Analysis and Evaluation of Cooperative Multi-Point

Transmission/Reception and Soft Handover for LTE-

Advanced

Rudraksh Shrivastava
Amity University
Sector-125 Noida, U.P. (India)


Mari Carmen Aguayo-Torres
Departamento Ingeniera de Comunicaciones
Universidad de Mlaga
Malaga (Spain)


Abstract Network coordination provided by Cooperative Multi-
Point transmission/reception (CoMP) in 3GPP LTE-Advanced
networks is used as a means to provide spectrally efficient and
high capacity communication with enhanced cell edge user
throughput. However, it has been observed that in LTE-
Advanced networks when CoMP scheme is employed and the
legacy handover mechanism is used to perform handover
between coordinating cells, its performance is limited. LTE-
Advanced networks using CoMP scheme are able to use a soft
handover mechanism different from the hard handover
mechanism used in existing cellular networks. In this paper, we
analyze the effects on performance and efficiency for users in
LTE-Advanced networks employing CoMP Joint Processing (JP)
scheme and Adaptive OFDM with the help of simulations and
observe gains in comparison to conventional networks without
CoMP. This process can be used during soft handover, instead of
legacy hard handover mechanism.
Keywords- LTE-Advanced, CoMP, Handover, Adaptive OFDM
I. INTRODUCTION
In mobile communication systems, it is well known that as
a user changes its position, user transmission has to be
reallocated to a new cell. This handover is a complicated
process involving information exchange and signaling
transmission between the user, source Base Station (BS) and
the target base station. In existing mobile networks, handover is
generally initiated by the User Equipment (UE), in which UE
periodically measures the Reference Signal Receiving Power
(RSRP) of the connected BS and the BS in the neighboring
cell. When the RSRP of the connected BS drops below a
certain pre-defined threshold value, while at the same time, the
RSRP of the BS in the neighboring cell increases above and
maintains the threshold for a certain time, the handover is
initiated. During handover two link procedures could be used.
In hard handover, the user must terminate its connection with
source BS before establishing a new connection with target BS.
Soft handover is a more sophisticated technique able to
simultaneously establish a link to both source and target BS.
The latter mechanism is used in 3GPP UMTS. However, by
eliminating Radio Network Controller (RNC) node, 3GPP LTE
standard currently under deployment has adopted hard
handover process over soft handover [5].
The latest 3GPP standard termed as LTE-Advanced aims to
achieve higher performance and efficiency as compared to
previous 3GPP specifications while maintaining backward
compatibility. These data rates are relatively easy to reach close
to the base station. However, as the distances increase they
become more difficult to maintain. At the cell edges not only
the signal strength is weak because of the distance from the
base station but also interference levels from neighboring base
stations are likely to be higher as the UE will be closer to them.
These interference levels are henceforth referred to as Inter-
Cell Interference (ICI). Coordinated Multi-Point transmission
and reception (CoMP) is one of the features defined in 3GPP
Release-11 for LTE-Advanced to meet the requirements of
IMT-Advanced framework and has been a key research area in
recent years due to its ability to improve mainly cell capacity
and cell-edge user throughput. CoMP transmission/reception
actually refers to a wide range of techniques that enable
dynamic coordination in transmission and reception with
multiple geographically separated base stations [8]. When
CoMP technique is employed, the handover process in LTE-
Advanced can be different from the handover process used in
legacy networks. By coordinating base stations (named
eNodeB by LTE standard), a diversity scheme can be used.
Figure 1 shows the operating principle for the downlink:
diversity is obtained by simultaneous transmission from both
source and target eNodeB. Coherent combination can be done
as Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is
used as modulation/multiple access technique. In this paper, we
studied and analyzed the performance and efficiency of users
located at cell edge during handover process when a
combination of Adaptive OFDM and CoMP Joint
Transmission scheme (JT) is used in the downlink.
Performance improvement compared to that of hard handover
is also evaluated.







Figure 1 Operating principle for downlink
826 978-1-4673-4805-8/12/$31.00 c 2012 IEEE
II. SYSTEM MODEL
A. Channel Model
We considered a scenario with frequency selective
Rayleigh multi-path fading channel in which there were two
base stations (eNode Bs) and one receiver User Equipment
(UE). The data symbols were transmitted to the UE through
two separate Rayleigh multi-path channels having independent
channel responses for eNode B-1 and eNode B-2 respectively.
For each of those two channels, the transmit signal reaches the
receiver through multiple paths where the l
th
path has a
complex amplitude o
I
(t) and delay :
I
, which is kept constant
in this case. The time-varying channel impulse response
b(t, :) of a channel with those characteristics is given by
b(t, :) = o
I
(t)o(t - :
I
)
L
I=0
(1.1)
Where L corresponds to the number of resolvable multipath
components. When there are large numbers of paths, applying
Central Limit Theorem, each path can be modeled as
circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random variable. This
model is called Rayleigh fading channel model. Under this
model, the magnitude |o
n
| = z has a probability density given
by:
p(z) =
z
o
2
c
-z
2
2o
2
, z u (1.2)
This is called Rayleigh random variable.
The real and imaginary part of each tap is an independent
Gaussian random variable with mean 0 and variance given by
the used Power Delay Profile (PDP). Average channel power
over multiple channel realizations is normalized to 1. We have
used the same PDP for each channel b
k
(t, :) but as OFDM
behaviour (in ideal conditions) is the same for all PDP, we
expect the same results if a different PDP had been used.
Moreover, certain pathloss was included depending on the
user equipment location. Calculations were performed using
Okumura/Hata pathloss model in real time for the urban
scenario [6]. For the height of transmit antenna, h
TX
[m], and
the carrier frequency of f
c
[MHz], the Path Loss (PL) at
distance d [m] in an urban area is given by the Hata model as










PL
Urban
(d)[dB] = 69.55+26.16 log f
c
-13.82 log h
TX
-C
RX

+(44.9-6.55 log h
TX
)+log d (1.3)
Where C
RX
is the correlation coefficient of the received
antenna, which depends on the size of the coverage area or
cell. For small to medium sized coverage C
RX
is given by-
C
RX
= 0.8+ (1.1 log f
c
-0.7) h
RX
-1.56 log f
c
(1.4)
Where h
RX
[m] is the height of transmit antenna.
B. Transmission and Reception
We used the OFDM multicarrier transmission model as
shown in Fig. 2, in which data symbols S
n
are generated by
each modulator at the transmitter such that u n N - 1,
which are then multiplexed on to N subcarriers. Please, note
that as complex symbols are transmitted from both base
stations, it is assumed that a fast X2 link is established
between them.
The same time-domain samples S
n
are transmitted during
one OFDM symbol, generating them by the Inverse Fast
Fourier Transform (IFFT) and transmitting over the channel
after adding the cyclic prefix.
Since we have two independent multi-tap Rayleigh multi-
path channels, the channel is modeled by both time-variant
impulse responses b
k
(t, :), k = u,1 and additive white
Gaussian noise (AWGN). As transmission is simultaneously
done from both base stations, both data symbols are
simultaneously received.
At the receiver, the cyclic extension is removed from
the received time-domain samples, and the data samples r
n
are
Fast Fourier Transformed (FFT), in order to yield the received
frequency-domain data symbols
n
. Maximum channel delays
are kept within the cyclic prefix range and channel response
can be assumed to be constant for the duration of one OFDM
symbol. Combined channel frequency response can be
characterized for each OFDM symbol period by the N-point
Fourier Transform of the impulse response. Thus, the received
signal at subcarrier n can be written as
Y
n
= (E
n
1
+ E
n
2
) X
n
+ N
n
(1.S)
Where N
n
is additive noise and for the k
th
base station. The
frequency response of k
th
wireless channel is denoted by



Figure 2 System Model for the Simulation Scenario
2012 World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies 827
E
n
k
= E
k
(
n
, t) (1.6)
Although the addition E
n
1
+ E
n
2
can instantaneously be
constructive or destructive, the received power is higher in
average. In fact, average received power (P
1otuI
) at the UE can
be evaluated as the addition of the power received from both
eNode Bs, which results from transmitted power and path loss
due to distance.
UE estimates the combined channel response (E
n
1
+ E
n
2
) of
both the channels associated with two eNode Bs and then send
it back to the eNode Bs via a feedback channel. Reference
signals included in LTE-Advanced allows this estimation [1].
Channel Quality is estimated at the UE through an index called
(Channel Quality Information, CQI). CQI is then fed back to
the serving eNodeB via Channel State Information (CSI)
feedback mechanism that causes configurable delay and bit
error probability. Reported CQI provides information about
current channel conditions and a measurement of the
instantaneous SNR
y
, which is used by the eNodeB to select
the appropriate transmission parameters.
Since the noise energy in each subcarrier is independent of
the channel s frequency domain transfer function (E
n
=
E
n
1
+ E
n
2
), the instantaneous Signal-to-Noise ratio (SNR) for
n
th
subcarrier can be estimated as
SNR
n
y
(t) = |E
n
|
2
SNR (1.7)

Where SNR is the overall Signal to Noise Ratio, which
depends on power received from both base stations (which in
general are different) and on noise figure.
Constant power variable rate adaptive modulation is
performed on a per subcarrier basis. Adaptive modulation is
carried out by means of predefined SNR thresholds that
determine the proper modulation rate to maintain the target
BER.
III. SIMULATION RESULTS
Table I and table II shows the parameters used to carry out
simulations using Matlab. Figure 3 shows BER vs. Distance
curve for Adaptive OFDM with CoMP over Rayleigh Channel
employing two Base Stations. It was observed that when the
UE is close to eNode B-1, the BER is low. As the UE moves
away from the eNode B-1 and the distance between UE and
base station increases, the BER also increases but it does not
exceed the target BER of 1u
-2
and a low BER is maintained
within acceptable limits. The concept of CoMP is being applied
here, as it can be seen that when the UE moves away from the
base station there is coordination in data transmission between
the two base-stations, eNode B-1 belonging to the serving cell
and eNode B-2 belonging to the non-serving cell. The UE then
reaches a point such that distance-(d1) between base station-1
and distance-(d2) between base station-2 is 9 and 35 meters
respectively. Both the base stations are coordinating with each
other in order to keep the BER low, mitigate inter cell
interference (ICI) due to each other and maintain the target
QoS with the help of adaptive OFDM. This helps to achieve
one of the objectives of CoMP that is, improved cell edge data
rates. At this point, depending on the mobility path of the UE,
the decision to initiate soft handover can be made by the eNode
B with the help of measurement reports. Soft handover in case
of CoMP provide many improvements over hard handover. It
provides macro diversity combining gain which provides
enhanced link demodulation performance leading to power
gains against fast fading. It also provides Multi-cell gain in
which multiple unrelated branches in soft handover reduce the
requirements on shadow fading margin. Soft handover in case
of CoMP improves load sharing, in the uplink multiple cells
receive UE signal which reduces the transmit power of the UE
thereby increasing the battery life. In the downlink, multiple
cells transmit the RF signals to the UE which reduces the
transmit power of each cell. It was also noted that due to
improved received power gain at the UE by using CoMP JP
technique the BER vs. distance performance in this case
significantly improved over scenario where no CoMP
technique was applied. The BER vs. distance curve for
Adaptive OFDM without CoMP over Rayleigh Channel for the
UE moving away from the Base Station-1 (eNode B-1) is
shown in figure 4. This proves that employing this technique of
Adaptive OFDM with Coordinated Multi-Point
Communications (CoMP) in LTE-A systems can be
sufficiently effective for achieving desired link performance.
This technique can help in reducing OPEX (Operational
Expenses) for the operators at the same time increasing system
performance.

TABLE-I Parameters for Adaptive OFDM
Modulation Schemes SNR-Thresholds (dB) Target BER

10
-2

No Transmission 0
BPSK 1 to 4
QPSK 4 to 8
16-QAM 8 to 12
64-QAM 12 onwards


TABLE-II Parameters for Adaptive OFDM & CoMP Tx/Rx
Parameters Values
Number of Sub-
Carriers
256
Length of Cyclic Prefix 40
Modulation Schemes BPSK,QPSK,16-QAM,64-QAM
Cut-off/Threshold SNR
values (dB)
As per table-1
Overall SNR (dB) 0:5:96
Channel Type Rayleigh (Pedestrian-As per 3GPP
TS- 25.104)
Equalizer Type MMSE
Number of Transmitted
Symbols Per Sub-
Carrier
1u
4

Number of Simulation-
Iterations
1u
4

Coding Gray Coding
Sub-Carrier Frequency 10 MHz
Subcarrier spacing 312.5kHz
Cyclic prefix duration,
Tcp
0.8 s
Data symbol duration
Td
3.3 s
Total Symbol duration,
Ts
4.0 s
Number of eNode Bs 2
Number of UEs 1

828 2012 World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies








Figure 3 BER vs. Distance curve for Adaptive OFDM with CoMP over
Rayleigh Channel for Two Base Stations at a Distance (d1) and (d2) from the
UE
Figure 4 BER vs. Distance curve for Adaptive OFDM without CoMP

Figure 5 shows Spectral Efficiency vs. Distance curve for
Adaptive OFDM with CoMP. It can be observed that when the
UE is close to eNode B-1, the spectral efficiency is high. As
the UE moves away from the eNode B-1 and the distance
between UE and base station increases, the spectral efficiency
decreases. It can be noted that UE is simultaneously served by
both the base stations namely eNode B-1 and eNode B-2. As it
moves further towards the cell edge, it can be instantly
detected by the best base station at the uplink there by
exhibiting macro-diversity and may initiate the soft handover
based on the analysis of the measurement reports by the
serving base station. Thus by using the principle of CoMP,
both base stations are coordinating with each other and trying
to keep the spectral efficiency close to the Shannon limits. As
the capacity corresponds to the average cell spectrum
efficiency this shows that improvement in performance of
spectral efficiency vs. distance curve will lead to higher
capacity. This will help achieve the other objective of CoMP
that is improved capacity.

In the downlink the UE receives individual transmission from
both the base stations and jointly exploit them through
coherent combining. This leads to an effective loss of spectral
efficiency as multiple resources have to be reserved for the
UE. However, it was observed that the spectral efficiency
performance in this case significantly improved over scenario
where no CoMP technique was applied. The Spectral
efficiency vs. Distance curve for Adaptive OFDM without
CoMP over Rayleigh Channel for the UE moving away from
the Base Station-1 (eNode B-1) is shown in figure 6. This
proves that employing this technique of Coordinated Multi-
Point Communications Joint transmission/reception (CoMP-
JP) can be sufficiently effective for achieving high capacity in
a communication network.
IV CONCLUSION
The handover strategies used in 3GPP LTE-Advanced FDD
systems using CoMP transmission/reception schemes are
different from the strategies used in existing mobile networks.
CoMP transmission/reception and soft handover are entirely
difference processes with different aims and are often wrongly
associated with each other. Soft handover is not responsible
for countering inter-cell interference and exploiting spatial
multiplexing, it is aimed at improving the performance of
handover processes between cells. Soft handover provides
various advantages over hard handover as discussed in section
III, however there are certain disadvantages associated with
soft handover as well for example increased downlink
resource consumption and side effects due to power
imbalance. Hence these problems are required to be addressed
in future. Furthermore, by using Adaptive OFDM with CoMP
in 3GPP LTE-A FDD network, overall system performance
can be increased significantly over the non-adaptive case by
exploiting the knowledge of channel conditions. The adaptive
OFDM and CoMP schemes have an excellent performance
over frequency selective fading channels. CoMP transmission
in the downlink and reception in the uplink are very effective
in improving the cell edge user throughput and cell capacity.
However, considering actual application, further investigation
is necessary for cases involving multiple cell sites employing
multiple base-stations for more number of user equipments. It
is also necessary to investigate the influence of timing error
and the propagation time delay for different scenarios.
Handover efficiency and success rate are crucial to ensure
CoMP performance and effectiveness. Thus, in order to
improve handover performance, effective handover
mechanisms should be designed to reduce the overhead of
information exchange and signaling in CoMP scenarios.


Pathloss Model used Okumura/Hata (for Urban
Scenario)
Transmitted Power
(dB)
62
eNode B Noise
Power (dB)
7
UE Noise Power (dB) 2
2012 World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies 829

Figure 5 Spectral Efficiency vs. Distance curve for Adaptive OFDM with
CoMP
Figure 6 Spectral Efficiency vs. Distance curve for Adaptive OFDM
without CoMP
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
For all the interesting discussions and assistance with this
work, our special thanks to Dr. Juan J. Sanchez and Mr.
Francisco Javier Martin.
REFERENCES
[1] Y.H. Nam, Y. Akimoto, Y. Kim, M. Lee, K. Bhattad, A. Ekpenyong,
Evolution of Reference Signals for LTE-Advanced Systems, IEEE
Communications Magazine, pp. 132-238, February 2012

[2] Daewon Lee, Hanbyul Seo, Clerckx, B., Hardouin, E., Mazzarese, D.,
Nagata, S., Sayana, K., "Coordinated multipoint transmission and reception in
LTE-advanced: deployment scenarios and operational challenges", IEEE
Communications Magazine, Volume: 50 , Issue: 2, Page(s): 148-155,
February 2012

[3] Rahman, M., Yanikomeroglu, H., Wong, W.: Interference Avoidance with
Dynamic Intercell Coordination for Downlink LTE System, IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications 10(5), 14141425 (2011)

[3] Sawahashi, M., Kishiyama, Y., Morimoto, A., Nishikawa, D., Tanno,
M.,"Coordinated Multipoint Transmission/Reception Techniques for LTE-
Advanced. IEEE Wireless Communications", 2634 (2011)

[5] 3GPP TR 36.814, V9.0.0, Further Advancements for EUTRA Physical
Layer Aspects, Mar. 2010

[6] Y. S. Cho, J. Kim, W. Y. Yang, C. G. Kang,MIMO-OFDM Wireless
Communications with Matlab, John Wiley & Sons (Asia) Pvt Ltd, 2010

[7] D. Morales Jimnez, J.J. Snchez Snchez, G. Gmez, M.C. Aguayo-
Torres, J.T. Entrambasaguas, Imperfect adaptation in next generation
OFDMA cellular systems, Journal Of Internet Engineering, December 2009

[8] 3GPP TR 36.913, V9.0.0, Requirements for Further Advancements for
Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) (LTE-Advanced),
Dec. 2009.

[9] 3GPP TS 25.104, Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception
(FDD)

[10] Y. Rong, S. A. Vorobyov and A. B. Gershman, Adaptive OFDM
Techniques with One-Bit-Per-Subcarrier Channel-State Feedback, IEEE
Transactions on Communications, Vol. 54, No. 11, NOVEMBER 2006

[11] Andrea Goldsmith, Wireless Communications, Stanford University,
2005

[12] J.F. Paris, M.C. Aguayo-Torres and J.T. Entrambasaguas, Impact of
imperfect channel estimation on adaptive modulation performance in flat
fading IEEE Trans Comm., pp. 716-720, May 2004
830 2012 World Congress on Information and Communication Technologies