL/DL random

-30

-20

-10
UL Geometry(dB)

10

20

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

DL Geometry(dB)

10

20

30

40

Figure 5.6.2-2: Simulation results from Source 2

Femto-Macro co-channel without Femto DL power control

Co-channel

Co-channel

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

1
Mul:MUL/FUL
Ful:MUL/FUL
Mul:MUL/FR
Ful:MUL/FR
Ful:MDL/FR

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1
0
-50

Mdl:MDL/FDL
Fdl:MDL/FDL
Mdl:MDL/FR
Fdl:MDL/FR
Fdl:MUL/FR

0.1
-40

-30

-20
-10
0
UL geometry (dB)

10

20

0
-40

30

-20

20
DL geometry (dB)

40

60

80

Figure 5.6.2-3: Simulation results from Source 3

Femto-Macro co-channel without Femto DL power control

MUE UL SINR, Co-Channel, Femto Tx Power 20 dBm

MUE DL SINR, Co-Channel, Femto Tx Power 20dBm

MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Femto

MUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% DL Femto

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% DL Femto

MUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto
MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% UL Femto

0.9

10

0
-50

20

-40

-30

-20

-10

SINR, dB

FUE UL SINR, Co-Channel, Femto Tx Power 20 dBm

20

30

40

50

60

50

60

HUE:
HUE:
HUE:
HUE:

0.9
0.8

100% UL
100% UL
100% DL
100% DL

Macro,
Macro,
Macro,
Macro,

100% UL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto
100% UL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto

0.9
0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

10

FUE DL SINR, Co-Channel, Femto Tx Power 20dBm

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

SINR, dB

Femto-Macro co-channel with Femto DL power control

FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:

100% DL
100% DL
100% UL
100% UL

-30

-20

Macro,
Macro,
Macro,
Macro,

100% DL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto
100% DL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto

-10

0.5

0.4

0
-70

SINR, dB

0
-50

-40

10

SINR dB

20

30

40

FUE UL SINR, Co-Channel, Femto Tx Power -10 dBm

FUE DL SINR, Co-Channel, Femto Tx Power -10dBm

1
0.9

100% DL
100% DL
100% UL
100% UL

Macro,
Macro,
Macro,
Macro,

50% DL+50% UL Femto

100% DL Femto
100% UL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

-30

-20

-10

10

20

0
-50

30

100% DL
100% DL
100% UL
100% UL

Macro,
Macro,
Macro,
Macro,

-40

-30

-20

SINR, dB

10

20

30

40

MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Femto

MUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% DL Femto

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

-30

-20

-10

10

MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% DL Femto

MUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Femto
MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% UL Femto

0.9

CDF

CDF

MUE DL SINR, Co-Channel, Femto Tx Power -10dBm

MUE UL SINR, Co-Channel, Femto Tx Power -10 dBm

0
-40

-10

SINR, dB

1
0.9

100% DL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto
100% DL Femto
50% DL+50% UL Femto

0.5

0.4

0
-40

FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:

0.9

CDF

CDF

0.8

1
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:
FUE:

20

30

0
-50

-40

-30

-20

SINR, dB

-10

10

20

30

40

SINR, dB

Figure 5.6.2-4: Simulation results from Source 4

Femto-Macro co-channel without Femto DL power control

Figure 5.6.2-5: Simulation results from Source 5

5.7

Scenario 6

This scenario assumes multiple outdoor Pico cells and multiple Macro cells deployed on the same carrier frequency
where all Macro cells have the same UL-DL configuration and outdoor Pico cells can adjust UL-DL configuration. The
simulation assumptions are included in Annex A.

5.7.1

Deterministic evaluations

The evaluation results using the deterministic approach are shown in Table 5.7.1-1.

Table 5.7.1-1: Results of deterministic approach

Minimum BS separation distance (km)
aggressor > victim

Aggressor
Tx power
(dBm)

Pathloss
model

Outdoor
Pico
->Macro

LOS

Macro
->outdoor
Pico

LOS

Victim cell
acceptable
interference
1
(dBm)

24

-106.5

NLOS

46

-98.5

NLOS

5.7.2

Sources
12

Source
3

Source
4

Source
5

Source
6

131.568

131

131.57

131.02

131.03

4.977

4.98

0.70

4.96

4.97

518.673

519

518.67

516.5

516.53

12.096

12

12.10

12.06

12.07

System simulation evaluations

The evaluation results by system simulations for scenario 6 are shown in Figures 5.7.2-1 to 5.7.2-10. The following
cases are simulated:

Case 1: Baseline is the transmission directions of all cells are the same

Case 2: The transmission direction of outdoor Pico cells is randomly set as DL or UL with a 50% probability.

Case 3 (optional): Pico with interference management. The transmission direction of outdoor Pico cells shall
be controlled by the interference management method

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

Cochannel Macro + Pico

Cochannel Macro + Pico

0.9

0.9

[UL MUE] MUL + PUL

[UL PUE] MUL + PUL
[UL PUE] MDL + PR
[UL MUE] MUL + PR

0.8
0.7

0.8
0.7
0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

-80

-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

20

[DL MUE] MDL + PDL

[DL PUE] MDL + PDL
[DL MUE] MDL + PR
[DL PUE] MDL + PR

-10

UL Geometry (dB)

-5

Figure 5.7.2-1: Simulation results from Source 1

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

10

DL Geometry (dB)

15

20

25

30

Macro and pico in cochannel

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

Cochannel macro and pico

1

0.5

0.3

PUL: MUL/PUL
MUL: MUL/PUL
PUL: MUL/PR
MUL: MUL/PR
PUL: MDL/PR

0.2
0.1
0
-80

0.5
0.4

0.4

-60

-40

-20
0
UL geometry [dB]

20

40

MDL: MDL/PDL
PDL: MDL/PDL
PDL: MUL/PR
MDL: MDL/PR
PDL: MDL/PR

0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-20

-10

10

20
30
40
DL geometry [dB]

Figure 5.7.2-2: Simulation results from Source 2

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

Figure 5.7.2-3: Simulation results from Source 3

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

Figure 5.7.2-4: Simulation results from Source 4

50

60

70

80

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

Figure 5.7.2-5: Simulation results from Source 5

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

DL Geometry (co-channel)

UL Geometry (co-hannel)

0.9

0.9
MUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells UL
PUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells UL
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.8
0.7

0.8
0.7
0.6
CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
UL Geometry(dB)

10

MUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells DL

PUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells DL
MUE: all Macro cells DL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells DL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0
-10

20

10

20
30
DL Geometry(dB)

Pico-Macro co-channel with interference mitigation scheme

UL Geometry (co channel)
1

0.9

0.8

0.7

CDF

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

MUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells UL

PUE baseline: all Macro and Pico cells UL
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=75dB,Y=80dB
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=75dB,Y=80dB
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=80dB,Y=80dB
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=80dB,Y=80dB
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=85dB,Y=80dB
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=85dB,Y=80dB
MUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=90dB,Y=80dB
PUE: all Macro cells UL and Pico cells threshold X=90dB,Y=80dB
PUE:all Macro cells DL and Pico cells UL/DL random
PUE:all Macro cells DL and Pico cells threshold X=75dB,Y=80dB
PUE:all Macro cells DL and Pico cells threshold X=80dB,Y=80dB
PUE:all Macro cells DL and Pico cells threshold X=85dB,Y=80dB

0.2

0.1

0
-70

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

10

UL Geometry(dB)

Figure 5.7.2-6: Simulation results from Source 6

20

30

40

50

60

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

Co-channel

Co-channel

1
Mul:MUL/PUL
Pul:MUL/PUL
Mul:MUL/PR
Pul:MUL/PR
Pul:MDL/PR

0.9
0.8
0.7

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-70

-60

-50

-40

-30
-20
-10
UL geometry (dB)

10

20

Mdl:MDL/PDL
Pdl:MDL/PDL
Mdl:MDL/PR
Pdl:MDL/PR
Pdl:MUL/PR

0
-20

30

-10

10

20
30
DL geometry (dB)

40

50

60

70

Pico-Macro co-channel with interference mitigation scheme

Co-channel, with interference managment

Co-channel, with interference managment

1
0.9
0.8
0.7

1
Mul:MUL/PUL
Pul:MUL/PUL
Mul:MUL/PR
Pul:MUL/PR
Pul:MDL/PR

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6

CDF

CDF

0.6
0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-15

-10

-5

0
5
10
UL geometry (dB)

15

20

Mdl:MDL/PDL
Pdl:MDL/PDL
Mdl:MDL/PR
Pdl:MDL/PR
Pdl:MUL/PR

0
-20

25

-10

10

20
30
DL geometry (dB)

40

50

60

70

Figure 5.7.2-7: Simulation results from Source 7

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

MUE DL SINR, Co-Channel
1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

MUE UL SINR, Co-Channel

1

0.5
0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% UL Pico

MUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Pico
MUE: 100% UL Macro, 100% DL Pico

0.1
0
-60

0.5

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

SINR, dB

10

20

MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% DL Pico

MUE: 100% DL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Pico
MUE: 100% DL Macro, 100% UL Pico

0.1

30

0
-10

10

20

30

SINR, dB

40

50

60

PUE DL SINR, Co-Channel

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

PUE UL SINR, Co-channel

1

0.5
0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3
PUE:
PUE:
PUE:
PUE:

0.2
0.1
0
-60

0.5

-50

-40

-30

100% UL
100% UL
100% DL
100% DL
-20

Macro,
Macro,
Macro,
Macro,
-10

100% UL Pico
50% DL+50% UL Pico
100% UL Pico
50% DL+50% UL Pico
0

10

20

PUE:
PUE:
PUE:
PUE:

0.2
0.1
0
-10

30

10

100% DL
100% DL
100% UL
100% UL

20

SINR, dB

Macro,
Macro,
Macro,
Macro,

100% DL Pico
50% DL+50% UL Pico
100% DL Pico
50% DL+50% UL Pico

30

40

50

60

SINR, dB

Pico-Macro co-channel with interference mitigation scheme

MUE UL SINR, Co-Channel

PUE UL SINR, Co-Channel

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

CDF

CDF

MUE: 100% UL Macro, X M P -95

0.4

MUE: 100% UL Macro, X M P -75 X PP -70

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

PUE: 100% UL Macro, X PP -70

0.5
0.4

MUE: 100% UL Macro, X PP -70

0.3

PUE: 100% UL Macro, X M P -75 X PP -70

0.6

MUE: 100% UL Macro, X M P -85

0.5

PUE: 100% UL Macro, X M P -95

0.7

MUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Pico

MUE: 100% UL Macro, X M P -75

0.6

0
-60

PUE: 100% UL Macro, 50% DL+50% UL Pico

PUE: 100% UL Macro, X M P -75
PUE: 100% UL Macro, X M P -85

10

20

30

0
-60

-50

-40

-30

SINR, dB

Figure 5.7.2-8: Simulation results from Source 8

Pico-Macro co-channel without interference mitigation scheme

Figure 5.7.2-9: Simulation results from Source 9

Pico-Macro co-channel with and without interference mitigation scheme

-20

-10

SINR, dB

10

20

30

UL Geometry (co-channel)

DL Geometry (co-channel)

1.00

1.00

0.90

0.90

0.80

0.80

0.70

0.70

0.60

0.60

[UL MUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random

CDF

CDF

[DL MUE] all Macro DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.50

[UL MUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random with PC

0.40

0.50

[DL PUE] all Macro DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

[DL PUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.40

[DL PUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random with PC

[UL PUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.30

[UL PUE] all Macro UL and Pico cells UL/DL random with PC
[UL PUE] all Macro DL and Pico cells UL/DL random

0.20

0.30

[DL MUE Baseline] all Macro and Pico cells DL

[DL PUE Baseline] all Macro and Pico cells DL

0.20

[UL MUE Baseline] all Macro and Pico cells UL

[UL PUE Baseline] all Macro and Pico cells UL

0.10

0.00
-70.00

-60.00

-50.00

-40.00

-30.00

-20.00

-10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

0.10
0.00
-50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

DL Geometry [dB]

UL Geometry [dB]

Figure 5.7.2-10: Simulation results from Source 10

5.8

Scenario 7

This scenario assumes multiple Macro cells deployed on the same carrier frequency for one operator and multiple
Macro cells deployed on an adjacent carrier frequency for another operator, where all victim Macro cells deployed on
the same carrier have the same UL-DL configuration and all aggressor Macro cells deployed on an adjacent carrier
frequency can adjust UL-DL configuration. The simulation assumptions are included in Annex A.

5.8.1

Deterministic evaluations

The evaluation results using the deterministic approach are shown in Table 5.8.1-1.
Table 5.8.1-1: Results of deterministic approach
Minimum BS separation distance
aggressor ->
victim

Macro->Macro

Aggressor Tx
power
(dBm)

46

(km)

Victim cell acceptable

interference (dBm)

-106.5

Sources 1
2

Source
2

Source
3

Source
4

112.850

113

112.8

112.3

Note: The results are calculated based on the Macro BS-BS pathloss model PL=98.45+20*log10(R), R in km

5.8.2

System simulation evaluations

The evaluation results by system simulations for scenario 7 are shown in Figures 5.8.2-1 to 5.8.2-7. The following cases
are simulated:

Case 1: Baseline is the transmission directions of all cells are the same.

Case 2: All Macro cells of one operator are of the same transmission direction (i.e. either DL or UL) and the
transmission direction of all Macro cells of another operator is different to the victim system.

Adjacent channel Macro-Macro cell and the aggressor (operator #1 on F1) and victim (operator #2 on F2) systems are
offset by a cell radius

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6
CDF

CDF

Macro-Macro adjacent-channel

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2
Aggressor cells UL, Victim cells UL
Aggressor cells DL, Victim cells DL

0.1
0
-50

Aggressor cells DL, Victim cells DL

Aggressor cells UL, Victim cells DL

-40

-30

-20
-10
SINR [dB]

10

0.1
20

0
-10

-5

5
SINR [dB]

Figure 5.8.2-1: Simulation results from Source 1

Macro-Macro adjacent-channel

Figure 5.8.2-2: Simulation results from Source 2

Macro-Macro adjacent-channel

Figure 5.8.2-3: Simulation results from Source 3

10

15

20

Macro-Macro adjacent-channel

Figure 5.8.2-4: Simulation results from Source 4

Macro-Macro adjacent-channel
UL Geometry of Macro UE (multiple operators)

DL Geometry of Macro UE (multiple operators)

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

Baseline: aggressor system cells all UL

Aggressor system cells all DL

0.5

CDF

CDF

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0
-35

Baseline: aggressor system cells all DL

Aggressor system cells all UL

0.1

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

10

0
-15

15

-10

-5

UL Geometry (dB)

10

15

20

DL Geometry (dB)

Figure 5.8.2-5: Simulation results from Source 5

Macro-Macro adjacent-channel
Macro - macro of multiple operators (Adjacent channel)

Macro - macro of multiple operators (Adjacent channel)

100

90

80

80

70

70

60

60

CDF [%]

CDF [%]

90

100
Baseline: all UL
Victim UL, Aggressor DL

50
40

50
40

30

30

20

20

10

10

0
-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
UL geometry [dB]

10

20

Baseline: all DL
Victim DL, Aggressor UL

0
-40

-30

-20

-10
0
DL geometry [dB]

Figure 5.8.2-6: Simulation results from Source 6

Macro-Macro adjacent-channel

10

20

MUE DL SINR, Adjacent Channel

MUE UL SINR, Adjacent Channel

0.8

0.8

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

0.4

0.4
MUE: One network DL, One network UL
MUE: Baseline - two networks in DL

0.2

0
-10

10

20

30

MUE: One network UL, One network DL

MUE: Baseline - two networks in UL

0.2

-30

-20

SINR, dB

-10

10

20

SINR, dB

Figure 5.8.2-7: Simulation results from Source 7

5.9

Scenario 8

This scenario assumes multiple Macro cells deployed on the same carrier frequency for one operator. The simulation
assumptions are included in Annex A. This scenario is studied mainly based on deterministic approach.

5.9.1

Deterministic evaluations

The evaluation results using the deterministic approach are shown in Table 5.9.1-1.
Table 5.9.1-1: Results of deterministic approach
Minimum BS separation distance
aggressor ->
victim

Aggressor Tx
power
(dBm)

(km)

Victim cell acceptable

interference (dBm)
Source1&2&4&5

Macro->Macro

46

-106.5

15940

Source 3
16000

Source 1
39.8

[Note 1] The results are calculated based on the Macro BS-BS pathloss model PL=98.45+20*log10(R), R in km
[Note 2] The results are calculated based on the Macro BS-BS pathloss model
98.45 20 log 10 ( R)
R 10.6km

PL
98.45 20 log 10 (10.6) 40 log 10 ( R) R 10.6km

5. 10

Summary

Based on the co-existence evaluations for the eight scenarios, following conclusions are made:

Significant BS-BS co-existence challenges have been observed to apply different TDD UL-DL configurations
in different cells for scenarios 1-4 without any interference mitigation mechanisms.

It is feasible to apply different TDD UL-DL configurations in different cells for scenarios 1 4, only provided
sufficient interference mitigation mechanisms are adopted. The interference mitigation schemes need further
study.

Significant BS-BS coexistence challenges have been observed when different TDD UL-DL configurations are
applied in different cells for scenarios 5-8 without any interference mitigation schemes. Preliminary results
with interference mitigation mechanisms were submitted but it has not been discussed. No conclusion on
coexistence feasibility with interference mitigation mechanisms has been made.

Performance evaluation

6.1

Methodologies

To evaluate the benefits of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation at least in terms of performance and
energy saving, the following metrics can be used:

Packet throughput, defined as the packet size over the packet transmission time, including the packet waiting
time in the buffer

UE average packet throughput, defined as the average of packet throughput for the UE

{5%, 50%, 95%} UE average packet throughput, from the CDF of average packet throughput from all UEs

Cell average packet throughput, defined as the mean of average packet throughput from all UEs

Other metrics, e.g.

o

Packet drop statistics

Packet delay statistics

Frequency resource (PRBs) utilizations

Time resource (subframes) utilizations

CDF of packet throughput

Total number of configured DL/UL subframes

The gain of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration is assessed by comparing its performance relative to a fixed reference TDD
UL-DL configuration, where the gain is evaluated over different fixed reference TDD UL-DL configurations and
different downlink/uplink traffic loads. Downlink and uplink transmissions are evaluated in an integrated simulator,
with metrics collected separately for downlink and uplink. Different time scales for TDD UL-DL reconfiguration are
also evaluated to show its impact on the performance.

6.2

Scenario 1: Isolated pico cell

This section captures the simulation assumptions and evaluation results for the isolated pico cell scenario. The
evaluation assumptions are shown in Table 6.2-1.
Table 6.2-1: Evaluation assumptions for isolated pico cell scenario
Parameters

Assumptions

Pico deployment

single cell , with a radius of 40 m

Pico antenna gain

5 dBi

Pico antenna pattern

2D, Omni-directional

Pico noise figure

13 dB

UE antenna gain

0 dBi

UE noise figure

9 dB

UE power class

23 dBm (200 mW)

Minimum distance between UE and

pico

10 m

Number of UEs per pico cell

10

Shadowing standard deviation

3dB for LOS and 4dB for NLOS

Pathloss

PLLOS(R)=103.8+20.9log10(R)
PLNLOS(R)=145.4+37.5log10(R)
For 2GHz, R in km
Case1: Prob(R)=0.5-min(0.5,5exp(-0.156/R))+min(0.5, 5exp(-R/0.03))

Maximum pico TX power

Traffic model

Time scale for reconfiguration

30 dBm

FTP model 1 in TR36.814

Poisson distributed with arrival rate
Number of UEs according to the simulated scenario
A packet is randomly assigned to a UE with equal probability
Independent traffic modeling for DL and UL per UE
Fixed size of 0.5Mbytes and 2Mbytes as in TR36.814
Possible range of file arriving rate () shall cover both low and
high load cases. Proposed value range of for DL is [0.25, 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2, 2.5, 5, 7.5] for 0.5 Mbytes file size, [0.06, 0.12, 0.25, 0.37,
0.5, 0.625, 1.25, 1.875] for 2 Mbytes file size. The arriving rate
for UL file is derived by the ratio of DL and UL arriving rate.

infinity (i.e. fixed reference configuration), or

TDD UL-DL reconfiguration every 10ms, 200ms, or 640ms,

Fixed reference TDD UL-DL

configurations

TDD UL-DL configuration 0 with ratio of DL and UL arrival rate

= {1/2}

TDD UL-DL configuration 1 with ratio of DL and UL arrival rate

= {1/1, 2/1}

TDD UL-DL configuration 2 with ratio of DL and UL arrival rate

= {2/1, 4/1}

HARQ modeling and HARQ

retransmission

Not modeled

eNB antenna configuration

1 Tx, 2 Rx

UE antenna configuration

1 Tx, 2 Rx

System bandwidth

10 MHz

Link adaptation

MCS selection with 10% BLER, assuming ideal CSI

If the highest MCS is selected, the BLER may be less than 10%, which
shall be modeled
Set of TDD UL-DL configurations

The seven TDD UL-DL configurations defined in Rel-8 can be used

for reconfigurations

Small scale fading

Not modeled

Carrier frequency

2 GHz

Cyclic prefix length

Normal CP in both downlink and uplink

Special subframe configuration

Configuration #8

Packet drop time

The packet drop time is either not modeled or modeled according to

36.814 (i.e. 8s for 0.5MB and 32s for 2MB)

Downlink/uplink receiver type

MMSE for both downlink and uplink

UL modulation order

{QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM}

Tables 6.2-2 to 6.2-6 show the evaluation results of isolated pico cell scenario for different fixed reference TDD UL-DL
configurations and different downlink/uplink traffic loads. The values are relative gain or loss of TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation compared to the fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration.
Table 6.2-2: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 0, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 1:2
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric
rate

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

Number of

Time scale
Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

115.48%

136.43%

94.54%

200ms

65.13%

65.13%

65.13%

640ms

42.53%

50.42%

34.64%

10ms

-2.41%

-1.41%

-3.41%

200ms

-31.70%

-31.70%

-31.70%

640ms

-24.90%

-4.45%

-45.36%

10ms

83.75%

83.75%

83.75%

640ms

28.21%

28.21%

28.21%

10ms

-2.20%

-2.20%

-2.20%

640ms

-34.78%

-34.78%

-34.78%

10ms

113.30%

133.30%

72.00%

200ms

77.75%

91.14%

67.10%

640ms

36.32%

41.73%

23.00%

10ms

-2.32%

-0.50%

-3.61%

200ms

-7.21%

-3.40%

-13.62%

0.25

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP
0.5
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

640ms

-10.01%

-1.00%

-26.73%

10ms

105.47%

126.87%

75.00%

200ms

73.53%

86.11%

62.20%

640ms

31.29%

61.46%

5.80%

10ms

-2.65%

-1.08%

-4.60%

200ms

-8.01%

-4.96%

-12.86%

640ms

-20.70%

-10.28%

-40.16%

10ms

90.79%

122.70%

66.00%

200ms

66.64%

81.20%

52.07%

640ms

36.60%

54.50%

13.00%

10ms

-5.05%

-3.20%

-7.03%

200ms

-22.32%

-9.50%

-35.14%

640ms

-19.94%

-3.00%

-51.35%

10ms

84.57%

118.54%

46.98%

200ms

74.17%

74.17%

74.17%

640ms

30.27%

48.06%

7.69%

10ms

-3.32%

-1.41%

-5.16%

200ms

-9.08%

-9.08%

-9.08%

640ms

-17.14%

-7.51%

-32.66%

10ms

96.91%

96.91%

96.91%

640ms

51.36%

51.36%

51.36%

10ms

-7.87%

-7.87%

-7.87%

640ms

-21.30%

-21.30%

-21.30%

10ms

108.36%

108.36%

108.36%

640ms

72.23%

72.23%

72.23%

10ms

-4.42%

-4.42%

-4.42%

640ms

-23.32%

-23.32%

-23.32%

10ms

71.92%

75.34%

68.50%

200ms

51.50%

51.50%

51.50%

640ms

42.83%

46.55%

39.10%

10ms

-11.22%

-10.00%

-12.44%

200ms

-17.50%

-17.50%

-17.50%

640ms

-28.10%

-27.20%

-29.00%

10ms

83.57%

100.34%

66.80%

1
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

2
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

200ms

57.60%

57.60%

57.60%

640ms

69.07%

91.84%

46.30%

10ms

-6.92%

-6.75%

-7.10%

200ms

-17.30%

-17.30%

-17.30%

640ms

-22.02%

-16.44%

-27.60%

10ms

36.18%

50.00%

7.29%

200ms

29.69%

45.13%

1.04%

640ms

21.87%

35.70%

0.52%

10ms

-17.15%

-11.00%

-21.50%

200ms

-27.75%

-16.47%

-44.09%

640ms

-33.44%

-25.39%

-50.54%

10ms

45.83%

60.99%

31.24%

200ms

34.52%

40.39%

28.64%

640ms

37.99%

54.98%

19.70%

10ms

-12.01%

-5.60%

-19.65%

200ms

-23.31%

-21.64%

-24.98%

640ms

-23.36%

-13.07%

-31.67%

10ms

13.63%

13.63%

13.63%

640ms

8.71%

8.71%

8.71%

10ms

-6.33%

-6.33%

-6.33%

640ms

-5.68%

-5.68%

-5.68%

10ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

640ms

0.05%

0.05%

0.05%

10ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

640ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10ms

4.94%

9.87%

0.00%

200ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

640ms

1.12%

2.53%

-0.30%

10ms

-2.61%

0.00%

-5.22%

200ms

-0.10%

-0.10%

-0.10%

640ms

-0.97%

-0.20%

-1.75%

10ms

-0.10%

-0.10%

-0.10%

200ms

0.10%

0.10%

0.10%

640ms

0.05%

0.10%

0.00%

2.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

7.5

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

10ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

200ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

640ms

-0.01%

0.00%

-0.01%

Table 6.2-3: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 1:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric
rate

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

Number of

Time scale
Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

50.02%

57.00%

39.53%

200ms

30.87%

45.80%

15.93%

640ms

9.69%

16.10%

4.72%

10ms

45.17%

47.44%

43.30%

200ms

20.75%

26.10%

15.40%

640ms

5.88%

11.15%

1.50%

10ms

42.96%

80.50%

5.41%

200ms

43.10%

43.10%

43.10%

640ms

-14.54%

1.60%

-30.67%

10ms

45.48%

48.80%

42.15%

200ms

14.60%

14.60%

14.60%

640ms

-21.59%

-0.89%

-42.30%

10ms

50.89%

85.92%

26.00%

200ms

25.31%

43.70%

12.80%

640ms

3.20%

15.90%

-10.30%

10ms

47.21%

51.14%

43.80%

200ms

30.63%

45.70%

18.60%

640ms

13.21%

39.30%

-0.10%

10ms

43.42%

91.02%

14.92%

200ms

16.59%

27.50%

8.50%

640ms

-9.00%

13.25%

-28.60%

10ms

62.06%

83.60%

45.10%

200ms

40.12%

70.97%

25.12%

640ms

2.27%

60.30%

-34.80%

10ms

41.12%

58.60%

19.00%

200ms

38.80%

38.80%

38.80%

0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

640ms

9.77%

14.00%

7.30%

10ms

44.48%

46.14%

42.30%

200ms

14.60%

14.60%

14.60%

640ms

6.12%

12.86%

-1.50%

10ms

38.79%

56.20%

23.83%

200ms

19.80%

19.80%

19.80%

640ms

-0.43%

15.40%

-21.40%

10ms

46.23%

50.10%

39.82%

200ms

14.60%

14.60%

14.60%

640ms

-9.79%

15.92%

-35.10%

10ms

47.96%

55.10%

40.82%

200ms

32.60%

32.60%

32.60%

640ms

9.00%

11.40%

6.60%

10ms

47.44%

47.49%

47.40%

200ms

17.30%

17.30%

17.30%

640ms

9.02%

12.94%

5.10%

10ms

26.05%

29.40%

22.70%

200ms

10.00%

10.00%

10.00%

640ms

-10.81%

-4.03%

-17.60%

10ms

52.85%

63.09%

42.60%

200ms

17.20%

17.20%

17.20%

640ms

-2.47%

8.16%

-13.10%

10ms

34.63%

55.00%

18.00%

200ms

18.15%

26.00%

10.30%

640ms

2.57%

4.10%

-1.20%

10ms

46.24%

50.26%

40.00%

200ms

24.80%

33.00%

16.60%

640ms

13.70%

17.50%

4.60%

10ms

33.71%

46.50%

27.73%

200ms

14.95%

20.70%

9.20%

640ms

0.81%

20.57%

-15.90%

10ms

62.05%

83.49%

39.70%

200ms

27.55%

36.70%

18.40%

640ms

17.65%

37.37%

-4.10%

1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

10ms

36.94%

69.96%

18.92%

200ms

10.53%

20.20%

-4.39%

640ms

0.04%

4.94%

-4.73%

10ms

51.15%

67.60%

35.41%

200ms

35.58%

52.98%

17.20%

640ms

18.16%

31.60%

3.00%

10ms

37.87%

75.13%

18.75%

200ms

19.47%

27.90%

10.75%

640ms

0.76%

6.60%

-5.27%

10ms

77.57%

113.51%

37.34%

200ms

60.50%

95.26%

30.50%

640ms

36.04%

59.02%

3.59%

10ms

-46.68%

-23.41%

-63.06%

200ms

-49.83%

-30.55%

-63.34%

640ms

-49.99%

-32.53%

-64.01%

10ms

45.22%

110.31%

12.00%

200ms

41.44%

108.32%

2.70%

640ms

37.42%

103.99%

0.08%

10ms

-40.96%

-34.58%

-49.11%

200ms

-43.80%

-39.49%

-48.10%

640ms

-41.26%

-34.55%

-48.85%

10ms

45.94%

73.52%

29.64%

200ms

51.89%

71.66%

32.11%

640ms

42.64%

70.79%

28.02%

10ms

-1.21%

1.50%

-3.93%

200ms

1.60%

1.60%

1.60%

640ms

-2.95%

0.50%

-6.40%

10ms

0.62%

4.73%

-3.50%

200ms

-3.60%

-3.60%

-3.60%

640ms

-3.75%

-3.00%

-4.50%

10ms

0.31%

1.00%

-0.39%

200ms

1.60%

1.60%

1.60%

640ms

0.17%

0.60%

-0.25%

10ms

-0.91%

-0.02%

-1.80%

2.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
7.5

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

200ms

-2.20%

-2.20%

-2.20%

640ms

-0.96%

-0.01%

-1.90%

Table 6.2-4: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric
rate

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

Number of

Time scale
Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

57.66%

60.30%

55.01%

200ms

57.90%

57.90%

57.90%

640ms

24.07%

38.40%

9.73%

10ms

43.66%

46.32%

41.00%

200ms

9.00%

9.00%

9.00%

640ms

0.31%

9.03%

-8.40%

10ms

63.10%

93.50%

32.69%

200ms

55.60%

55.60%

55.60%

640ms

-3.62%

3.20%

-10.45%

10ms

29.35%

48.40%

10.31%

200ms

12.00%

12.00%

12.00%

640ms

-30.18%

-21.77%

-38.60%

10ms

54.94%

59.30%

49.30%

200ms

34.59%

54.90%

12.80%

640ms

12.21%

35.10%

-10.30%

10ms

43.43%

47.90%

37.30%

200ms

22.40%

45.10%

9.30%

640ms

4.77%

40.80%

-13.86%

10ms

54.31%

63.50%

49.36%

200ms

25.75%

37.72%

11.36%

640ms

-5.29%

12.10%

-20.00%

10ms

43.30%

46.80%

38.06%

200ms

18.13%

41.95%

5.10%

640ms

-14.56%

34.05%

-45.40%

10ms

60.71%

67.80%

53.61%

200ms

62.80%

62.80%

62.80%

640ms

24.20%

35.30%

13.10%

0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

10ms

40.10%

42.00%

38.20%

200ms

8.80%

8.80%

8.80%

640ms

-0.78%

7.25%

-8.80%

10ms

66.92%

76.40%

57.43%

200ms

44.20%

44.20%

44.20%

640ms

-4.63%

9.15%

-18.40%

10ms

47.74%

57.60%

37.88%

200ms

20.00%

20.00%

20.00%

640ms

-26.00%

-16.49%

-35.50%

10ms

65.04%

76.30%

53.78%

200ms

66.20%

66.20%

66.20%

640ms

26.29%

37.60%

14.98%

10ms

36.72%

39.54%

33.90%

200ms

4.50%

4.50%

4.50%

640ms

-2.19%

5.63%

-10.00%

10ms

59.40%

65.70%

53.11%

200ms

29.00%

29.00%

29.00%

640ms

-2.94%

7.42%

-13.30%

10ms

39.20%

40.20%

38.20%

200ms

9.40%

9.40%

9.40%

640ms

-28.25%

-18.71%

-37.80%

10ms

69.83%

89.70%

46.90%

200ms

50.65%

72.50%

28.80%

640ms

22.23%

37.10%

16.47%

10ms

33.60%

36.39%

28.90%

200ms

9.61%

15.82%

3.40%

640ms

-3.02%

3.90%

-10.30%

10ms

79.50%

132.48%

46.40%

200ms

39.45%

52.20%

26.70%

640ms

10.89%

16.93%

6.71%

10ms

27.30%

33.30%

19.30%

200ms

9.20%

15.20%

3.20%

640ms

-22.65%

-8.10%

-36.40%

10ms

68.40%

107.30%

55.10%

1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

2.5

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

200ms

50.48%

81.30%

26.60%

640ms

22.68%

48.20%

10.80%

10ms

29.12%

33.17%

22.00%

200ms

11.63%

20.50%

-1.40%

640ms

-1.74%

12.50%

-11.55%

10ms

79.38%

127.30%

57.07%

200ms

55.58%

92.00%

28.13%

640ms

19.58%

29.00%

9.31%

10ms

24.99%

32.26%

8.30%

200ms

17.32%

24.45%

8.20%

640ms

-10.61%

5.69%

-26.70%

10ms

228.32%

285.70%

167.87%

200ms

229.04%

242.90%

215.18%

640ms

159.56%

200.00%

109.85%

10ms

0.95%

2.60%

-0.83%

200ms

-4.60%

-3.90%

-5.30%

640ms

-19.55%

-18.40%

-21.70%

10ms

453.41%

622.52%

213.17%

200ms

519.77%

546.69%

492.84%

640ms

364.71%

464.11%

189.79%

10ms

0.47%

20.55%

-16.10%

200ms

3.01%

15.47%

-9.45%

640ms

-16.05%

-0.27%

-24.04%

10ms

35.38%

49.30%

21.45%

200ms

29.90%

29.90%

29.90%

640ms

14.51%

19.60%

9.41%

10ms

-59.99%

-45.98%

-74.00%

200ms

-74.10%

-74.10%

-74.10%

640ms

-62.28%

-49.76%

-74.80%

10ms

27.82%

50.20%

5.44%

200ms

24.00%

24.00%

24.00%

640ms

8.39%

12.10%

4.69%

10ms

-32.51%

-24.20%

-40.82%

200ms

-24.70%

-24.70%

-24.70%

5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
7.5

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

640ms

-33.26%

-25.20%

-41.32%

Table 6.2-5: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric
rate

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

Number of

Time scale
Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

13.66%

14.52%

12.80%

200ms

11.10%

11.10%

11.10%

640ms

-1.38%

-0.16%

-2.60%

10ms

185.96%

192.43%

179.50%

200ms

116.20%

116.20%

116.20%

640ms

73.77%

81.60%

65.94%

10ms

-4.71%

-4.32%

-5.10%

200ms

-23.70%

-23.70%

-23.70%

640ms

-42.38%

-35.36%

-49.40%

10ms

194.72%

195.50%

193.93%

200ms

123.10%

123.10%

123.10%

640ms

29.33%

36.46%

22.20%

10ms

10.70%

13.61%

7.20%

200ms

-5.17%

7.20%

-20.10%

640ms

-14.23%

-3.10%

-37.10%

10ms

194.71%

208.90%

179.45%

200ms

139.17%

192.90%

87.67%

640ms

100.16%

185.70%

58.90%

10ms

4.41%

14.20%

-15.22%

200ms

-10.15%

-1.11%

-22.07%

640ms

-33.92%

-16.90%

-44.10%

10ms

229.37%

281.45%

196.10%

200ms

155.84%

193.22%

129.10%

640ms

92.03%

176.75%

31.60%

10ms

5.58%

11.53%

-4.30%

200ms

6.20%

6.20%

6.20%

640ms

-10.36%

-6.39%

-13.00%

10ms

164.80%

210.30%

86.00%

0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP
1
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

200ms

144.40%

144.40%

144.40%

640ms

76.12%

104.80%

33.00%

10ms

5.41%

8.73%

-0.50%

200ms

-11.70%

-11.70%

-11.70%

640ms

-24.14%

-3.49%

-50.00%

10ms

186.23%

241.60%

100.94%

200ms

160.00%

160.00%

160.00%

640ms

50.89%

81.92%

30.96%

10ms

8.93%

9.66%

8.20%

200ms

2.00%

2.00%

2.00%

640ms

-12.31%

-9.12%

-15.50%

10ms

219.97%

230.50%

209.44%

200ms

158.00%

158.00%

158.00%

640ms

114.41%

122.20%

106.62%

10ms

3.86%

4.80%

2.92%

200ms

-18.40%

-18.40%

-18.40%

640ms

-35.12%

-25.04%

-45.20%

10ms

283.07%

283.40%

282.74%

200ms

199.00%

199.00%

199.00%

640ms

96.74%

123.47%

70.00%

10ms

1.90%

7.32%

-9.80%

200ms

-6.20%

-3.80%

-8.60%

640ms

-17.70%

-11.89%

-23.50%

10ms

190.42%

263.50%

58.00%

200ms

181.30%

191.50%

171.10%

640ms

104.29%

153.00%

11.00%

10ms

2.28%

9.20%

-3.58%

200ms

-11.75%

-10.50%

-13.00%

640ms

-20.75%

6.48%

-38.80%

10ms

260.48%

350.64%

125.59%

200ms

231.10%

263.20%

199.00%

640ms

131.08%

187.72%

73.99%

10ms

1.32%

4.93%

-0.75%

200ms

-12.71%

-8.54%

-18.00%

1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

2.5

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

640ms

-24.55%

-14.83%

-28.26%

10ms

285.19%

308.95%

253.43%

200ms

249.24%

268.41%

228.20%

640ms

184.99%

208.50%

155.13%

10ms

-2.85%

-1.15%

-5.20%

200ms

-16.50%

-10.23%

-19.90%

640ms

-34.15%

-28.55%

-46.20%

10ms

378.72%

429.42%

293.63%

200ms

340.51%

411.30%

270.39%

640ms

238.22%

277.49%

212.78%

10ms

-19.37%

-15.00%

-24.20%

200ms

-28.30%

-23.55%

-32.60%

640ms

-33.71%

-20.00%

-41.00%

10ms

718.34%

1528.36%

20.00%

200ms

831.87%

1448.12%

237.50%

640ms

509.21%

1211.82%

4.00%

10ms

-24.12%

-13.12%

-34.12%

200ms

-30.25%

-22.66%

-37.84%

640ms

-35.73%

-28.38%

-45.90%

10ms

904.80%

1922.28%

35.85%

200ms

1509.81%

1837.00%

1182.63%

640ms

727.45%

1573.06%

17.87%

10ms

-37.62%

-33.20%

-40.00%

200ms

-40.20%

-33.40%

-47.00%

640ms

-42.70%

-34.80%

-50.00%

10ms

57.77%

111.00%

13.70%

200ms

39.93%

66.66%

13.20%

640ms

29.36%

44.44%

10.30%

10ms

-21.23%

-10.70%

-31.76%

200ms

-10.66%

-10.66%

-10.66%

640ms

-21.73%

-11.30%

-32.16%

10ms

4.72%

5.20%

4.24%

200ms

4.70%

4.70%

4.70%

640ms

3.60%

3.90%

3.29%

5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
7.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

Table 6.2-6: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric
rate

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

Number

Time scale
Mean

Max

Min

of sources

10ms

14.62%

15.74%

13.50%

200ms

17.70%

17.70%

17.70%

640ms

4.20%

7.70%

0.70%

10ms

186.90%

191.19%

182.60%

200ms

123.30%

123.30%

123.30%

640ms

66.59%

75.40%

57.78%

10ms

10.51%

14.82%

6.20%

200ms

-13.50%

-13.50%

-13.50%

640ms

-35.76%

-22.92%

-48.60%

10ms

171.59%

226.40%

116.77%

200ms

129.30%

129.30%

129.30%

640ms

8.61%

17.10%

0.11%

10ms

13.03%

16.28%

7.10%

200ms

2.85%

15.90%

-18.30%

640ms

-7.32%

6.50%

-37.50%

10ms

189.91%

207.10%

175.00%

200ms

138.58%

200.00%

110.60%

640ms

87.94%

185.70%

53.73%

10ms

9.14%

15.63%

-4.28%

200ms

-0.44%

12.10%

-21.15%

640ms

-22.76%

-2.00%

-39.46%

10ms

204.77%

277.57%

177.50%

200ms

132.30%

185.28%

95.70%

640ms

67.71%

168.09%

19.10%

10ms

9.76%

14.29%

0.10%

200ms

15.00%

15.00%

15.00%

640ms

-1.86%

1.00%

-4.00%

10ms

164.79%

200.29%

83.00%

200ms

120.90%

120.90%

120.90%

0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP
1
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

640ms

70.82%

106.94%

25.00%

10ms

7.46%

15.00%

0.01%

200ms

8.30%

8.30%

8.30%

640ms

-20.13%

-3.43%

-40.10%

10ms

196.34%

243.68%

100.73%

200ms

154.70%

154.70%

154.70%

640ms

58.41%

128.76%

23.00%

10ms

13.50%

13.70%

13.30%

200ms

14.20%

14.20%

14.20%

640ms

-3.33%

-3.10%

-3.55%

10ms

185.31%

190.30%

180.31%

200ms

124.50%

124.50%

124.50%

640ms

78.46%

80.30%

76.62%

10ms

15.33%

17.50%

13.16%

200ms

4.00%

4.00%

4.00%

640ms

-25.63%

-12.65%

-38.60%

10ms

205.26%

224.70%

185.82%

200ms

136.50%

136.50%

136.50%

640ms

42.69%

60.88%

24.50%

10ms

9.77%

13.50%

0.20%

200ms

9.25%

13.10%

5.40%

640ms

-4.49%

0.80%

-7.50%

10ms

143.99%

184.70%

45.00%

200ms

122.85%

123.40%

122.30%

640ms

64.05%

83.00%

20.00%

10ms

8.85%

16.90%

-2.26%

200ms

2.40%

3.20%

1.60%

640ms

-15.83%

-2.00%

-35.40%

10ms

176.36%

199.40%

149.58%

200ms

133.25%

136.00%

130.50%

640ms

60.11%

77.07%

36.40%

10ms

10.74%

13.20%

6.10%

200ms

0.15%

10.10%

-14.30%

640ms

-14.24%

-5.92%

-24.50%

1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

2.5

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

10ms

173.34%

176.90%

167.81%

200ms

140.48%

161.50%

116.00%

640ms

93.45%

130.80%

75.55%

10ms

9.15%

13.48%

4.70%

200ms

-3.96%

5.03%

-15.01%

640ms

-25.54%

-17.09%

-37.90%

10ms

170.67%

177.97%

163.50%

200ms

148.34%

161.72%

130.70%

640ms

83.45%

119.98%

50.50%

10ms

7.74%

15.77%

-3.10%

200ms

1.10%

9.29%

-7.10%

640ms

-14.12%

-10.89%

-22.20%

10ms

123.69%

162.85%

21.00%

200ms

153.81%

157.63%

150.00%

640ms

82.63%

118.80%

5.00%

10ms

13.90%

27.10%

2.19%

200ms

-4.98%

-0.36%

-9.61%

640ms

-10.63%

8.73%

-22.78%

10ms

143.18%

183.15%

58.53%

200ms

168.72%

182.53%

154.92%

640ms

101.87%

140.73%

14.08%

10ms

14.51%

20.90%

8.11%

200ms

17.50%

17.50%

17.50%

640ms

-3.02%

-2.00%

-4.04%

10ms

-8.05%

17.10%

-33.20%

200ms

-34.50%

-34.50%

-34.50%

640ms

-19.00%

6.00%

-44.00%

10ms

10.33%

14.65%

6.00%

200ms

5.30%

5.30%

5.30%

640ms

7.14%

13.08%

1.20%

10ms

-6.09%

5.92%

-18.10%

200ms

-19.10%

-19.10%

-19.10%

640ms

-8.16%

6.19%

-22.50%

5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
7.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

6.3

Scenario 2: Multi-cell pico scenario

This section captures the simulation assumptions and evaluation results for the multi-cell pico scenario. The evaluation
assumptions are shown in Table 6.3-1.
Table 6.3-1: Evaluation assumptions for multi-cell pico scenario
Parameters

Assumptions

Scenario

Co-channel and multiple pico cells

System bandwidth

10 MHz

Carrier frequency

2 GHz

Inter-site distance

500 m

Macro deployment

The typical 19-cell and 3-sectored hexagon system layout

Note that macro cells are deployed but not activated

Pico deployment

40m radius, random deployment

Number of pico cells per sector

Minimum distance between pico cells

40 m

Minimum distance between UE and

pico

10 m

Pico antenna pattern

2D, Omni-directional

Pico antenna gain

5 dBi

UE antenna gain

0 dBi

Pico noise figure

13 dB

UE noise figure

9 dB

Maximum pico TX power

24 dBm

UE power class

23 dBm (200 mW)

Number of UEs per pico cell

10 UEs uniformly dropped around each of the Pico cells within a

radius of 40m

Shadowing standard deviation

between outdoor Pico cells

6 dB

Shadowing correlation between UEs

Shadowing correlation between picos

0.5

Pico-to-pico pathloss

LOS: if R<2/3 km, PL(R)=98.4+20log10(R) [free space loss]

else, PL(R)=101.9+40log10(R), R in km [ Dual slop model TR25942
section5.1.4.3]
NLOS: PL= 40log10(R)+169.36, R in km [25.942:section 7.4.1.2.1.4
TR 101 112(ETSI):Annex B1.8.1.2]
Case1: Prob(R)=0.5-min(0.5,5exp(-0.156/R))+min(0.5, 5exp(-R/0.03))
[36.814: table A.2.1.1.2-3 the probability of Relay-UE case1]

Pico-to-UE pathloss

PLLOS(R)=103.8+20.9log10(R)
PLNLOS(R)=145.4+37.5log10(R)
For 2GHz, R in km
Case1: Prob(R)=0.5-min(0.5,5exp(-0.156/R))+min(0.5, 5exp(-R/0.03))
[36.814: table A.2.1.1.2-3 Pico-UE]

UE-to-UE pathloss

If R<=50m, PL=98.45+20*log10(R), R in km
If R>50m, PL=55.78 +40*log10(R), R in m (Xia model)
[Section 7.4.1.2.1.4 of TS25942, Annex B1.8.1.2 of TR 101
112(ETSI), ETSI STC SMG2 UMTS L1#9 Tdoc 679/98]

Traffic model

Time scale for reconfiguration

FTP model 1 in TR36.814

Poisson distributed with arrival rate
Number of UEs according to the simulated scenario
A packet is randomly assigned to a UE with equal probability
Independent traffic modeling for DL and UL per UE
Fixed size of 0.5Mbytes and 2Mbytes as in TR36.814
Possible range of file arriving rate () shall cover both low and
high load cases. Proposed value range of for DL is [0.25, 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2, 2.5, 5, 7.5] for 0.5 Mbytes file size, [0.06, 0.12, 0.25, 0.37,
0.5, 0.625, 1.25, 1.875] for 2 Mbytes file size. The arriving rate
for UL file is derived by the ratio of DL and UL arriving rate.
Independent traffic generation per cell
Same arriving rate for all the cells

infinity (i.e. fixed reference configuration), or

TDD UL-DL reconfiguration every 10ms, 200ms, or 640ms,

UE antenna configuration

1 Tx, 2 Rx

Fixed reference TDD UL-DL

configurations

TDD UL-DL configuration 1 with ratio of DL and UL arrival rate

= {1/1, 2/1}

TDD UL-DL configuration 2 with ratio of DL and UL arrival rate

= {2/1, 4/1}

Link adaptation

MCS selection with 10% BLER, assuming ideal CSI

If the highest MCS is selected, the BLER may be less than 10%, which
shall be modeled

Set of TDD UL-DL configurations

The seven TDD UL-DL configurations defined in Rel-8 can be used

for reconfigurations

Cyclic prefix length

Normal CP in both downlink and uplink

Special subframe configuration

Configuration #8

Packet drop time

The packet drop time is either not modeled or modeled according to

36.814 (i.e. 8s for 0.5MB and 32s for 2MB)

Downlink/uplink receiver type

MMSE for both downlink and uplink

UL modulation order

{QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM}

Shadowing standard deviation

between Pico and UE

3dB for LOS and 4dB for NLOS

6.3.1

Evaluation results without interference mitigation

Tables 6.3.1-1 to 6.3.1-4 show the evaluation results of multi-cell pico scenario for different fixed reference TDD ULDL configurations and different downlink/uplink traffic loads, without interference mitigation. The values are relative
gain or loss of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation compared to the fixed reference TDD UL-DL
configuration.
Table 6.3.1-1: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 1:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Number of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

52.33%

52.33%

52.33%

640ms

-14.58%

-14.58%

-14.58%

10ms

44.25%

44.25%

44.25%

640ms

43.81%

43.81%

43.81%

10ms

39.87%

39.87%

39.87%

640ms

-22.14%

-22.14%

-22.14%

10ms

29.54%

29.54%

29.54%

640ms

4.82%

4.82%

4.82%

10ms

41.41%

53.03%

17.00%

200ms

20.64%

31.79%

9.50%

640ms

-4.98%

4.90%

-12.50%

10ms

46.15%

65.88%

26.00%

200ms

34.65%

44.50%

24.80%

640ms

24.78%

49.74%

1.99%

10ms

44.95%

66.00%

22.58%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

0.5
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

200ms

27.34%

42.08%

12.60%

640ms

-4.27%

10.72%

-13.20%

10ms

61.66%

131.14%

18.00%

200ms

34.12%

45.00%

23.24%

640ms

33.90%

83.95%

-4.80%

10ms

36.01%

37.50%

34.52%

640ms

-3.33%

-0.93%

-5.73%

10ms

34.67%

39.13%

30.20%

640ms

25.99%

28.17%

23.81%

10ms

23.34%

45.65%

1.03%

640ms

-2.67%

6.25%

-11.58%

10ms

21.13%

48.15%

-5.88%

640ms

27.25%

43.98%

10.53%

10ms

32.73%

39.90%

25.55%

200ms

17.50%

17.50%

17.50%

640ms

-1.22%

2.10%

-4.53%

10ms

45.64%

50.90%

40.38%

200ms

47.20%

47.20%

47.20%

640ms

32.26%

37.10%

27.42%

10ms

53.20%

88.40%

17.99%

200ms

74.40%

74.40%

74.40%

640ms

23.18%

55.80%

-9.44%

10ms

54.07%

105.60%

2.54%

200ms

116.70%

116.70%

116.70%

640ms

58.17%

111.10%

5.23%

10ms

2.19%

11.00%

-6.63%

640ms

-10.73%

1.70%

-23.16%

10ms

26.91%

41.62%

12.20%

640ms

17.55%

29.10%

6.00%

10ms

-15.19%

32.52%

-62.89%

640ms

-30.01%

2.09%

-62.11%

10ms

28.82%

44.98%

12.66%

640ms

11.25%

17.72%

4.77%

10ms

23.93%

24.76%

23.10%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP
2.5

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

200ms

13.01%

17.02%

9.00%

640ms

-2.62%

-2.60%

-2.64%

10ms

66.30%

70.90%

61.71%

200ms

55.53%

62.50%

48.56%

640ms

34.73%

45.70%

23.77%

10ms

20.18%

23.67%

16.70%

200ms

20.77%

24.84%

16.70%

640ms

20.62%

24.54%

16.70%

10ms

-12.75%

0.00%

-25.50%

200ms

-12.39%

0.00%

-24.78%

640ms

-12.62%

0.00%

-25.23%

10ms

-79.83%

-79.83%

-79.83%

200ms

-79.84%

-79.84%

-79.84%

640ms

-79.87%

-79.87%

-79.87%

10ms

43.98%

43.98%

43.98%

200ms

43.82%

43.82%

43.82%

640ms

43.58%

43.58%

43.58%

10ms

3.65%

3.65%

3.65%

200ms

3.50%

3.50%

3.50%

640ms

3.53%

3.53%

3.53%

10ms

-3.86%

-3.86%

-3.86%

200ms

-3.65%

-3.65%

-3.65%

640ms

-4.41%

-4.41%

-4.41%

5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

Table 6.3.1-2: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Number of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

42.65%

54.61%

30.70%

640ms

-13.66%

-13.66%

-13.66%

10ms

41.86%

42.71%

41.00%

640ms

41.86%

41.86%

41.86%

10ms

50.49%

55.38%

45.60%

640ms

-20.12%

-20.12%

-20.12%

average DL PTP

0.25

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

10ms

27.76%

45.60%

9.91%

640ms

-12.49%

-12.49%

-12.49%

10ms

44.97%

61.28%

32.10%

200ms

22.77%

44.56%

11.00%

640ms

1.51%

13.17%

-11.50%

10ms

39.29%

48.89%

29.13%

200ms

22.25%

41.20%

9.13%

640ms

10.42%

39.00%

-14.28%

10ms

48.41%

71.00%

12.64%

200ms

23.47%

55.82%

0.49%

640ms

-1.13%

11.89%

-15.64%

10ms

30.44%

77.17%

-14.77%

200ms

8.65%

37.90%

-25.90%

640ms

-3.10%

34.70%

-45.71%

10ms

39.74%

50.86%

34.72%

200ms

10.46%

10.46%

10.46%

640ms

3.79%

7.75%

-0.24%

10ms

21.89%

27.60%

18.29%

200ms

4.90%

4.90%

4.90%

640ms

-1.57%

17.54%

-11.81%

10ms

29.80%

47.80%

2.63%

200ms

5.81%

5.81%

5.81%

640ms

-6.21%

-3.09%

-11.65%

10ms

-8.01%

18.10%

-31.77%

200ms

-24.82%

-24.82%

-24.82%

640ms

-26.13%

-10.30%

-44.16%

10ms

61.37%

79.72%

38.00%

200ms

34.30%

34.30%

34.30%

640ms

27.71%

40.71%

14.70%

10ms

14.25%

21.80%

2.24%

200ms

20.20%

20.20%

20.20%

640ms

-3.45%

12.60%

-19.49%

10ms

288.50%

550.79%

67.90%

200ms

187.20%

187.20%

187.20%

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

1.5
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

640ms

253.50%

368.69%

138.30%

10ms

-14.98%

-1.00%

-33.34%

200ms

-8.50%

-8.50%

-8.50%

640ms

-25.34%

-9.60%

-41.07%

10ms

51.51%

98.85%

28.29%

200ms

10.50%

10.50%

10.50%

640ms

20.82%

59.34%

-0.22%

10ms

0.25%

12.53%

-17.52%

200ms

0.39%

0.39%

0.39%

640ms

-17.20%

-7.94%

-32.71%

10ms

65.94%

216.23%

-35.79%

200ms

13.06%

13.06%

13.06%

640ms

85.12%

286.78%

-24.21%

10ms

-56.28%

-29.60%

-77.08%

200ms

-55.93%

-55.93%

-55.93%

640ms

-64.98%

-56.04%

-77.61%

10ms

82.13%

92.00%

72.26%

200ms

61.46%

62.70%

60.23%

640ms

36.48%

44.00%

28.96%

10ms

-10.22%

-6.40%

-14.03%

200ms

-15.38%

-9.60%

-21.15%

640ms

-27.18%

-17.00%

-37.35%

10ms

101.33%

152.67%

50.00%

200ms

101.83%

153.66%

50.00%

640ms

100.53%

167.77%

33.30%

10ms

-90.02%

-82.20%

-97.83%

200ms

-90.03%

-82.20%

-97.87%

640ms

-89.97%

-82.20%

-97.73%

10ms

496.78%

496.78%

496.78%

200ms

470.56%

470.56%

470.56%

640ms

402.12%

402.12%

402.12%

10ms

-37.95%

-37.95%

-37.95%

200ms

-40.59%

-40.59%

-40.59%

640ms

-47.73%

-47.73%

-47.73%

2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP
5
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

10ms

19.69%

19.69%

19.69%

200ms

19.50%

19.50%

19.50%

640ms

19.51%

19.51%

19.51%

10ms

-61.42%

-61.42%

-61.42%

200ms

-61.48%

-61.48%

-61.48%

640ms

-60.92%

-60.92%

-60.92%

Table 6.3.1-3: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Number of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

12.80%

12.80%

12.80%

640ms

-37.01%

-37.01%

-37.01%

10ms

193.82%

193.82%

193.82%

640ms

192.06%

192.06%

192.06%

10ms

4.95%

4.95%

4.95%

640ms

-46.05%

-46.05%

-46.05%

10ms

175.19%

175.19%

175.19%

640ms

119.11%

119.11%

119.11%

10ms

9.03%

14.05%

3.00%

200ms

-10.73%

2.23%

-18.70%

640ms

-24.81%

-13.22%

-35.20%

10ms

199.72%

239.23%

159.77%

200ms

155.70%

200.00%

119.54%

640ms

135.57%

211.19%

81.75%

10ms

3.41%

11.00%

-26.92%

200ms

-17.66%

0.33%

-34.80%

640ms

-33.17%

-19.74%

-45.27%

10ms

203.87%

397.25%

139.00%

200ms

158.94%

210.90%

112.61%

640ms

129.26%

251.82%

55.78%

10ms

3.91%

9.73%

-0.50%

200ms

-18.42%

-18.42%

-18.42%

640ms

-24.15%

-14.51%

-30.00%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

10ms

190.37%

233.99%

145.09%

200ms

117.36%

117.36%

117.36%

640ms

145.40%

200.16%

82.72%

10ms

-9.56%

8.97%

-25.19%

200ms

-22.87%

-22.87%

-22.87%

640ms

-31.60%

-19.61%

-40.85%

10ms

148.93%

196.14%

69.53%

200ms

86.79%

86.79%

86.79%

640ms

112.74%

165.34%

38.73%

10ms

8.85%

8.85%

8.85%

640ms

-14.78%

-14.78%

-14.78%

10ms

207.83%

207.83%

207.83%

640ms

142.40%

142.40%

142.40%

10ms

16.36%

16.36%

16.36%

640ms

-16.20%

-16.20%

-16.20%

10ms

258.00%

258.00%

258.00%

640ms

216.49%

216.49%

216.49%

10ms

-4.48%

3.09%

-18.03%

200ms

-19.37%

-15.80%

-22.94%

640ms

-26.97%

-17.39%

-36.25%

10ms

217.34%

286.70%

149.28%

200ms

199.55%

276.70%

122.40%

640ms

175.48%

246.70%

97.27%

10ms

-14.08%

44.73%

-68.72%

200ms

-22.68%

-14.00%

-31.35%

640ms

-14.00%

77.02%

-63.08%

10ms

117.26%

328.60%

28.08%

200ms

179.99%

328.60%

31.37%

640ms

117.51%

314.30%

15.44%

10ms

-7.35%

-1.40%

-13.31%

200ms

-17.86%

-16.40%

-19.33%

640ms

-30.47%

-26.00%

-34.93%

10ms

306.88%

319.00%

294.76%

200ms

283.41%

304.80%

262.02%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP
2.5
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

640ms

231.82%

276.20%

187.45%

10ms

-52.63%

-10.00%

-95.26%

200ms

-52.62%

-10.00%

-95.25%

640ms

-52.49%

-10.00%

-94.98%

10ms

44.72%

56.15%

33.30%

200ms

43.33%

53.36%

33.30%

640ms

48.18%

63.06%

33.30%

Table 6.3.1-4: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Number of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

13.33%

13.33%

13.33%

640ms

-37.10%

-37.10%

-37.10%

10ms

187.18%

187.18%

187.18%

640ms

185.47%

185.47%

185.47%

10ms

6.63%

6.63%

6.63%

640ms

-46.66%

-46.66%

-46.66%

10ms

127.40%

127.40%

127.40%

640ms

75.73%

75.73%

75.73%

10ms

10.21%

16.41%

7.00%

200ms

-4.77%

8.76%

-18.30%

640ms

-26.41%

-14.09%

-34.80%

10ms

189.13%

207.76%

174.00%

200ms

158.77%

188.20%

129.35%

640ms

143.43%

190.18%

57.72%

10ms

10.83%

18.47%

4.00%

200ms

-4.54%

8.92%

-18.00%

640ms

-30.64%

-20.53%

-36.40%

10ms

177.71%

266.34%

97.00%

200ms

152.17%

183.90%

120.44%

640ms

111.59%

179.00%

25.55%

10ms

5.50%

10.90%

0.10%

640ms

-14.73%

-0.40%

-29.05%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

10ms

91.37%

154.73%

28.00%

640ms

80.53%

149.05%

12.00%

10ms

1.62%

3.98%

-0.74%

640ms

-19.30%

2.58%

-41.18%

10ms

39.55%

58.20%

20.90%

640ms

42.90%

68.17%

17.64%

10ms

5.74%

13.80%

-2.32%

200ms

-7.90%

-7.90%

-7.90%

640ms

-24.16%

-20.10%

-28.23%

10ms

128.35%

138.90%

117.80%

200ms

133.30%

133.30%

133.30%

640ms

114.03%

116.70%

111.36%

10ms

28.72%

104.20%

-46.77%

200ms

75.00%

75.00%

75.00%

640ms

-1.32%

41.70%

-44.34%

10ms

8.11%

36.10%

-19.89%

200ms

41.70%

41.70%

41.70%

640ms

20.34%

33.30%

7.39%

10ms

14.14%

14.50%

13.78%

200ms

1.63%

7.55%

-4.30%

640ms

-13.72%

-12.24%

-15.20%

10ms

108.16%

120.62%

95.70%

200ms

96.56%

101.62%

91.50%

640ms

64.63%

76.60%

52.65%

10ms

50.35%

62.50%

38.20%

200ms

50.23%

62.50%

37.97%

640ms

35.54%

50.00%

21.08%

10ms

-18.57%

22.86%

-60.00%

200ms

-19.42%

21.15%

-60.00%

640ms

-22.82%

14.36%

-60.00%

10ms

11.92%

20.34%

3.50%

200ms

14.12%

14.12%

14.12%

640ms

-4.70%

-4.31%

-5.10%

10ms

59.40%

99.80%

19.00%

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP
5
average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

6.3.2

200ms

96.01%

96.01%

96.01%

640ms

36.51%

65.92%

7.10%

10ms

14.52%

17.38%

11.65%

200ms

11.58%

11.58%

11.58%

640ms

6.21%

11.83%

0.60%

10ms

-27.64%

-3.90%

-51.38%

200ms

-51.35%

-51.35%

-51.35%

640ms

-36.47%

-21.25%

-51.68%

Evaluation results with interference mitigation

Tables 6.3.2-1 to 6.3.2-4 show the evaluation results of multi-cell pico scenario for different fixed reference TDD ULDL configurations and different downlink/uplink traffic loads, with interference mitigation. The values are relative gain
or loss of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation compared to the fixed reference TDD UL-DL
configuration.
Table 6.3.2-1: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 1:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Number of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

47.56%

47.56%

47.56%

640ms

-9.28%

-9.28%

-9.28%

10ms

46.46%

46.46%

46.46%

640ms

38.72%

38.72%

38.72%

10ms

28.21%

28.21%

28.21%

640ms

-21.36%

-21.36%

-21.36%

10ms

48.08%

48.08%

48.08%

640ms

-13.84%

-13.84%

-13.84%

10ms

33.72%

34.17%

33.26%

640ms

-13.25%

-11.10%

-15.39%

10ms

50.26%

54.04%

46.48%

640ms

43.42%

45.50%

41.33%

10ms

18.65%

23.83%

13.47%

640ms

-16.53%

-12.40%

-20.65%

10ms

75.11%

83.18%

67.03%

640ms

65.88%

84.82%

46.94%

10ms

21.03%

27.07%

14.99%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP
1

average DL PTP

640ms

-10.81%

-3.31%

-18.32%

10ms

48.69%

49.75%

47.63%

640ms

38.16%

45.06%

31.27%

10ms

1.51%

11.58%

-8.56%

640ms

-21.26%

-10.42%

-32.09%

10ms

91.93%

102.74%

81.11%

640ms

70.06%

98.01%

42.11%

10ms

2.37%

12.15%

-7.41%

640ms

-20.45%

-11.55%

-29.34%

10ms

60.35%

71.77%

48.93%

640ms

46.36%

60.54%

32.18%

10ms

-33.78%

0.00%

-67.55%

640ms

-32.49%

0.00%

-64.97%

10ms

111.81%

220.97%

2.65%

640ms

152.66%

290.88%

14.44%

10ms

-11.90%

-3.72%

-20.08%

640ms

-26.88%

-18.47%

-35.29%

10ms

89.20%

110.14%

68.25%

640ms

73.46%

96.65%

50.26%

10ms

-32.91%

-18.97%

-46.84%

640ms

-32.87%

-18.90%

-46.84%

10ms

75.91%

102.53%

49.28%

640ms

71.94%

94.94%

48.95%

10ms

-1.95%

-1.95%

-1.95%

640ms

-14.33%

-14.33%

-14.33%

10ms

54.89%

54.89%

54.89%

640ms

42.02%

42.02%

42.02%

10ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

640ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

10ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

640ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

Table 6.3.2-2: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Number of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

52.04%

52.04%

52.04%

640ms

-7.64%

-7.64%

-7.64%

10ms

43.93%

43.93%

43.93%

640ms

36.64%

36.64%

36.64%

10ms

38.53%

38.53%

38.53%

640ms

-20.44%

-20.44%

-20.44%

10ms

31.52%

31.52%

31.52%

640ms

-28.15%

-28.15%

-28.15%

10ms

41.59%

44.24%

38.36%

200ms

21.11%

21.11%

21.11%

640ms

6.98%

7.34%

6.61%

10ms

36.76%

46.40%

31.89%

200ms

12.21%

12.21%

12.21%

640ms

-2.49%

1.88%

-6.86%

10ms

35.75%

46.02%

19.19%

200ms

5.67%

5.67%

5.67%

640ms

-2.21%

-1.58%

-2.84%

10ms

28.82%

50.54%

-13.65%

200ms

-21.29%

-21.29%

-21.29%

640ms

-16.75%

11.47%

-44.97%

10ms

39.48%

46.37%

31.17%

200ms

13.48%

13.48%

13.48%

640ms

4.17%

6.79%

-0.01%

10ms

19.82%

30.96%

7.18%

200ms

6.89%

6.89%

6.89%

640ms

-1.32%

16.67%

-10.48%

10ms

34.61%

47.53%

14.10%

200ms

24.09%

24.09%

24.09%

640ms

-5.39%

-0.91%

-12.75%

10ms

-4.79%

22.31%

-28.84%

200ms

-24.14%

-24.14%

-24.14%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

640ms

-20.69%

-9.71%

-41.45%

10ms

67.40%

73.92%

60.87%

640ms

25.99%

25.99%

25.99%

10ms

-2.06%

13.72%

-17.83%

640ms

-28.75%

-28.75%

-28.75%

10ms

152.33%

304.65%

0.00%

640ms

253.40%

253.40%

253.40%

10ms

-49.00%

-42.35%

-55.64%

640ms

-48.61%

-48.61%

-48.61%

10ms

51.00%

67.22%

40.95%

200ms

15.30%

15.30%

15.30%

640ms

16.45%

31.96%

4.87%

10ms

-1.91%

18.68%

-40.22%

200ms

3.94%

3.94%

3.94%

640ms

-16.37%

5.81%

-46.77%

10ms

52.67%

67.62%

36.84%

200ms

36.00%

36.00%

36.00%

640ms

30.14%

63.31%

2.37%

10ms

-33.10%

18.27%

-76.12%

200ms

-38.11%

-38.11%

-38.11%

640ms

-38.12%

8.36%

-73.15%

average DL PTP

10ms

61.47%

61.47%

61.47%

average UL PTP

10ms

-16.31%

-16.31%

-16.31%

5% DL PTP

10ms

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

5% UL PTP

10ms

-32.14%

-32.14%

-32.14%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

2.5

Table 6.3.2-3: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Number of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

10.92%

10.92%

10.92%

640ms

-32.62%

-32.62%

-32.62%

10ms

196.32%

196.32%

196.32%

640ms

181.32%

181.32%

181.32%

average DL PTP
0.25
average UL PTP

10ms

-6.43%

-6.43%

-6.43%

640ms

-46.26%

-46.26%

-46.26%

10ms

229.28%

229.28%

229.28%

640ms

79.90%

79.90%

79.90%

10ms

6.22%

9.01%

3.42%

200ms

-9.48%

-9.48%

-9.48%

640ms

-19.00%

-17.69%

-20.31%

10ms

171.51%

177.47%

165.55%

200ms

125.73%

125.73%

125.73%

640ms

100.86%

114.35%

87.37%

10ms

-7.76%

7.15%

-22.67%

200ms

-31.44%

-31.44%

-31.44%

640ms

-31.37%

-25.76%

-36.97%

10ms

159.39%

171.01%

147.77%

200ms

125.84%

125.84%

125.84%

640ms

79.28%

100.68%

57.88%

10ms

3.61%

4.08%

2.69%

200ms

-16.19%

-16.19%

-16.19%

640ms

-22.55%

-20.66%

-25.07%

10ms

174.98%

214.02%

151.34%

200ms

121.47%

121.47%

121.47%

640ms

127.57%

179.73%

86.16%

10ms

-3.63%

3.65%

-9.19%

200ms

-9.55%

-9.55%

-9.55%

640ms

-31.85%

-27.62%

-39.01%

10ms

181.86%

326.70%

76.79%

200ms

88.47%

88.47%

88.47%

640ms

131.16%

210.80%

45.48%

10ms

-2.57%

-2.57%

-2.57%

640ms

-23.70%

-23.70%

-23.70%

10ms

147.40%

147.40%

147.40%

640ms

114.51%

114.51%

114.51%

10ms

-27.65%

-27.65%

-27.65%

640ms

-36.81%

-36.81%

-36.81%

5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.5
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

1.5

average UL PTP

5% DL PTP

10ms

138.23%

138.23%

138.23%

640ms

175.99%

175.99%

175.99%

10ms

-7.42%

0.99%

-13.30%

200ms

-19.59%

-19.59%

-19.59%

640ms

-10.95%

26.86%

-31.59%

10ms

190.45%

283.13%

131.69%

200ms

130.25%

130.25%

130.25%

640ms

150.44%

241.56%

103.45%

10ms

-21.13%

-6.77%

-33.33%

200ms

-17.43%

-17.43%

-17.43%

640ms

-28.01%

-6.95%

-39.23%

10ms

195.60%

478.79%

33.44%

200ms

84.50%

84.50%

84.50%

640ms

176.89%

430.30%

50.05%

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

Table 6.3.2-4: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Number of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

-32.27%

-32.27%

-32.27%

640ms

-32.27%

-32.27%

-32.27%

10ms

173.65%

173.65%

173.65%

640ms

173.65%

173.65%

173.65%

10ms

-45.11%

-45.11%

-45.11%

640ms

-45.11%

-45.11%

-45.11%

10ms

40.51%

40.51%

40.51%

640ms

40.51%

40.51%

40.51%

10ms

9.28%

9.28%

9.28%

640ms

-22.29%

-22.29%

-22.29%

10ms

172.08%

172.08%

172.08%

640ms

144.01%

144.01%

144.01%

10ms

2.57%

2.57%

2.57%

640ms

-37.79%

-37.79%

-37.79%

10ms

178.14%

178.14%

178.14%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
0.25
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
1
5% DL PTP
5% UL PTP

640ms

88.10%

88.10%

88.10%

10ms

5.25%

5.25%

5.25%

640ms

-18.80%

-18.80%

-18.80%

10ms

159.28%

159.28%

159.28%

640ms

130.87%

130.87%

130.87%

10ms

-1.04%

-1.04%

-1.04%

640ms

-23.90%

-23.90%

-23.90%

10ms

186.93%

186.93%

186.93%

640ms

152.84%

152.84%

152.84%

average DL PTP

average UL PTP
2
5% DL PTP

5% UL PTP

6.4

Scenario 3: Co-channel multi-cell macro-pico scenario

This section captures the simulation assumptions and evaluation results for the co-channel multi-cell macro-pico
scenario. The evaluation assumptions are shown in Table 6.4-1.
Table 6.4-1: Evaluation assumptions for multi-cell macro pico scenario
Parameters

Assumptions

Scenario

Multi-cell macro-pico scenario

System bandwidth

10 MHz

Carrier frequency

2 GHz

Inter-site distance

500 m

Macro deployment

The typical 19-cell and 3-sectored hexagon system layout

Pico deployment

40m radius, random deployment

Number of pico cells per sector

Minimum distance between pico cells

40 m

Minimum distance between outdoor

pico and macro

75m

Minimum distance between UE and

pico

10 m

Minimum distance between UE and

Macro

35m

Macro antenna gain

15dBi

Macro antenna pattern

A min 12
3 dB

, Am

3dB = 65 degrees, Am = 20 dB (65 degree horizontal beamwidth)

Pico antenna pattern

2D, Omni-directional

Pico antenna gain

5 dBi

UE antenna gain

0 dBi

Macro noise figure

5dB

Pico noise figure

13 dB

UE noise figure

9 dB

Maximum macro Tx power

46dBm

Maximum pico TX power

24 dBm

Macro DL power control

Not modeled, i.e. assuming max macro Tx power

UE power class

23 dBm (200 mW)

Number of UEs per macro cell

Non-uniform 60UE/macro cell (i.e. 20 Macro UEs randomly and

uniformly dropped per Macro cell)

Number of UEs per pico cell

10 UEs uniformly dropped around each of the Pico cells within a

radius of 40m

User distribution

Cluster, Photspot=2/3

Shadowing standard deviation

between outdoor Pico cells

6 dB

Shadowing standard deviation

between outdoor Pico and Macro

6 dB

Shadowing correlation between UEs

Shadowing correlation between picos

0.5

Shadowing correlation between

outdoor pico and macro

0.5

Shadowing correlation between macro

cells

A shadowing correlation factor of 0.5 for the shadowing between sites

(regardless aggressing or victim system) and of 1 between sectors of
the same site shall be used

Outdoor Pico to outdoor Pico pathloss

LOS: if R<2/3 km, PL(R)=98.4+20log10(R) [ free space loss]

else, PL(R)=101.9+40log10(R), R in km [ Dual slop model TR25942

section5.1.4.3]
NLOS: PL= 40log10(R)+169.36, R in km [25.942:section 7.4.1.2.1.4
TR 101 112(ETSI):Annex B1.8.1.2]
Case 1: Prob(R)=0.5-min(0.5,5exp(-0.156/R))+min(0.5, 5exp(R/0.03)) [36.814: table A.2.1.1.2-3 the probability of Relay-UE case1]
Outdoor Pico to UE pathloss

PLLOS(R)=103.8+20.9log10(R)

PLNLOS(R)=145.4+37.5log10(R)

For 2GHz, R in km
Case 1: Prob(R)=0.5-min(0.5,5exp(-0.156/R))+min(0.5, 5exp(R/0.03)) [36.814: table A.2.1.1.2-3 Pico-UE]
UE to UE pathloss

If R<=50m, PL=98.45+20*log10(R), R in km
If R>50m, PL=55.78 +40*log10(R), R in m (Xia model)
[Section 7.4.1.2.1.4 of TS25942, Annex B1.8.1.2 of TR 101
112(ETSI), ETSI STC SMG2 UMTS L1#9 Tdoc 679/98]

Macro to UE pathloss

PLLOS(R)=103.4+24.2log10(R)
PLNLOS(R)= 131.1+42.8log10(R)
For 2GHz, R in km.
Case 1: Prob(R)=min(0.018/R,1)*(1-exp(-R/0.063))+exp(-R/0.063)
[36.814: table A2.1.1.5-2 ]

Macro to outdoor Pico

PLLOS(R) = 100.7+23.5log10(R)
PLNLOS(R) = 125.2+36.3log10(R)
For 2GHz, R in km.
Case1: Prob(R)=min(0.018/R,1)*(1-exp(-R/0.072))+exp(-R/0.072)
[36.814 table A.2.1.1.2-3 reuse the model of Macro-Relay]

Time scale for reconfiguration

infinity (i.e. fixed reference configuration), or

TDD UL-DL reconfiguration every 10ms, 200ms, or 640ms, with
200ms optional

Simulation methodology

DL and UL shall be evaluated in an integrated simulator

Pico antenna configuration

Set 1: 2Tx, 2Rx (codebook-based SU-MIMO or fixed rank 1

transmission)
Set 2: 1Tx, 2Rx

UE antenna configuration

1Tx, 2Rx

Link adaptation

* MCS selection with 10% BLER

If the highest MCS is selected, the BLER may be less than 10%, which
shall be modeled
* DL based on CQI/PMI/RI reports and UL based on SRS
measurement
DL CSI feedback

DL CSI modeled as following:

-- PUCCH mode 1-1, wideband CQI/PMI reported every 10ms
-- CSI reporting based on ideal channel estimation and ideal
interference estimation in the reported subframe
-- A minimum 5ms CSI feedback delay is modeled
-- Error free feedback

UL CSI feedback

UL CSI modeled as following

--1 symbol SRS per 10ms (Last UL symbol in subframe#1)
-- UL CSI based on ideal channel estimation and ideal interference
estimation in the SRS subframe
-- A minimum 5 ms CSI delay is modeled

Channel estimation

Ideal

Small scaling fading channel

For set 1:
Pico-UE/UE-Pico: TU or ITU;
Macro-UE/UE-Macro: TU or ITU;
UE-UE: TU or not modeled;
Pico-Pico: not modeled.
Macro-Macro: not modeled
Macro-Pico/Pico-Macro: not modeled
For set 2:
Not modeled

CP length

Normal CP in both downlink and uplink.

Special subframe configuration

Special subframe configuration #8

Packet drop time

The packet drop time is either not modeled or model according to

36.814 (i.e. 8s for 0.5MB and 32s for 2MB).

Receiver type

MMSE receiver

UL modulation order

{QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM}

Traffic model

FTP model 1 in TR36.814

Poisson distributed with arrival rate
Number of UEs according to the simulated scenario
A packet is randomly assigned to a UE with equal probability
Independent traffic modeling for DL and UL per UE
Fixed size of 0.5Mbytes and 2Mbytes as in TR36.814
Possible range of file arriving rate () shall cover both low and
high load cases. Proposed value range of for DL is [0.25, 0.5, 1,
1.5, 2, 2.5, 5, 7.5] for 0.5 Mbytes file size, [0.06, 0.12, 0.25, 0.37,
0.5, 0.625, 1.25, 1.875] for 2 Mbytes file size. The arriving rate
for UL file is derived by the ratio of DL and UL arriving rate.
Independent traffic generation per cell

Same arriving rate for all the cells

Reference TDD configuration

Evaluate at least the following TDD reference configurations for Pico

cell
TDD UL-DL configuration 1 with ratio of DL and UL arrival rate =

{ 2/1, 4/1}
Macro Cell TDD UL-DL configurations are fixed as TDD UL-DL
configuration 1 with ratio of DL and UL arrival rate = { 2/1, 4/1}
Other traffic ratios and reference configurations are optional
HARQ retransmission scheme

CC

Simulation cases

Case 1. All pico cells have the same UL-DL configurations

Case 2. Applying adaptive UL-DL configuration in pico cells without
any interference mitigation schemes.
Case 3. Applying adaptive UL-DL configuration in pico cells with
interference mitigation schemes.

Control channel and reference signal

overhead

DL:
Overhead for CRS according to 36.211;
Overhead for PDCCH: 2 OFDM symbols;
UL:
Overhead for SRS defined above;
Overhead for PUCCH: 2 PRBs;
Overhead for UL DMRS: 2 symbols per subframe.

Shadow fading for Macro-UE link

8dB

Shadowing standard deviation

between outdoor Pico and UE

3dB for LOS and 4dB for NLOS

[ ITU-R M.2135 UMi]

6.4.1

Evaluation results without interference mitigation

Tables 6.4.1-1 to 6.4.1-4 show the evaluation results of co-channel multi-cell macro-pico scenario for different fixed
reference TDD UL-DL configurations and different downlink/uplink traffic loads, without interference mitigation. The
values are relative gain or loss of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation compared to the fixed
reference TDD UL-DL configuration.
Table 6.4.1-1a collects the metrics separately for pico and macro, and Table 6.4.1-1b collects the metrics jointly for pico
and macro.
Table 6.4.1-1a: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain
DL arrival

Num of
Metric

Time scale

Mean

Max

Mean

rate

sources
Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

37.64%

1.65%

37.87%

3.51%

37.40%

-0.20%

10ms

-48.01%

-72.24%

-20.50%

-60.50%

-75.53%

-83.99%

10ms

-12.08%

7.99%

52.50%

15.07%

-76.66%

0.90%

10ms

-67.66%

-78.18%

-46.80%

-70.70%

-88.52%

-85.65%

Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
0.25
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP

10ms

37.37%

-0.77%

99.22%

3.93%

-27.20%

-8.30%

200ms

77.30%

-1.23%

77.30%

-1.23%

77.30%

-1.23%

640ms

10.01%

-1.37%

55.67%

2.68%

-30.50%

-5.21%

10ms

-49.75%

-74.08%

-33.00%

-61.20%

-89.70%

-92.20%

200ms

-61.55%

-92.12%

-61.55%

-92.12%

-61.55%

-92.12%

640ms

-62.50%

-67.96%

-41.90%

-54.20%

-91.90%

-92.12%

10ms

41.67%

-0.65%

132.10%

23.70%

-34.40%

-13.15%

200ms

59.69%

-1.31%

59.69%

-1.31%

59.69%

-1.31%

640ms

9.46%

-4.16%

55.17%

3.70%

-37.80%

-11.44%

10ms

-66.02%

-89.09%

-40.62%

-61.48%

-95.30%

-140.32%

200ms

-65.65%

-69.26%

-65.65%

-69.26%

-65.65%

-69.26%

640ms

-63.39%

-75.93%

-44.48%

-58.55%

-95.30%

-95.73%

10ms

43.52%

5.52%

134.31%

10.38%

-1.84%

0.82%

200ms

107.84%

9.97%

107.84%

9.97%

107.84%

9.97%

640ms

44.62%

1.86%

80.06%

3.45%

9.18%

0.27%

10ms

-62.78%

-77.74%

-47.19%

-52.47%

-81.68%

-100.00%

200ms

-64.94%

-76.85%

-64.94%

-76.85%

-64.94%

-76.85%

640ms

-57.14%

-59.30%

-44.68%

-44.19%

-69.60%

-74.42%

10ms

30.30%

11.55%

91.13%

34.62%

-18.24%

-3.18%

200ms

147.39%

8.05%

147.39%

8.05%

147.39%

8.05%

640ms

56.12%

-0.16%

98.96%

4.37%

13.27%

-4.69%

10ms

-63.92%

-77.84%

-45.24%

-54.75%

-80.97%

-100.88%

200ms

-72.18%

-67.63%

-72.18%

-67.63%

-72.18%

-67.63%

640ms

-45.56%

-75.04%

-43.59%

-47.72%

-47.52%

-102.37%

10ms

77.86%

0.17%

132.82%

1.22%

28.25%

-0.76%

200ms

105.20%

-3.69%

105.20%

-3.69%

105.20%

-3.69%

640ms

87.37%

0.45%

87.37%

0.45%

87.37%

0.45%

10ms

-73.14%

-57.38%

-58.31%

-25.24%

-94.37%

-96.81%

200ms

-62.16%

-48.76%

-62.16%

-48.76%

-62.16%

-48.76%

640ms

-64.23%

-36.74%

-64.23%

-36.74%

-64.23%

-36.74%

10ms

12.15%

0.53%

17.56%

1.26%

8.30%

0.05%

200ms

10.61%

-4.29%

10.61%

-4.29%

10.61%

-4.29%

640ms

9.20%

0.43%

9.20%

0.43%

9.20%

0.43%

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
0.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
1
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
1.5
UL PTP

5%
DL PTP

10ms

-62.88%

-50.53%

-39.15%

-0.88%

-98.51%

-95.24%

200ms

-40.46%

-45.58%

-40.46%

-45.58%

-40.46%

-45.58%

640ms

-63.58%

-48.33%

-63.58%

-48.33%

-63.58%

-48.33%

10ms

52.12%

4.63%

123.43%

17.14%

1.74%

-2.52%

200ms

100.89%

-2.83%

100.89%

-2.83%

100.89%

-2.83%

640ms

81.62%

-5.38%

81.62%

-5.38%

81.62%

-5.38%

10ms

-69.98%

-63.21%

-63.83%

-26.65%

-78.96%

-100.00%

200ms

-66.36%

-19.39%

-66.36%

-19.39%

-66.36%

-19.39%

640ms

-69.85%

-3.90%

-69.85%

-3.90%

-69.85%

-3.90%

10ms

23.98%

-2.75%

44.39%

-1.84%

10.91%

-3.77%

200ms

8.37%

-3.57%

8.37%

-3.57%

8.37%

-3.57%

640ms

10.22%

-4.37%

10.22%

-4.37%

10.22%

-4.37%

10ms

-61.24%

-42.42%

-45.97%

-8.62%

-75.08%

-100.00%

200ms

-55.77%

-26.44%

-55.77%

-26.44%

-55.77%

-26.44%

640ms

-67.01%

-4.02%

-67.01%

-4.02%

-67.01%

-4.02%

10ms

10.22%

3.81%

11.37%

7.70%

9.07%

-0.08%

10ms

-78.15%

-53.44%

-58.85%

-42.75%

-97.45%

-64.12%

10ms

0.84%

-1.74%

3.31%

-0.04%

-1.64%

-3.44%

10ms

-43.43%

-36.40%

-9.85%

5.23%

-77.00%

-78.03%

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
2
5%
DL PTP

5% UL PTP

Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
2.5
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP

Table 6.4.1-1b: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Num of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Mean

sources

10ms

21.00%

21.00%

21.00%

10ms

-35.40%

-35.40%

-35.40%

10ms

29.00%

29.00%

29.00%

Average
DL PTP
Average
0.25
UL PTP
5%
DL PTP

5%
10ms

-69.40%

-69.40%

-69.40%

Average

10ms

37.00%

45.00%

29.00%

DL PTP

200ms

7.00%

7.00%

7.00%

Average

10ms

-30.50%

-14.00%

-47.00%

UL PTP

200ms

-18.00%

-18.00%

-18.00%

5%

10ms

68.20%

69.00%

67.40%

DL PTP

200ms

28.00%

28.00%

28.00%

5%

10ms

-82.00%

-64.00%

-100.00%

UL PTP

200ms

-59.00%

-59.00%

-59.00%

Average

10ms

29.00%

29.00%

29.00%

DL PTP

200ms

10.00%

10.00%

10.00%

Average

10ms

-34.00%

-34.00%

-34.00%

UL PTP

200ms

-32.00%

-32.00%

-32.00%

5%

10ms

42.00%

42.00%

42.00%

DL PTP

200ms

26.00%

26.00%

26.00%

5%

10ms

-78.00%

-78.00%

-78.00%

UL PTP

200ms

-77.00%

-77.00%

-77.00%

UL PTP

0.5

Table 6.4.1-2a collects the metrics separately for pico and macro, and Table 6.4.1-2b collects the metrics jointly for pico
and macro.
Table 6.4.1-2a: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain

Num of

DL arrival
Metric

Mean

Time scale

Max

sources

Min

rate
Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

45.54%

3.70%

45.54%

3.70%

45.54%

3.70%

10ms

-73.48%

-79.22%

-73.48%

-79.22%

-73.48%

-79.22%

10ms

-79.95%

13.24%

-79.95%

13.24%

-79.95%

13.24%

10ms

-82.70%

-83.36%

-82.70%

-83.36%

-82.70%

-83.36%

10ms

85.13%

10.17%

137.20%

20.47%

56.00%

1.12%

Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
0.25
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP
0.5

Average

DL PTP

200ms

117.39%

12.91%

117.39%

12.91%

117.39%

12.91%

640ms

99.17%

8.27%

99.17%

8.27%

99.17%

8.27%

10ms

-40.06%

-76.31%

-30.27%

-62.20%

-51.67%

-93.29%

200ms

-59.43%

-93.24%

-59.43%

-93.24%

-59.43%

-93.24%

640ms

-68.53%

-93.23%

-68.53%

-93.23%

-68.53%

-93.23%

10ms

100.06%

21.19%

149.85%

26.70%

62.97%

16.03%

200ms

127.53%

17.14%

127.53%

17.14%

127.53%

17.14%

640ms

139.81%

6.90%

139.81%

6.90%

139.81%

6.90%

10ms

-55.12%

-83.57%

-37.19%

-73.41%

-75.79%

-95.93%

200ms

-63.45% -119.42%

-63.45%

-119.42% -63.45% -119.42%

640ms

-82.62%

-82.13%

-82.62%

-82.13%

-82.62%

-82.13%

10ms

120.98%

8.45%

206.03%

15.48%

35.94%

1.41%

200ms

181.12%

1.55%

181.12%

1.55%

181.12%

1.55%

640ms

157.90%

6.64%

157.90%

6.64%

157.90%

6.64%

10ms

-73.86%

-89.87%

-67.89%

-87.99%

-79.84%

-91.75%

200ms

-69.93%

-91.51%

-69.93%

-91.51%

-69.93%

-91.51%

640ms

-73.34%

-89.85%

-73.34%

-89.85%

-73.34%

-89.85%

10ms

115.66%

17.13%

214.46%

33.09%

16.87%

1.17%

200ms

207.73%

1.24%

207.73%

1.24%

207.73%

1.24%

640ms

142.37%

6.13%

142.37%

6.13%

142.37%

6.13%

10ms

-75.11%

-94.90%

-62.57%

-82.12%

-87.65% -107.68%

200ms

-86.79%

-64.28%

-86.79%

-64.28%

-86.79%

-64.28%

640ms

-38.53%

-85.79%

-38.53%

-85.79%

-38.53%

-85.79%

10ms

134.92%

2.69%

218.55%

5.81%

75.17%

0.01%

200ms

189.42%

6.22%

189.42%

6.22%

189.42%

6.22%

640ms

168.51%

7.06%

168.51%

7.06%

168.51%

7.06%

10ms

-75.18%

-75.81%

-69.95%

-43.10%

-85.42%

-97.01%

200ms

-72.35%

-87.00%

-72.35%

-87.00%

-72.35%

-87.00%

640ms

-74.35%

-77.59%

-74.35%

-77.59%

-74.35%

-77.59%

10ms

33.26%

-1.25%

88.42%

2.57%

-12.57%

-6.33%

200ms

22.16%

3.41%

22.16%

3.41%

22.16%

3.41%

640ms

13.62%

8.07%

13.62%

8.07%

13.62%

8.07%

10ms

-79.71%

-77.69%

-57.73%

-46.27%

-94.08%

-97.10%

Average
UL PTP

5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
1
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
1.5

UL PTP

5%
DL PTP
5%

UL PTP

200ms

-93.92% -114.32%

-93.92%

-114.32% -93.92% -114.32%

640ms

-81.21%

-87.84%

-81.21%

-87.84%

-81.21%

-87.84%

10ms

143.95%

2.43%

239.91%

3.29%

47.98%

1.58%

200ms

205.05%

-0.96%

205.05%

-0.96%

205.05%

-0.96%

640ms

183.38%

8.37%

183.38%

8.37%

183.38%

8.37%

10ms

-77.48%

-79.74%

-72.56%

-78.34%

-82.40%

-81.15%

200ms

-73.32%

-76.29%

-73.32%

-76.29%

-73.32%

-76.29%

640ms

-75.07%

-26.59%

-75.07%

-26.59%

-75.07%

-26.59%

10ms

13.90%

1.31%

18.87%

1.31%

8.93%

1.31%

200ms

21.59%

-0.94%

21.59%

-0.94%

21.59%

-0.94%

640ms

9.69%

6.29%

9.69%

6.29%

9.69%

6.29%

10ms

-78.11%

-56.93%

-74.79%

-55.74%

-81.43%

-58.12%

200ms

-79.46%

-65.69%

-79.46%

-65.69%

-79.46%

-65.69%

640ms

-95.76%

-28.20%

-95.76%

-28.20%

-95.76%

-28.20%

10ms

104.31%

0.01%

195.42%

0.01%

13.20%

0.00%

10ms

-80.94%

-59.85%

-70.05%

-20.83%

-91.83%

-98.86%

10ms

0.30%

0.06%

6.39%

0.12%

-5.80%

0.00%

10ms

-76.25%

-49.43%

-54.35%

-0.15%

-98.16%

-98.70%

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
2
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP
Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
2.5
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP

Table 6.4.1-2b: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
rate

0.5

Num of

Metric

Time scale

Mean

Max

Min

sources

Average

10ms

52%

52%

52%

DL PTP

200ms

14%

14%

14%

Average

10ms

-16%

-16%

-16%

UL PTP

200ms

-17%

-17%

-17%

5%

10ms

69%

69%

69%

DL PTP

200ms

27%

27%

27%

5%

10ms

-63%

-63%

-63%

UL PTP

200ms

-53%

-53%

-53%

Average

10ms

57%

57%

57%

DL PTP

200ms

27%

27%

27%

Average

10ms

-27%

-27%

-27%

UL PTP

200ms

-26%

-26%

-26%

5%

10ms

83%

83%

83%

DL PTP

200ms

52%

52%

52%

5%

10ms

-68%

-68%

-68%

UL PTP

200ms

-72%

-72%

-72%

Table 6.4.1-3: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

Num of
sources

DL arrival
Metric

Mean

Time scale

Max

Min

rate
Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

-1.89%

-2.90%

-1.89%

-2.90%

-1.89%

-2.90%

10ms

132.40%

2.24%

132.40%

2.24%

132.40%

2.24%

10ms

-4.90%

-28.26%

-4.90%

-28.26%

-4.90%

-28.26%

10ms

128.21%

-15.67%

128.21%

-15.67%

128.21%

-15.67%

10ms

-33.23%

-2.49%

-33.23%

-2.49%

-33.23%

-2.49%

10ms

-0.51%

-9.30%

-0.51%

-9.30%

-0.51%

-9.30%

10ms

-20.93%

-4.82%

-20.93%

-4.82%

-20.93%

-4.82%

10ms

-11.90%

-17.67%

-11.90%

-17.67%

-11.90%

-17.67%

10ms

-10.59%

-1.86%

-10.59%

-1.86%

-10.59%

-1.86%

Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
0.5
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP
Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
1.5
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP
Average
2.5
DL PTP

Average
10ms

-27.71%

24.34%

-27.71%

24.34%

-27.71%

24.34%

10ms

-7.97%

-1.48%

-7.97%

-1.48%

-7.97%

-1.48%

10ms

-17.13%

-85.72%

-17.13%

-85.72%

-17.13%

-85.72%

UL PTP
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP

Table 6.4.1-4: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain
DL arrival

Num of
Metric

Time scale

Mean

Max

Min

rate

sources
Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

8.16%

-0.30%

8.16%

-0.30%

8.16%

-0.30%

10ms

93.50%

-20.90%

93.50%

-20.90%

93.50%

-20.90%

10ms

13.09%

-2.01%

13.09%

-2.01%

13.09%

-2.01%

10ms

100.99%

-12.05%

100.99%

-12.05%

100.99%

-12.05%

10ms

-8.11%

1.20%

-8.11%

1.20%

-8.11%

1.20%

10ms

5.53%

28.26%

5.53%

28.26%

5.53%

28.26%

10ms

2.75%

0.00%

2.75%

0.00%

2.75%

0.00%

10ms

-0.91%

-0.97%

-0.91%

-0.97%

-0.91%

-0.97%

10ms

-4.13%

-2.05%

-4.13%

-2.05%

-4.13%

-2.05%

10ms

-6.49%

4.35%

-6.49%

4.35%

-6.49%

4.35%

10ms

1.71%

0.04%

1.71%

0.04%

1.71%

0.04%

10ms

-0.77%

0.04%

-0.77%

0.04%

-0.77%

0.04%

Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
0.5
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP
Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
1.5
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP
Average
DL PTP
Average
2.5

UL PTP
5%
DL PTP
5%

UL PTP

6.4.2

Evaluation results with interference mitigation

Tables 6.4.2-1 to 6.4.2-2 show the evaluation results of co-channel multi-cell macro-pico scenario for different fixed
reference TDD UL-DL configurations and different downlink/uplink traffic loads, with interference mitigation. The
values are relative gain or loss of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation compared to the fixed
reference TDD UL-DL configuration.
Table 6.4.2-1a collects the metrics separately for pico and macro, and Table 6.4.2-1b collects the metrics jointly for pico
and macro.
Table 6.4.2-1a: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain
DL arrival

Num of
Metric

Time scale

Mean

Max

Min

rate

sources
Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

31.47%

0.71%

63.94%

2.02%

-1.00%

-0.60%

10ms

-4.93%

-40.28%

-3.30%

-0.50%

-6.55%

-80.06%

10ms

41.82%

0.87%

84.44%

1.13%

-0.80%

0.60%

10ms

-28.91%

-41.67%

-3.10%

-1.50%

-54.72%

-81.84%

Average

10ms

20.20%

-0.24%

42.14%

1.78%

-0.30%

-2.50%

DL PTP

640ms

8.42%

-1.83%

13.60%

-1.16%

3.23%

-2.50%

Average

10ms

5.21%

-35.19%

54.50%

1.10%

-27.81%

-62.12%

UL PTP

640ms

14.15%

-31.31%

30.80%

-29.22%

-2.50%

-33.40%

5%

10ms

14.57%

0.69%

45.72%

6.86%

-27.55%

-6.42%

DL PTP

640ms

-1.20%

-2.29%

10.34%

1.85%

-12.75%

-6.42%

5%

10ms

11.44%

-33.13%

103.86%

4.30%

-30.49%

-71.20%

UL PTP

640ms

16.80%

-26.76%

54.94%

-0.88%

-21.33%

-52.64%

10ms

58.63%

8.68%

94.47%

16.13%

22.79%

1.23%

10ms

-25.22%

-67.50%

-24.17%

-54.85%

-26.26%

-80.14%

10ms

75.91%

19.28%

126.47%

36.15%

25.34%

2.41%

Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
0.25
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP

0.5

Average
DL PTP
Average
1
UL PTP
5%
DL PTP

5%
10ms

-39.86%

-55.94%

-26.81%

-55.74%

-52.90%

-56.15%

Average

10ms

11.60%

4.88%

11.60%

4.88%

11.60%

4.88%

DL PTP

640ms

-1.60%

10.88%

-1.60%

10.88%

-1.60%

10.88%

Average

10ms

-4.30%

-39.08%

-4.30%

-39.08%

-4.30%

-39.08%

UL PTP

640ms

-9.02%

-43.18%

-9.02%

-43.18%

-9.02%

-43.18%

5%

10ms

-4.70%

21.32%

-4.70%

21.32%

-4.70%

21.32%

DL PTP

640ms

-3.19%

28.15%

-3.19%

28.15%

-3.19%

28.15%

5%

10ms

-46.43%

-72.17%

-46.43%

-72.17%

-46.43%

-72.17%

UL PTP

640ms

-47.38%

-54.18%

-47.38%

-54.18%

-47.38%

-54.18%

10ms

113.43%

11.88%

156.45%

16.65%

70.41%

7.11%

10ms

-41.88%

-53.30%

-38.80%

-50.93%

-44.96%

-55.67%

10ms

63.32%

-1.92%

67.31%

3.28%

59.32%

-7.11%

10ms

-37.15%

-13.21%

-33.50%

-6.90%

-40.80%

-19.53%

Average

10ms

15.29%

12.17%

15.29%

12.17%

15.29%

12.17%

DL PTP

640ms

37.68%

12.43%

37.68%

12.43%

37.68%

12.43%

Average

10ms

-0.49%

-4.53%

-0.49%

-4.53%

-0.49%

-4.53%

UL PTP

640ms

-2.13%

-3.53%

-2.13%

-3.53%

-2.13%

-3.53%

5%

10ms

-0.70%

1.31%

-0.70%

1.31%

-0.70%

1.31%

DL PTP

640ms

-0.98%

1.17%

-0.98%

1.17%

-0.98%

1.17%

5%

10ms

-5.24%

-5.59%

-5.24%

-5.59%

-5.24%

-5.59%

UL PTP

640ms

-2.55%

-5.72%

-2.55%

-5.72%

-2.55%

-5.72%

UL PTP

1.5

Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
2
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP

2.5

Table 6.4.2-1b: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Num of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

10ms

-0.80%

-0.80%

-0.80%

10ms

-2.30%

-2.30%

-2.30%

Average
0.25

DL PTP
Average

UL PTP
5%
10ms

-0.20%

-0.20%

-0.20%

10ms

-4.20%

-4.20%

-4.20%

Average

10ms

4.30%

9.00%

-0.40%

DL PTP

200ms

-6.00%

-6.00%

-6.00%

Average

10ms

-3.05%

-2.10%

-4.00%

UL PTP

200ms

-3.00%

-3.00%

-3.00%

5%

10ms

7.70%

14.00%

1.40%

DL PTP

200ms

-2.00%

-2.00%

-2.00%

10ms

-12.50%

1.00%

-26.00%

200ms

-8.00%

-8.00%

-8.00%

Average

10ms

3.00%

3.00%

3.00%

DL PTP

200ms

-16.00%

-16.00%

-16.00%

Average

10ms

-15.00%

-15.00%

-15.00%

UL PTP

200ms

-4.00%

-4.00%

-4.00%

5%

10ms

1.00%

1.00%

1.00%

DL PTP

200ms

-21.00%

-21.00%

-21.00%

5%

10ms

-22.00%

-22.00%

-22.00%

UL PTP

200ms

-28.00%

-28.00%

-28.00%

DL PTP
5%
UL PTP

0.5

5% UL PTP

Table 6.4.2-2a collects the metrics separately for pico and macro, and Table 6.4.2-2b collects the metrics jointly for pico
and macro.
Table 6.4.2-2a: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain
DL arrival

Num of
Metric

Time scale

Mean

Max

Min

rate

sources
Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

68.56%

2.56%

68.56%

2.56%

68.56%

2.56%

10ms

-5.00%

-75.99%

-5.00%

-75.99%

-5.00%

-75.99%

10ms

101.64%

4.47%

101.64%

4.47%

101.64%

4.47%

Average
DL PTP
Average
0.25
UL PTP
5%
DL PTP

5%
10ms

-30.33%

-79.68%

-30.33%

-79.68%

-30.33%

-79.68%

10ms

127.73%

22.87%

127.73%

22.87%

127.73%

22.87%

10ms

-28.57%

-86.42%

-28.57%

-86.42%

-28.57%

-86.42%

10ms

234.34%

42.65%

234.34%

42.65%

234.34%

42.65%

10ms

-68.52%

-81.46%

-68.52%

-81.46%

-68.52%

-81.46%

10ms

292.34%

13.15%

292.34%

13.15%

292.34%

13.15%

10ms

-50.28%

-80.19%

-50.28%

-80.19%

-50.28%

-80.19%

10ms

194.64%

5.08%

194.64%

5.08%

194.64%

5.08%

10ms

-68.73%

-55.74%

-68.73%

-55.74%

-68.73%

-55.74%

UL PTP
Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
1
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP
Average
DL PTP
Average
UL PTP
2
5%
DL PTP
5%
UL PTP

Table 6.4.2-2b: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain

DL arrival
Metric

Num of

Time scale

rate

Mean

Max

Min

sources

Average

10ms

25%

25%

25%

DL PTP

200ms

0%

0%

0%

Average

10ms

-8%

-8%

-8%

UL PTP

200ms

-4%

-4%

-4%

5%

10ms

48%

48%

48%

DL PTP

200ms

15%

15%

15%

5%

10ms

-25%

-25%

-25%

UL PTP

200ms

-5%

-5%

-5%

Average

10ms

7%

7%

7%

DL PTP

200ms

1%

1%

1%

Average

10ms

-10%

-10%

-10%

0.5

6.5

UL PTP

200ms

-9%

-9%

-9%

5%

10ms

5%

5%

5%

DL PTP

200ms

7%

7%

7%

5%

10ms

-27%

-27%

-27%

UL PTP

200ms

-19%

-19%

-19%

Scenario 4: Adjacent-channel multi-cell macro-pico scenario

This section captures the simulation assumptions and evaluation results for the adjacent-channel multi-cell macro-pico
scenario. The evaluation assumptions are the same as in Table 6.4-1, with the additional assumptions shown in Table
6.5-1.
Table 6.5-1: Additional evaluation assumptions for adjacent-channel multi-cell macro pico scenario
Parameters

Assumptions

ACIR BS-BS

43dB

ACIR BS-UE

33dB

ACIR UE-BS

30dB

ACIR UE-UE

28dB

Tables 6.5-1 to 6.5-5 show the evaluation results of adjacent-channel multi-cell macro-pico scenario for different fixed
reference TDD UL-DL configurations and different downlink/uplink traffic loads, without interference mitigation. The
values are relative gain or loss of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation compared to the fixed
reference TDD UL-DL configuration.
Table 6.5-2: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain
DL arrival

Num of
Metric

Time scale

Mean

rate

Max

Min

sources

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

51.36%

1.38%

56.54%

2.67%

46.17%

0.09%

200ms

14.72%

2.39%

14.72%

2.39%

14.72%

2.39%

640ms

-7.82%

1.38%

-7.82%

1.38%

-7.82%

1.38%

10ms

19.19%

-16.59%

34.07%

-16.47%

4.31%

-16.70%

200ms

4.59%

-13.19%

4.59%

-13.19%

4.59%

-13.19%

640ms

3.67%

-9.28%

3.67%

-9.28%

3.67%

-9.28%

5%

10ms

55.66%

4.24%

58.74%

6.58%

52.59%

1.90%

DL PTP

200ms

30.41%

7.30%

30.41%

7.30%

30.41%

7.30%

Average
DL PTP

0.5

Average
UL PTP

640ms

0.40%

5.72%

0.40%

5.72%

0.40%

5.72%

10ms

9.69%

-20.86%

27.58%

-20.44%

-8.21%

-21.29%

200ms

-5.68%

-19.29%

-5.68%

-19.29%

-5.68%

-19.29%

640ms

-7.40%

-12.20%

-7.40%

-12.20%

-7.40%

-12.20%

10ms

37.43%

1.10%

52.30%

1.71%

22.57%

0.49%

200ms

7.47%

2.26%

7.47%

2.26%

7.47%

2.26%

640ms

-5.26%

1.58%

-5.26%

1.58%

-5.26%

1.58%

10ms

-18.84%

-23.62%

10.28%

-10.30%

-47.97%

-36.94%

200ms

-48.05%

-8.35%

-48.05%

-8.35%

-48.05%

-8.35%

640ms

-49.99%

-6.46%

-49.99%

-6.46%

-49.99%

-6.46%

10ms

53.52%

1.14%

65.53%

2.04%

41.51%

0.25%

200ms

37.69%

0.19%

37.69%

0.19%

37.69%

0.19%

640ms

25.30%

-0.04%

25.30%

-0.04%

25.30%

-0.04%

10ms

-34.46%

-23.09%

8.34%

0.18%

-77.27%

-46.35%

200ms

-78.23%

0.04%

-78.23%

0.04%

-78.23%

0.04%

640ms

-76.54%

-0.23%

-76.54%

-0.23%

-76.54%

-0.23%

10ms

23.79%

-0.19%

53.63%

2.27%

-6.06%

-2.65%

200ms

-14.34%

-1.79%

-14.34%

-1.79%

-14.34%

-1.79%

640ms

-20.70%

-2.83%

-20.70%

-2.83%

-20.70%

-2.83%

10ms

-35.53%

-31.63%

-7.12%

-4.56%

-63.94%

-58.69%

200ms

-64.95%

-1.98%

-64.95%

-1.98%

-64.95%

-1.98%

640ms

-65.04%

-2.88%

-65.04%

-2.88%

-65.04%

-2.88%

10ms

52.38%

7.43%

84.99%

14.87%

19.77%

0.00%

200ms

17.42%

0.08%

17.42%

0.08%

17.42%

0.08%

640ms

17.85%

0.14%

17.85%

0.14%

17.85%

0.14%

10ms

-30.35%

-34.69%

-17.05%

0.32%

-43.65%

-69.70%

200ms

-43.67%

0.02%

-43.67%

0.02%

-43.67%

0.02%

640ms

-43.31%

0.06%

-43.31%

0.06%

-43.31%

0.06%

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
1.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
2.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Table 6.5-3: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 1, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain
DL arrival

Num of
Metric

Time scale

Mean

rate
Pico

Macro

Max
Pico

Min
Macro

Pico

sources
Macro

10ms

54.79%

1.10%

60.25%

2.11%

49.33%

0.09%

200ms

16.80%

1.98%

16.80%

1.98%

16.80%

1.98%

640ms

-6.49%

0.68%

-6.49%

0.68%

-6.49%

0.68%

10ms

17.11%

-14.22%

32.84%

-14.02%

1.38%

-14.42%

200ms

1.64%

-14.16%

1.64%

-14.16%

1.64%

-14.16%

640ms

0.46%

-10.31%

0.46%

-10.31%

0.46%

-10.31%

10ms

58.01%

5.16%

58.79%

8.42%

57.23%

1.90%

200ms

30.93%

10.63%

30.93%

10.63%

30.93%

10.63%

640ms

3.85%

1.59%

3.85%

1.59%

3.85%

1.59%

10ms

1.72%

-21.94%

19.85%

-19.11%

-16.42%

-24.78%

200ms

-13.99%

-18.47%

-13.99%

-18.47%

-13.99%

-18.47%

640ms

-19.31%

-13.23%

-19.31%

-13.23%

-19.31%

-13.23%

10ms

61.35%

2.90%

63.37%

4.81%

59.33%

0.98%

200ms

35.28%

4.63%

35.28%

4.63%

35.28%

4.63%

640ms

16.78%

1.22%

16.78%

1.22%

16.78%

1.22%

10ms

-19.66%

-39.41%

7.63%

-36.54%

-46.96%

-42.28%

200ms

-46.99%

-40.95%

-46.99%

-40.95%

-46.99%

-40.95%

640ms

-47.89%

-39.84%

-47.89%

-39.84%

-47.89%

-39.84%

10ms

90.29%

2.66%

106.16%

3.96%

74.42%

1.37%

200ms

88.27%

1.10%

88.27%

1.10%

88.27%

1.10%

640ms

78.33%

0.56%

78.33%

0.56%

78.33%

0.56%

10ms

-42.03%

-32.80%

-1.10%

-21.44%

-82.96%

-44.16%

200ms

-82.87%

-20.03%

-82.87%

-20.03%

-82.87%

-20.03%

640ms

-83.15%

-21.04%

-83.15%

-21.04%

-83.15%

-21.04%

10ms

61.18%

1.23%

75.31%

2.74%

47.05%

-0.28%

200ms

27.89%

-0.64%

27.89%

-0.64%

27.89%

-0.64%

640ms

15.23%

-0.66%

15.23%

-0.66%

15.23%

-0.66%

10ms

-36.96%

-36.88%

-11.93%

-25.74%

-61.99%

-48.03%

200ms

-63.12%

-23.42%

-63.12%

-23.42%

-63.12%

-23.42%

640ms

-62.52%

-20.05%

-62.52%

-20.05%

-62.52%

-20.05%

10ms

73.18%

8.91%

112.03%

18.02%

34.32%

-0.20%

200ms

32.66%

-0.16%

32.66%

-0.16%

32.66%

-0.16%

640ms

30.35%

-0.04%

30.35%

-0.04%

30.35%

-0.04%

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
0.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
1.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
2.5
UL PTP

5%
DL PTP

10ms

-50.78%

-26.99%

-18.08%

-1.55%

-83.48%

-52.42%

200ms

-83.31%

-1.88%

-83.31%

-1.88%

-83.31%

-1.88%

640ms

-83.62%

-1.42%

-83.62%

-1.42%

-83.62%

-1.42%

5%
UL PTP

Table 6.5-4: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 2:1
Relative gain
DL arrival

Num of
Metric

Time scale

Mean

rate

Max

Min

sources

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

9.50%

0.24%

12.66%

0.47%

6.34%

0.00%

200ms

-16.54%

0.19%

-16.54%

0.19%

-16.54%

0.19%

640ms

-32.94%

-0.80%

-32.94%

-0.80%

-32.94%

-0.80%

10ms

194.48%

-2.75%

213.38%

1.96%

175.58%

-7.46%

200ms

214.22%

6.25%

214.22%

6.25%

214.22%

6.25%

640ms

211.45%

11.04%

211.45%

11.04%

211.45%

11.04%

10ms

9.26%

0.31%

10.90%

0.62%

7.63%

0.00%

200ms

-8.90%

1.30%

-8.90%

1.30%

-8.90%

1.30%

640ms

-29.86%

-0.19%

-29.86%

-0.19%

-29.86%

-0.19%

10ms

192.97%

-4.14%

212.05%

1.82%

173.90%

-10.10%

200ms

220.67%

4.40%

220.67%

4.40%

220.67%

4.40%

640ms

214.81%

13.58%

214.81%

13.58%

214.81%

13.58%

10ms

-10.80%

0.89%

2.91%

2.39%

-24.51%

-0.62%

200ms

-33.81%

2.94%

-33.81%

2.94%

-33.81%

2.94%

640ms

-41.65%

2.25%

-41.65%

2.25%

-41.65%

2.25%

10ms

141.99%

-11.36%

150.29%

-2.84%

133.70%

-19.88%

200ms

133.34%

-0.72%

133.34%

-0.72%

133.34%

-0.72%

640ms

124.63%

1.32%

124.63%

1.32%

124.63%

1.32%

10ms

-17.42%

-0.99%

4.48%

-0.35%

-39.32%

-1.63%

200ms

-40.95%

-0.40%

-40.95%

-0.40%

-40.95%

-0.40%

640ms

-46.27%

-0.63%

-46.27%

-0.63%

-46.27%

-0.63%

10ms

89.51%

-14.76%

142.87%

0.72%

36.15%

-30.23%

200ms

30.35%

0.59%

30.35%

0.59%

30.35%

0.59%

640ms

40.48%

0.31%

40.48%

0.31%

40.48%

0.31%

10ms

-28.36%

1.18%

-8.59%

2.84%

-48.13%

-0.49%

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
0.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
1.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP
2.5

Average

DL PTP

200ms

-52.71%

3.75%

-52.71%

3.75%

-52.71%

3.75%

640ms

-56.22%

2.64%

-56.22%

2.64%

-56.22%

2.64%

10ms

99.09%

-28.28%

183.27%

-7.46%

14.91%

-49.09%

200ms

11.69%

-4.96%

11.69%

-4.96%

11.69%

-4.96%

640ms

11.40%

-5.83%

11.40%

-5.83%

11.40%

-5.83%

10ms

-7.60%

-2.68%

-5.64%

-0.06%

-9.55%

-5.31%

200ms

-11.33%

0.02%

-11.33%

0.02%

-11.33%

0.02%

640ms

-11.00%

0.08%

-11.00%

0.08%

-11.00%

0.08%

10ms

92.34%

-38.53%

185.57%

0.28%

-0.90%

-77.34%

200ms

-0.93%

-0.02%

-0.93%

-0.02%

-0.93%

-0.02%

640ms

-0.31%

0.02%

-0.31%

0.02%

-0.31%

0.02%

Average
UL PTP

5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Table 6.5-5: Fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration 2, ratio of DL/UL arrival rates of 4:1
Relative gain
DL arrival

Num of
Metric

Time scale

Mean

rate

Max

Min

sources

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

Pico

Macro

10ms

11.15%

1.62%

15.34%

3.23%

6.95%

0.00%

200ms

-16.35%

3.11%

-16.35%

3.11%

-16.35%

3.11%

640ms

-33.03%

1.79%

-33.03%

1.79%

-33.03%

1.79%

10ms

156.14%

-4.04%

167.61%

-1.07%

144.67%

-7.01%

200ms

145.29%

-0.76%

145.29%

-0.76%

145.29%

-0.76%

640ms

142.45%

3.69%

142.45%

3.69%

142.45%

3.69%

10ms

10.72%

1.53%

12.03%

3.05%

9.41%

0.00%

200ms

-8.97%

5.15%

-8.97%

5.15%

-8.97%

5.15%

640ms

-27.80%

-3.44%

-27.80%

-3.44%

-27.80%

-3.44%

10ms

168.52%

-4.12%

198.06%

1.17%

138.98%

-9.41%

200ms

206.72%

1.98%

206.72%

1.98%

206.72%

1.98%

640ms

187.73%

8.52%

187.73%

8.52%

187.73%

8.52%

10ms

2.97%

2.83%

11.20%

5.66%

-5.27%

0.01%

200ms

-19.57%

5.48%

-19.57%

5.48%

-19.57%

5.48%

640ms

-30.57%

2.04%

-30.57%

2.04%

-30.57%

2.04%

10ms

106.82%

-13.25%

120.59%

-9.14%

93.05%

-17.35%

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
0.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
1.5

DL PTP
Average

UL PTP

200ms

92.93%

-7.06%

92.93%

-7.06%

92.93%

-7.06%

640ms

89.65%

-5.30%

89.65%

-5.30%

89.65%

-5.30%

10ms

-4.82%

0.01%

12.58%

0.46%

-22.21%

-0.45%

200ms

-28.96%

0.19%

-28.96%

0.19%

-28.96%

0.19%

640ms

-32.71%

-0.34%

-32.71%

-0.34%

-32.71%

-0.34%

10ms

91.75%

-12.24%

113.12%

-2.76%

70.37%

-21.72%

200ms

71.31%

-1.00%

71.31%

-1.00%

71.31%

-1.00%

640ms

68.48%

-2.27%

68.48%

-2.27%

68.48%

-2.27%

10ms

-5.63%

4.04%

6.75%

8.03%

-18.02%

0.05%

200ms

-28.70%

7.64%

-28.70%

7.64%

-28.70%

7.64%

640ms

-35.76%

7.62%

-35.76%

7.62%

-35.76%

7.62%

10ms

70.54%

-12.52%

86.70%

1.35%

54.37%

-26.38%

200ms

49.76%

4.51%

49.76%

4.51%

49.76%

4.51%

640ms

52.20%

9.10%

52.20%

9.10%

52.20%

9.10%

10ms

-0.75%

-0.49%

10.91%

-0.18%

-12.40%

-0.80%

200ms

-13.48%

-0.14%

-13.48%

-0.14%

-13.48%

-0.14%

640ms

-14.98%

-0.02%

-14.98%

-0.02%

-14.98%

-0.02%

10ms

42.44%

-16.02%

80.20%

0.23%

4.68%

-32.28%

200ms

5.78%

-0.10%

5.78%

-0.10%

5.78%

-0.10%

640ms

3.81%

-0.37%

3.81%

-0.37%

3.81%

-0.37%

5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

Average
DL PTP

Average
UL PTP
2.5
5%
DL PTP

5%
UL PTP

6.6

Summary

For the evaluated isolated pico cell scenario (i.e. scenario 1), TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic condition
provides benefits over a fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration.

The benefits at least include improved packet throughput

The benefits may be observed in either DL or UL or both directions,

o

The less number of DL (or UL) subframes in the fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration, the
higher DL (or UL) packet throughput gain (if any) achieved by TDD UL-DL reconfiguration

The benefits are mainly observed in low to medium cell traffic load region

Faster TDD UL-DL reconfiguration provides larger benefits than slower TDD UL-DL reconfiguration
o

The gain of faster TDD UL-DL reconfiguration over slower TDD UL-DL reconfiguration reduces
with the increase of cell traffic load and/or packet size

For the evaluated multi-pico cell scenario (i.e. scenario 2), TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic conditions
without interference mitigation provides benefits over a fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration.

The benefits at least include improved average packet throughput in the low cell traffic load region

The benefits may be observed in either DL or UL or both directions,

o

Faster TDD UL-DL reconfiguration provides larger benefits on average packet throughput than slower TDD
UL-DL reconfiguration
o

The less number of DL (or UL) subframes in the fixed reference TDD UL-DL configuration, the
higher DL (or UL) packet throughput gain (if any) achieved by TDD UL-DL reconfiguration

The gain of faster TDD UL-DL reconfiguration over slower TDD UL-DL reconfiguration reduces
with the increase of cell traffic load and/or packet size

The 5% UE average packet throughput may be increased or decreased.

For the evaluated multi-pico cell scenario (i.e. scenario 2), with interference mitigation, TDD UL-DL reconfiguration
based on traffic conditions provides higher packet throughput in UL than without interference mitigation. Meanwhile,
depending on the interference mitigation scheme and cell traffic load, TDD UL-DL reconfiguration with interference
mitigation may provide higher or lower packet throughput in DL than without interference mitigation, and for the latter
case, the increase in UL packet throughput can be higher than the loss in DL packet throughput.

For the evaluated co-channel multi-macro/pico cell scenario (i.e. scenario 3), the following observations are made for
TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic conditions without interference mitigation compared to a fixed TDD ULDL configuration:

Improved or reduced DL packet throughput for pico cells;

Similar DL packet throughput for macro cells;

Significantly decreased UL packet throughput for both macro and pico cells.

For the evaluated co-channel multi-macro/pico cell scenario (i.e. scenario 3), the following observations are made for
TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic conditions with interference mitigation compared to without interference
mitigation:

Improved UL packet throughput for both macro and pico cells;

Similar DL packet throughput for macro cells;

Improved or decreased DL packet throughput for pico cells depending on the interference mitigation scheme.

For the evaluated co-channel multi-macro/pico cell scenario (i.e. scenario 3), the following observations are made for
TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic conditions with interference mitigation compared to a fixed TDD UL-DL
configuration:

Reduced UL packet throughput for macro cells;

Improved or decreased UL packet throughput for pico cells, partly depending on the interference mitigation
scheme.

For the evaluated adjacent channel multi-macro/pico cell scenario (i.e. scenario 4), the following observations are made
for TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic conditions without interference mitigation compared to a fixed TDD
UL-DL configuration:

Improved DL packet throughput for pico cells;

Similar DL packet throughput for macro cells;

Similar UL packet throughput for pico cells in low cell load;

Significantly decreased UL packet throughput for pico cells in medium to high cell load and for macro cells.

For TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation, it is beneficial to configure TDD UL-DL configuration #0
when there is no traffic in the cell from the perspective of energy saving, which on the other hand may impact the
packet throughput for medium/low speed adaptation time scales.

Methods to support different time scales for TDD ULDL reconfiguration

Depending on the required adaptation time scale, different methods can be considered for TDD UL-DL reconfiguration.
Independent of the signaling method, the non-coordinated change of transmission direction among neighboring cells
may cause DL-UL interference in some subframes. Interference mitigation techniques as discussed in Section 8 can be
utilized to avoid the negative impact of DL-UL interference on system performance.

7.1

Method 1 System information signaling

7.1.1

Description

This method supports TDD UL-DL reconfiguration by system information (SI) change as in Rel-8, where the TDD ULDL configuration is indicated by SIB. Two approaches can be considered. One is the Rel-8 system information change
procedure and the other is reusing the Rel-10 ETWS (Earthquake and Tsunami Warning System) notification procedure.
With the Rel-8 system information change procedure, the supported time scale for TDD UL-DL reconfiguration is
every 640ms or larger. It is noted that legacy UEs can enjoy the benefits of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on
traffic adaptation, since the method to adapt the TDD UL-DL configuration is backward compatible. This method
always affects all UEs connected to the cell, even those that do not have data to transmit or receive.
With reusing the Rel-10 ETWS notification procedure, the supported time scale for TDD UL-DL reconfiguration is
every 320ms or larger depending on the configured default paging cycle. The ETWS notification is indicated by a
paging message, but is updated regardless of the modification period unlike the Rel-8 system information change
procedure. It is noted that legacy UEs cannot know the change of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration, since the notification
procedure is transparent to legacy UE.
With this method, ambiguity exists between eNB and UE on the TDD UL-DL configuration, since the eNB does not
know the exact time at which the UE correctly decodes the updated SI, eNB may apply scheduling restriction during
this uncertain period, in order to properly maintain the communications between the eNB and the UE. Further study is
required to assess its impact on performance. Possible enhancements can be specified to resolve the ambiguity. Note
that such enhancements are not applicable to legacy UEs.
Given that PDSCH/PUSCH HARQ timeline in TDD is determined by the TDD UL-DL configuration, TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration would impact the PDSCH/PUSCH HARQ during reconfiguration. Possible enhancements on HARQ
timing can be specified to handle HARQ processes properly for TDD UL-DL reconfiguration.
The TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on SIB modification may require eNB to transmit paging notification more
frequently than in a typical Rel-8/9/10 system, and meanwhile may require UE to monitor paging more frequently.
Possible enhancements can be specified to reduce the paging overheads due to TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on
traffic adaptation.

7.1.2

Specification impact

Rel-8 system information change procedure has no specification impact to enable TDD UL-DL reconfiguration by
system information change, as it is already supported by Rel-8. Reusing the Rel-10 ETWS notification procedure has
some specification impacts to enable the notification of TDD UL-DL reconfiguration, which is transparent to legacy
UEs. For both approaches, new specification work may be required for enhancement(s) to resolve the ambiguity on the

TDD UL-DL configuration between eNB and UE, to handle the HARQ timing properly when UL-DL configuration is
changed, and to reduce paging overheads.

7.2

Method 2 RRC signaling

7.2.1

Description

This method supports TDD UL-DL reconfiguration by RRC signaling. The corresponding time scale supported by this
method depends on how fast the reconfiguration can be performed. Typical time scale intended by this method is on the
order of 200ms. This method requires one reconfiguration message per RRC connected user, unless a broadcast or a
multicast approach is specified.
This method provides better traffic adaptation capability than Method 1, given the support of smaller time scale for
TDD UL-DL reconfiguration. Method 2 is not applicable for the legacy UEs. Furthermore, if the higher layer signaled
TDD UL-DL configuration is different from that signaled in SIB1, it may not be possible to schedule legacy UEs in all
subframes since the legacy UEs PDSCH/PUSCH HARQ timeline follows the TDD UL-DL configuration in SIB1. This
may degrade the throughput of legacy UEs. In addition, if a specific subframe is a DL subframe according to the SIB1
indicated TDD UL-DL configuration, but is an UL subframe according to higher layer signaled TDD UL-DL
configuration, legacy UEs will still assume presence of reference signals e.g. CRS in such subframes. This will for
instance impact legacy UEs RRM and RLM measurements. Schemes to handle these issues and guarantee backwards
compatibility should be considered.
Ambiguity exists between eNB and UE on the TDD UL-DL configuration, if the eNB does not know the exact time at
which the UE applies the updated TDD UL-DL configuration during reconfiguration. Further study is required to assess
its impact on performance. Possible enhancements can be specified to resolve the ambiguity.
Similar to method 1, TDD UL-DL reconfiguration would impact the PDSCH/PUSCH HARQ during reconfiguration.
Possible enhancements on HARQ timing can be specified to handle HARQ processes properly for TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration.

7.2.2

Specification impact

New specification work is required to introduce the higher layer signaling for TDD UL-DL configuration. Additional
specification may be required for enhancement(s) to resolve the ambiguity on the TDD UL-DL configuration between
eNB and UE, and to handle the HARQ timing properly when UL-DL configuration is changed.

7.3

Method 3 MAC Control Element Signaling

7.3.1

Description

This method supports TDD UL-DL reconfiguration by MAC Control Element (CE) signaling in the MAC header, with
time scale of adaptation on the order of a few tens of ms.
Method 3 provides the better traffic adaptation capability than Methods 1 and 2, given the support of smaller time scale
for TDD UL-DL reconfiguration. Method 3 is not applicable to legacy UEs. In case both legacy UEs and UEs
supporting Method 3 are to be served on the same serving cell, the impacts on legacy UEs due to Method 3 are similar
to those of Method 2 as discussed in section 7.2.1.
Ambiguity exists between eNB and UE on the TDD UL-DL configuration, if the eNB does not know the exact time at
which the UE applies the updated TDD UL-DL configuration during reconfiguration, especially considering MAC CE
signaling does not have its own error recovery process and the HARQ-ACK corresponding to the PDSCH containing
the MAC CE signaling may be received incorrectly. Further study is required to assess its impact on performance.
Possible enhancements can be specified to resolve the ambiguity.
Similar to method 1, TDD UL-DL reconfiguration would impact the PDSCH/PUSCH HARQ during reconfiguration.
Possible enhancements on HARQ timing can be specified to handle HARQ processes properly for TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration.

7.3.2

Specification impact

New specification work is required to introduce the MAC CE for TDD UL-DL configuration. Additional specification
may be required for enhancement(s) to resolve the ambiguity on the TDD UL-DL configuration between eNB and UE,
and to handle the HARQ timing properly when UL-DL configuration is changed.

7.4

Method 4 Physical layer signaling

7.4.1

Description

This method supports TDD UL-DL reconfiguration by physical layer design, with time scale of adaptation on the order
of 10ms. The TDD UL-DL configuration or the transmission direction of a subframe can be explicitly indicated by
physical channel or signal. Alternatively, the transmission direction of a subframe can be implicitly derived by the UE
based on the eNB scheduling and configurations for UL transmissions.
Method 4 provides the best traffic adaptation capability, given the support of smaller time scale for TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration than Methods 1 3. Method 4 is not applicable to legacy UEs. In case both legacy UEs and UEs
supporting Method 4 are to be served on the same serving cell, the impacts on legacy UEs due to Method 4 are similar
to those of Method 2 as discussed in section 7.2.1.
Other aspects to consider for Method 4 include the CSI measurements and support of interference mitigation schemes.
With each cell individually reconfiguring the subframe transmission direction on a radio frame basis, the dynamics of
inter-cell interference due to eNB-to-eNB and/or UE-to-UE interference is expected to increase compared to Methods 1
3, which may make the CSI reporting less accurate. In addition, the traffic adaptation capability on the time scale of
10ms may not be fully exploited in combination with interference mitigation schemes requiring coordination among
cells. In these cases, it is however up to implementation how fast the adaptation is performed.
The PDSCH/PUSCH HARQ timeline for UEs supporting Method 4 will not always follow the TDD UL-DL
configuration in SIB1, which requires specification work.

7.4.2

Specification impact

Specification work is required for the PDSCH/PUSCH HARQ timeline, as well as methods to explicitly or implicitly
determine the UL-DL configuration and/or the transmission direction of a subframe. Specification work for
enhancement(s) to other physical channels and physical procedures may also be needed.

Potential interference mitigation schemes

The interference mitigation schemes provided in this section, though separately described, are not excluded to function
jointly. Consideration of using some other interference mitigation schemes that are not listed in this section is also not
precluded.
Interference mitigation for both data and control channels shall be considered. Additional control channel interference
mitigation such as HARQ timeline change can be considered with other interference mitigation techniques.

8.1

Scheme 1: Cell clustering interference mitigation

8.1.1

Description

This interference mitigation (IM) scheme is named Cell Clustering IM (CCIM), which divides the cells into cell clusters
according to some metric(s), such as coupling loss, interference level, etc between cells.
A cell cluster can comprise one or more cells. The active transmissions of all cells in each cell cluster shall be either
uplink or downlink in any subframe or a subset of all subframes, so that eNB-to-eNB interference and UE-to-UE
interference can be mitigated within the cell cluster. Hence, coordination between the multiple cells belonging to the

same cell cluster is needed. Transmission directions in cells belonging to different cell clusters can be different in a
subframe by selecting the different TDD configurations freely, in order to achieve the benefits of TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation. By forming the cell clusters, eNB-to-eNB and UE-to-UE interference
between cells in different cell clusters can be controlled. An illustration is shown in Figure 8.1.1.

Figure 8.1.1: Illustration of cell clustering

8.1.2

Specification impact

CCIM essentially includes two functionalities, i.e. forming cell clusters and coordinating the transmission within each
cell cluster. To properly form the cell clusters, eNB measurements need to be possible, where the purpose of the eNB
measurements is to estimate the interference level from/to another eNB. In addition, necessary signaling and/or
procedures related to the eNB measurements could be supported. For coordination within a cell cluster, further study is
required on what needs to be specified as it depends on how coordination is performed.

8.2

Scheme 2: Scheduling dependent interference mitigation

8.2.1

Description

This interference mitigation (IM) scheme is named Scheduling Dependent IM (SDIM), where the eNB adjusts the
scheduling strategies e.g. link adaptation, resource allocation, transmit power, transmission direction of a subframe,
considering e.g. the DL and UL channel quality, the eNB-to-eNB and UE-to-UE interference, traffic load, etc. The
adjustment of scheduling strategies can be based on the variation of the observed interference, the estimation of induced
interference, inter-cell interference coordination information exchange, and/or cell load.

8.2.2

Specification impact

For SDIM, eNB measurements need to be possible, where the purpose of the eNB measurements is to estimate the
interference level from/to another eNB. In addition, necessary signaling and/or procedures related to the eNB
measurements could be supported. Additional UE measurements may also be needed, where the purpose of the UE
measurement is to estimate the interference level from another eNB or UE. New signaling to support improved uplink
and/or downlink power control or to support inter-cell interference coordination information exchange may be needed.
Applying some of the scheduling strategies for interference mitigation, e.g. link adaptation, may not need to be
specified.

8.3

Scheme 3: Interference mitigation based on eICIC/FeICIC

schemes

8.3.1

Description

With different TDD UL-DL configurations in different cells, there are potential interferences from eNB-to-eNB and/or
UE-to-UE due to the different transmission directions in adjacent cells. For Rel-10/11 eICIC/FeICIC, extensive
specification work has been made to cope with the interference conditions caused in the HetNet deployment, where the
interference condition is caused by the strong transmit signal from nearby cells. Although the causes of these
interference conditions are different, it can be considered to reuse the interference mitigation schemes and procedures
from eICIC/FeICIC to TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation, e.g., almost blank subframes, restricted
RLM/RRM measurements, dual CSI measurement reports, etc..

8.3.2

Specification impact

Additional eNB measurements may need to be possible, where the purpose of the eNB measurements is to estimate the
interference level from/to another eNB. In addition, necessary signaling and/or procedures related to the eNB
measurements could be supported. Additional UE measurements may also be needed, where the purpose of the UE
measurement is to estimate the interference level from another eNB or UE.

8.4

Scheme 4: Interference suppressing interference mitigation

8.4.1

Description

Interference suppressing interference mitigation (ISIM) may be considered for UL transmission of either Pico or Macro
cells. Suppression of one or more of the dominant eNB-to-eNB interfering signals may be possible, e.g. by enhanced
receiver such as MMSE-IRC, or by joint transceiver technologies such as interference alignment or interference nulling.

8.4.2

Specification impact

ISIM is largely implementation dependent, but may benefit from some signaling assistance. For example, collided
subframes among pico/macro cells could be exchanged among interfering eNBs to assist in the interference suppression.
Necessary signaling and/or procedures related to the eNB interference measurements could be supported.

Conclusion and recommendations

Based on the studies carried out, the following conclusions are made:

TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation provides benefits in terms of packet throughput and
energy saving in some of the evaluated deployment scenarios.

The benefits on packet throughput, when present, are mainly observed for low to medium system loadings, and
may be observed in either DL or UL or both directions.

Decreased UL packet throughput for macro cells compared with the fix configuration is observed without any
interference mitigation schemes due to severe eNB-to-eNB interference in multi-macro/pico cell scenarios.

Interference mitigation is essential to reduce the negative impact on system performance caused by DL-UL
interference due to opposite transmission directions in different cells.

Significant coexistence challenges have been observed to apply different TDD UL-DL configurations in
different cells for scenarios 1 8 in section 5 without any interference mitigation mechanisms. It is feasible to
apply different TDD UL-DL configurations in different cells for scenarios 1 4 in section 5, only provided
sufficient interference mitigation mechanisms are adopted. No interference mitigation schemes have been

agreed for scenarios 1 4 in section 5, and no conclusion on coexistence feasibility with interference
mitigation mechanisms has been made for scenarios 5 8 in section 5.

Faster TDD UL-DL reconfiguration time scale provides larger benefits than slower TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration time scale. The amount of required specification changes varies depending on the supported
reconfiguration time scales.
o

Potential PDSCH/PUSCH HARQ timeline related issues are identified with TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation, which may require specification changes especially for
fast TDD UL-DL reconfiguration time scales.

There exists impact on legacy UEs due to TDD UL-DL reconfiguration, on the aspects of achievable DL/UL
throughput, RLM/RRM measurement, and/or CSI reporting. The impact on legacy UEs DL/UL throughput is
expected to increase as the reconfiguration is performed faster.

Based on the above conclusions, it is recommended to specify the necessary mechanism(s) to support TDD UL-DL
reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation. Further study is needed to decide on the supported adaptation time scale and
assess the impact on legacy UEs with TDD UL-DL reconfiguration based on traffic adaptation. It is also recommended
to further study and specify interference mitigation schemes.

Release 11

105

3GPP TR 36.828 V11.0.0 (2012-06)

Annex A:
Co-existence simulation assumptions
The annex captures the evaluation assumptions used for the co-existence studies.
All simulations are based on 10MHz bandwidth system with 2GHz carrier.
Table A.1-1: ACIR for the first adjacent channel
Parameter
Assumption/Value
ACIR BS-BS
43dB
ACIR BS-UE
33dB
ACIR UE-BS
30dB
ACIR UE-UE
28dB
Note: BS includes Macro eNB and low power nodes.

Table A.1-2: Propagation model for deterministic analysis

Case

Pathloss model

Femto-Femto

PL(R) = 38.46 + 20 log10R + 0.7d2D,indoor+ 5q, R and d2D,indoor in m

q is the number of walls separating apartments between HeNB and HeNB , q could be
expressed as floor(R/10).

outdoor Picooutdoor Pico

LOS: if R<2/3 km, PL(R)=98.4+20log10(R), else, PL(R)=101.9+40log10(R), R in km

NLOS: PL= 40log10(R)+169.36, R in km
Note: deterministic analysis could be provided based on LOS and NLOS model
separately

Macro-Femto

PL(R)= 128.1 + 37.6log10(R)+ Low, R in kilometers

Low is the penetration loss of an outdoor wall, which is 20dB.

Macro-outdoor
Pico

PLLOS (R) =100.7+23.5log10(R)

PLNLOS(R) = 125.2+36.3log10(R)
Note: deterministic analysis could be provided based on LOS and NLOS model
separately

Macro-Macro

PL(R)=98.45+20*log10(R),R in km

Table A.1-3: Propagation model for Monte Carlo simulation

Case

Path loss model

Macro-Femto
UE is outside
UE to Macro
BS
UE is inside an apt

UE to Femto
BS

Dual-stripe model:
UE is inside the same apt stripe
as Femto BS

PLLOS(R)= 30.8+24.2log10(R)
PLNLOS(R)= 2.7+42.8log10(R)
For 2GHz, R in m.
Prob(R)=min(18/R,1)*(1-exp(-R/63))+exp(-R/63)
PLLOS(R)= 30.8+24.2log10(R) + Low
PLNLOS(R)= 2.7+42.8log10(R) + Low
For 2GHz, R in m
Prob(R)=min(18/R,1)*(1-exp(-R/63))+exp(-R/63)
PL (dB) = 38.46 + 20 log10R + 0.7d2D,indoor+ 18.3 n
((n+2)/(n+1)-0.46) + q*Liw
R and d2D,indoor are in m
n is the number of penetrated floors

3GPP

Release 11

Femto-Macro

106

3GPP TR 36.828 V11.0.0 (2012-06)

q is the number of walls separating apartments between

UE and Femto BS
PL (dB) = max(2.7+42.8 log10 R, 38.46 + 20log10R) +
0.7d2D,indoor
Dual-stripe model:
+ 18.3 n ((n+2)/(n+1)-0.46) + q*Liw + Low
UE is outside the apt stripe
R and d2D,indoor are in m
q is the number of walls separating apartments between
UE and HeNB
PL(dB) = max(2.7+42.8 log10 R, 38.46 + 20log10R) +
0.7d2D,indoor
Dual-stripe model: UE is inside
+ 18.3 n ((n+2)/(n+1)-0.46) + q*Liw + Low,1 + Low,2
a different apt stripe
R and d2D,indoor are in m
q is the number of walls separating apartments between
UE and HeNB
PLLOS(R)= 30.8+24.2log10(R) + Low PLNLOS(R)= 2.7+42.8log10(R) + Low
For 2GHz, R in m
Prob(R)=min(18/R,1)*(1-exp(-R/63))+exp(-R/63)

Femto- Femto
Reuse the UE to Femto BS model in TR36.814 according to the location of Femto station.
HUE-HUE
Reuse the UE to Femto BS model in TR36.814 according to the location of UE.
Macro- outdoor Pico/outdoor Pico-outdoor Pico
Macro-outdoor Pico

Outdoor Pico- outdoor

Pico

Macro-UE

Outdoor Pico-UE

Outdoor UE-outdoor UE

PLLOS(R) = 100.7+23.5log10(R)
PLNLOS(R) = 125.2+36.3log10(R) For 2GHz, R in km.
Case 1: Prob(R)=min(0.018/R,1)*(1-exp(-R/0.072))+exp(-R/0.072)
LOS: if R<2/3 km, PL(R)=98.4+20log10(R)
else, PL(R)=101.9+40log10(R), R in km
NLOS: PL= 40log(R)+169.36 R in km
Case 1: Prob(R)=0.5-min(0.5,5exp(-0.156/R))+min(0.5, 5exp(-R/0.03))
PLLOS(R)=103.4+24.2log10(R)
PLNLOS(R)= 131.1+42.8log10(R)
For 2GHz, R in km.
Case 1: Prob(R)=min(0.018/R,1)*(1-exp(-R/0.063))+exp(-R/0.063)
PLLOS(R)=103.8+20.9log10(R)
PLNLOS(R)=145.4+37.5log10(R)
For 2GHz, R in km
Case 1: Prob(R)=0.5-min(0.5,5exp(-0.156/R))+min(0.5, 5exp(-R/0.03))
If R<=50m;PL=98.45+20*log10(R),R in km
If R>50m;PL=40log(R)+175.78 R in km
(Xia model)

Macro-Macro
Macro BS to Macro BS

PL=98.45+20*log10(R),R in km
PLLOS(R)=103.4+24.2log10(R)
Macro-UE
PLNLOS(R)= 131.1+42.8log10(R) For 2GHz, R in km.
Case 1: Prob(R)=min(0.018/R,1)*(1-exp(-R/0.063))+exp(-R/0.063)
Note1: Unless otherwise stated the path loss model used for deterministic calculation is the LOS model.
Note2: Liw is the penetration loss of the wall separating apartments, which is 5dB.
Note3: The term 0.7d2D,indoor takes account of penetration loss due to walls inside an apartment.
Note4: Low is the penetration loss of an outdoor wall, which is 20dB.
Note5: Low,1 and Low,2 are the penetration losses of outdoor walls for the two houses.

TableA.1-4: UE parameters used in simulation

Parameter
UE Antenna gain
UE Noise Figure
UE power class
UL Power control

Assumption
0 dBi
9 dB
23 dBm (200 mW)
Macro UE: P0 = -82 dBm; alpha = 0.8
Femto UE: P0 = -75dBm; alpha = 0.8

3GPP

Release 11

107

3GPP TR 36.828 V11.0.0 (2012-06)

Pico UE: P0 = -76 dBm,alpha = 0.8

Macro BS-UE >= 35 m
Outdoor Pico-UE >= 10 m
Indoor Pico-UE >= 2 m
Femto-UE>= 3 m

Minimum distance between UE and

cell
Minimum distance between UE and
UE

N/A

Table A.1-5: System assumptions for Macro cell

Parameter
Cellular Layout
System bandwidth
Inter-site distance
Number sites
MUE number
Shadowing standard deviation
Penetration Loss (assumes UEs are
indoors)
BS antenna gain after cable loss

Assumption
Hexagonal grid, 3 sectors per site
10MHz
500 m
19sites (=57 cells) with wrap-around.
20ues per cell
8 dB
20dB
15 dBi
2

, Am
A min 12

3dB

Antenna pattern for Macro eNBs to UEs

(horizontal 2D)

3dB = 65 degrees, Am = 20 dB (65 degree

BS noise figure
Total BS TX power (Ptotal)
Macro DL power control
Inter-cell Interference Modelling
Shadowing standard deviation between UE and
Macro

horizontal beamwidth)
5 dB
46 dBm
Not modeled, i.e. assuming max Macro Tx power
Explicit modelling (all cells occupied by UEs)
8 dB

Shadowing standard deviation between UE and

UE

12dB

Table A.1-6: Femto modelling parameters of Dual Stripe Model

Parameter
Femto antenna gain
Femto antenna pattern
Femto DL power control
Femto min transmission power
Femto Noise Figure
Number of row per floor
max number of cells per row
number of blocks per cell
number of floors per block
deployment ratio *activation ratio
Femto UE number per active
HeNB
Probability of Macro UE being
indoors for Macro-Femto case
Shadowing standard deviation
between UE and Femto

Assumption
0 dBi
Omni-directional
Case1: Femto Tx power is set for a target SNR (e.g. 10 dB)
at a Femto UE, within the max and min of Femto Tx power
Case2: without Femto DL power control, i.e. with max
Femto Tx power.
-10dBm
13dB
4
10
1
6
0.1
1
35%
4dB

3GPP

Release 11

108

3GPP TR 36.828 V11.0.0 (2012-06)

10 m
10 m

10 m

10 m
10 m

Figure A.1-1: HeNB dual strip model

Table A.1-7: system simulation assumptions for outdoor Pico cell
Parameter
Pico number
LUE per Pico
Pico type
Pico TX power (Ptotal)
Pico antenna pattern
Pico antenna gain
Pico radius
Minimum distance between Pico and Pico
Minimum distance between Pico and Macro
Pico deployment

Assumption

Macro UE distribution for Macro-outdoor Pico case

Penetration loss

randomly and uniformly dropped per Macro cell

0dB

Shadowing standard deviation

4 Picos/cell
10UEs/Pico, cluster
Hotzone
24dBm
Omni-direction
5dBi
40m
40m
75m
random deployment

Pico to UE
UE to UE
Macro to Pico
Pico to Pico

10dB
12 dB
6 dB
6dB
13dB

Pico noise figure

Table A.1-8: shadowing correlation

Parameters

Assumptions

Shadowing correlation between UEs

Shadowing correlation between Femto cells
Shadowing correlation between Femto and Macro
Shadowing correlation between outdoor Picos
Shadowing correlation between outdoor Pico and Macro
Shadowing correlation between Macro cells

0
0
0
0.5
0.5
A Shadowing correlation factor of 0.5 for the
shadowing between sites (regardless aggressing
or victim system) and of 1 between sectors of the
same site shall be used[36.942]

3GPP

Release 11

109

3GPP TR 36.828 V11.0.0 (2012-06)

Annex B:
Change history
Change history
Date

2012-03
2012-06
2012-06

TSG #

TSG Doc.

R1-121835
RAN_56 RP-120693
RAN_56
-

CR

Rev Subject/Comment

TR skeleton endorsed at RAN1#68bis

For approval at RAN#56
Approved at RAN#56 as version 11.0.0

3GPP

Old

0.1.0
2.0.0

New

0.1.0
2.0.0
11.0.0