Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Considerations
IWPC Workshop – Stockholm, Sweden
1
LTE Small Cell Considerations
2
Poisson Point Process (PPP)
3
Poisson Point Process (PPP)
4
Comparison of Topology
5
Performance Comparison
6
Our System Model
small-cell BS
main macro-cell BS
beam
7
Macro Cell Antenna Model
2 -10 dB
Gh min 12 , Fh
150 30
-20 dB
Bh
180 0
Horizontal 270
8
Macro Cell Antenna Model
• Vertical gain
Bv = 7, Fv = 18 dB, tilt = 10
-90 0 dB
-60 -60
-5 dB
-15 dB
0 0
30 30
60 60
90
9
Small Cell Antenna Model
• Dipole antennas: Gh 0 dB
-3 dB
– 1 element
2.15 dBi 78°
-3 dB
– 2 elements
+3 dB 39°
-3 dB
– 4 elements
+6 dB 19.5°
-3 dB
10
Small Cell Antenna Model
• Dipole antennas:
Gv Bv 78 10 log10 cos 2.75 tilt
Gv Bv 39 10 log10 cos11.73 tilt
Gv Bv 19.5 10 log10 cos 47.64 tilt
Bv = 78 Bv = 78
-90 0 dB -90 0 dB
Bv = 39 Bv = 39
-60 -60 -60 -60
-10 dB Bv = 19.5 -10 dB Bv = 19.5
-30 dB -30 dB
0 0 0 0
30 30 30 30
11
Small Cell Antenna Model
12
Small Cell Antenna Model
– Horizontal pattern:
90 quasi omni
0 dB
120 60
-10 dB
150 -20 dB 30
-30 dB
180 0
210 330
240 300
270
-15 dB -15 dB
0 0 0 0
30 30 30 30
60 60 60 60
90 90
14
Small Cell Antenna Model
o Study focus
Horizon Horizon
8° 16°
main main
6𝑚 beam 6𝑚 beam
42.69 𝑚 20.92 𝑚
15
Simulation Settings
16
Simulation Settings
Parameter Value
17
Simulation Results
0.55
0.9
• With down tilt, the quasi
0.5 omni antenna performs
0.8
better.
tilt = 8 degree
Coverage Probability
0.7 0.45
0.6 0.4
4 5 6
18
Simulation Results
0.9
• With down tilt, the quasi
0.8
omni antenna performs
better.
tilt = 16 degree
Coverage Probability
19
Simulation Results
20
Simulation Results
21
Simulation Results
Throughput Gain
Cases
No tilt 8° tilt 16° tilt
Dipole
1.83% -- --
HPBWv = 78°
Dipole
0 3.46% 8.39%
HPBWv = 39°
Real 2 elements
-2.97% 2.66% 15.10%
dipole
Dipole
-12.23% 4.10% 23.50%
HPBWv = 19.5°
Quasi-omni
-20.37% 4.50% 36.21%
HPBWv = 14°
22
Summary
23
How can we help you?
24