qi nt022 v1 14dec10 2g and 3g link budgets

This document contains confidential and proprietary information that belongs to Qtel International. Using any of the information contained herein or copying or imaging all or part of this document by any means is strictly forbidden unless written consent obtained from Qtel International.

Network Technology

2G and 3G Link Budgets Report Alan Hogg

Doc No: NT-022 Version 1.0

December 14, 2010

Abstract

This report captures the Radio Link Budgets for both 2G and 3G. These are captured as both Predicted Signal Strength Thresholds as well as Measured Signal Strength Thresholds. The report also shows advantage in Link Budgets by installing RRU at antennas as well as 3G 900 MHz coverage advantage over 2G 900 MHz coverage.

QI Confidential

QI_NT022_V1.012Dec10_QI_NT022_V1_14Dec10_ 2G_and_3G_ Link_ Budgets Page 2 of 37

REVISION HISTORY Version Date Author Change Description

1.0 December 14, 2010 Alan Hogg First released version

CONTRIBUTORS Karin Sarin

APPROVAL

Approved by Job title Date

Paul Salmon CTO 14 Dec 2010

QI Confidential


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document is written as a record of the Qtel Groups 2G and 3G Radio Link Budgets. It clearly demonstrates the essential nature of fitting RRUs at antennas (a minimum of 4.1 dB plus existing GSM Feeder Loss coverage improvements) as well as significant coverage advantage of UMTS 900 MHz has over a conventional 2G 900 MHz. That is making 3G service coverage better than 2G coverage is an essential ingredient. As has been described in other documents/presentations, retention of 2G coverage levels by maintaining existing 2G EIRPs even with an RRU at antenna solution is implicit in these link budgets. The Predicted Signal Strengths thresholds used in cell planning tools are as shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Note the Indoor minimal signal strengths are ascertained by allowing for additional in building margins for these typical morphology classes.

Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)

Dense Urban Urban Suburban Rural

GSM 900 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -86.1 -88.0 -88.9 -90.6

GSM 1800 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -89.7 -91.6 -92.5 -94.2

UMTS 900 @ +34 dBm CPICH -97.3 -99.2 -100.1 -101.8

UMTS 2100 @ + 31 dBm CPICH -101.3 -103.2 -104.1 -105.8

Table 1: Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strengths

Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)


GSM 900 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -59.3 -66.5 -72.7 -74.8

GSM 1800 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -62.9 -70.1 -76.3 -78.4

UMTS 900 @ +34 dBm CPICH -71.0 -78.2 -84.4 -86.5

UMTS 2100 @ + 31 dBm CPICH -75.0 -82.2 -88.4 -90.5

Table 2: Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strengths As measured signal strengths measure the effective Shadowing effect then the shadowing margin is removed. This is why there is an apparent difference between Predicted and Measured signal strengths used in Cell Coverage Prediction tools and those results indicating coverage as obtained from Measured Survey results.

QI Confidential


The Measured Signal Strength thresholds from Survey are as follows in Table 3 and 4

Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)


GSM 900 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -98.2 -98.2 -98.2 -98.2

GSM 1800 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -98.8 -98.8 -98.8 -98.8

UMTS 900 @ +34 dBm CPICH -108.5 -108.5 -108.5 -108.5

UMTS 2100 @ + 31 dBm CPICH -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5

Table 3: Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strengths as measured at street outdoor

Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)


GSM 900 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -69.0 -74.7 -80.5 -81.5

GSM 1800 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -69.6 -75.3 -81.1 -82.1

UMTS 900 @ +34 dBm CPICH -79.3 -85.0 -90.8 -91.8

UMTS 2100 @ + 31 dBm CPICH -80.3 -86.0 -91.8 -92.8

Table 4: Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strengths as measured at street outdoor

QI Confidential


Table of contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. 3

1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 6

1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Background ....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.0 Transmitter Powers and Sensitivities ...................................................................... 6

2.1 Mobile Station Sensitivity ................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Base Station Sensitivity .................................................................................................................... 8 2.3 2G and 3G Phone Effective Transmitter Powers ....................................................................... 9 2.4 BTS and NodeB Transmit Powers ................................................................................................ 9

3.0 System Physical Losses and Gains ......................................................................... 10

3.1 Antenna Gains ................................................................................................................................ 10 3.2 Building Penetration Losses ......................................................................................................... 11 3.3 Feeder and Jumper Losses ............................................................................................................ 11 3.4 Filters and Crossband Combiners ............................................................................................... 11

4.0 Logical System Losses and Gains ........................................................................... 11

4.1 Diversity Gain ................................................................................................................................. 12 4.2 Soft and Softer Handover Gains ................................................................................................. 12 4.3 Body Loss ........................................................................................................................................ 13 4.4 Power Control Margin ................................................................................................................... 13

5.0 Reliability and Shadow Fading Margins ................................................................ 13

5.1 Shadow Fading Losses ................................................................................................................... 14 5.2 Log-Normal Fading Margins ........................................................................................................ 14

6.0 Rayleigh Fading Margin ......................................................................................... 17

7.0 Interference Margins and Noise Rise ..................................................................... 17

7.1 GSM Systems .................................................................................................................................. 17 7.2 WCDMA Systems .......................................................................................................................... 17

8.0 Minimal Signal Strength Thresholds for Predictions ............................................ 20

8.1 Minimum Prediction Threshold Calculations GSM 900 MHz ............................................... 21 8.2 Minimum Prediction Threshold Calculations GSM 1800 MHz ............................................. 21 8.3 Minimum Prediction Threshold Calculations UMTS 900MHz .............................................. 22 8.4 Minimum Prediction Threshold Calculations UMTS 2100MHz ............................................ 23 8.5 Summary Minimum Prediction Threshold ................................................................................. 23

9.0 Minimal Signal Strength Thresholds for Measurements ...................................... 24

9.1 Minimum Measured Threshold Calculations GSM 900 MHz ................................................ 26 9.2 Minimum Measured Threshold Calculations GSM 1800 MHz .............................................. 27 9.3 Minimum Measured Threshold Calculations UMTS 900MHz ............................................... 27 9.4 Minimum Measured Threshold Calculations UMTS 2100MHz ............................................. 28 9.5 Summary Minimum Measured Threshold .................................................................................. 29

10.0 Advantage of RRU at Antenna Compared to Conventional BTS or NodeB. ....... 29

Appendix A: Z Tables of the Normal Distribution .......................................................... 30

Appendix B: Scanner Table Averaging Filter Configurations .......................................... 31

Appendix C: Link Budgets ............................................................................................... 33

Appendix D: Maximum Allowable Path Losses .............................................................. 37

QI Confidential


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE

This document is written to capture 2G and 3G Speech Radio Link Budgets as well as compares these between both Technologies and Bands. In particular it clearly shows the advantages of a Single RAN RRU at antenna solution, where UMTS 900 MHz coverage solution is compared to that of a UMTS 2100 MHz coverage solution with a GSM 900 MHz solution as a base line for all. The audience of this paper is the OpCos Radio Engineering Groups, Directors of Engineering and CTOs.

1.2 BACKGROUND

It is critical that a well understood and recorded set of Radio Link Budgets be captured as these are used to establish various critical metrics such as extent of coverage which in turn severely impacts both the Capex and Opex of an operating company. Often each particular individual in a Radio Design Group has their own versions of Radio Link Budgets which are vastly different and unfortunately often exclude critical components or allowances. This document has been written to act as the definitive guide for both 2G and 3G Radio Link Budgets within the QTEL Group.

2.0 TRANSMITTER POWERS AND SENSITIVITIES

This section identifies the key inputs that need to be considered in the various speech link budgets for 2G and 3G.

2.1 MOBILE STATION SENSITIVITY

The ability to communicate with both the users device and base stations is limited by the sensitivity in receiving transmissions. Unfortunately vendors often quote sensitivity against different criteria (in fact sometimes not even declared). For example it may be against a particular FER (Frame Erasure Rate) and or RBER (Residual Block Error Rate). Often these are not directly compatible thus not comparable in a Radio Link budget. In the case of speech services, it is more about the physical sound and loss of speech in the communication channel rather than a specific number. Often the chosen FER or RBER used by the vendor to describe their sensitivity do not replicate when a customer would start experiencing bad and or poor quality on a voice call in a real network scenario. Therefore being non representative of the customers experience means these sensitivities are impractical to use for planning purposes. The sensitivity performance is required to be understood for typical customer scenarios. Examples would include such conditions as slow moving (e.g. 3GPP TU3, Typical Urban 3 Km/Hr) or fast moving (e.g. 3GPP TU50, Typical Urban 50 Km/Hr). To model these conditions, particular complex fading simulators are required to be configured and placed in the paths to replicate these conditions and environments. Obviously this is significantly more

QI Confidential


complex than testing a relatively simple Static Sensitivity performance which are often quoted and used in Link Budgets. 2G performance will also be significantly impacted by FH (Frequency Hopping) or no FH. So again, the Network environment needs to be configured to replicate this condition. To overcome the above mentioned abnormalities experienced operators go through extensive testing regimes with various handsets and base stations to establish the effectively sensitivities by accessing bad quality voice and or associating bad quality voice with a more meaningful FER and or RBER. If an association between bad voice experiences and a particular FER and or RBER can be established, then it makes the testing considerably easier. Historically this was done by using Human listeners/speakers accessing speech quality (Historically classified as Slight Frame Loss, Regular Frame Loss, or Unintelligible) as the channel approached its limit. Often Link Budgets use nominal figures for performance which do not consider the real distributions of supplied devices. An excellent example of this being MS/Ue Transmit power which has an allowed variance within the specifications of 2dB. Experienced operators have found it necessary to actually consider these real device distributions in the link budgets. Another issue often encountered in establishing a link budget is that the performance of the device is specified for a specific RF connector (e.g. hands free kit RF adaptor), yet performance of the MS/Ues with integrated antenna (excluding Body loss, see section 4.3) is not considered. Some experienced operators overcome this by accessing the performance of the device at the RF connector by measuring the absolute Transmit power then put the MS/Ue in an anechoic chamber and measure the same characteristic. This allows an understanding of the actual integrated antennas performance compared to the performance at the RF connector. In the past this has lead to discovering significant issues with a number of very popular devices. In some cases leading to removal of these offending devices from both supply chains and setting up exchange programmes for customers whom complain about a specific devices performance. All of these mitigation techniques are both very costly and labour intensive and potentially very damaging to both the Operator and device suppliers alike. What has driven the need to establish such an extensive testing process has been the notable cases dating back to AMPS/TACS (Advanced Mobile Phone System/Total Access System) where major customer complaints emulated from particular handsets which reflected badly on the operators networks. Some operators go to the extent of recommending better devices for specific situations (e.g. for Rural Coverage Blue tick devices from Telstra Australia, these have better performance than other devices1). Of more recent times the fiasco with the IPhone4 is a classic case, where originally it was effectively blamed on the Networks coverage. Obviously if more rigorous testing had been performed, perhaps the issue would not have found itself within the market and ensuing press drama. So in summary there are many variables that can catch an unaware designer off guard. The figures we will use in our link budget consider the above factors are captured in Table 5.

1 http://www.telstra.com.au/mobile/networks/coverage/maximise.html

QI Confidential


MS/Ue Realistic Speech Sensitivities

2G 900 MHz EFR Codec TU3 FH - 100.2 dBm

2G 900 MHz AMR FR Codec TU3 FH - 105.2 dBm


2G 1800 MHz AMR FR Codec TU3 FH - 105.5 dBm

3G 900 MHz CPICH TU3 - 117.1 dBm

3G 900 MHz 12.2 Codec TU3 - 116.9 dBm

3G 2100 MHz CPICH TU3 - 118.1 dBm

3G 2100 MHz 12.2 Codec TU3 - 117.9 dBm

Table 5: MS and Ue Sensitivities

2.2 BASE STATION SENSITIVITY

With the 2G BTS a particular note that earlier generation 2G BTSs (loosely referred to as Generation 1 and Generation 2 BTSs) are less sensitive as compared to todays generation BTSs. Basically Generation 1 and 2 BTSs (those which were designed and delivered up to around 2004) are typically around 2 dB less sensitive than the new generation BTSs. Again significant improvements have been made between Generation 1 NodeBs (pre 2005) and Generation 2 NodeBs (post 2005). This was achieved by both new software but often with new hardware. One needs to be aware that often vendors quote sensitivities (normally static) as with or without diversity and in some cases with up to four way BTS/eNodeB receive diversity. Thus quoted simple sensitivity figures can be a mine field to traverse and be able to confidently use. The following figures are typically representative of the current generation BTS/NodeBs.

Post 2004 BTS and Post 2005 NodeB Speech Sensitivities


2G 900 MHz AMR FR Codec TU3 FH - 117.0 dBm2


2G 1800 MHz AMR FR Codec TU3 FH -117.0 dBm

3G 900 MHz 12.2 Codec TU3 - 123.7 dBm

3G 2100 MHz 12.2 Codec TU3 - 123.7 dBm

Table 6: BTS3 and NodeB Sensitivities (excluding diversity)

2 AMR figures are adjusted EFR results being corrected by 5.5 dB to be more sensitive, ref GSM, GPRS and Edge performance: evolution towards 3G/UMTS Halonen, Romero, Melero, Section 6.5.2 3 Older generation BTS are 2 dB less sensitive than these figures i.e. -109.5 dBm EFR and -115 dBm AMR FR

QI Confidential


2.3 2G AND 3G PHONE EFFECTIVE TRANSMITTER POWERS

As already highlighted in section 2.1, Mobile Stations transmitter powers are heavily influenced by the integrated antennas performance, as well as aspects that particular operators and or device vendors are trying to optimize. Sometimes vendors have been known to enhance battery life by reducing the devices transmit power and or alternatively reducing power to keep SAR (Specific Absorption Rates) for user significantly lower than recognised standards. Experienced operators have found it necessary in the past to qualify the effective transmit powers of the devices with these non transparent changes being instigated by the device vendors. When these measurements have been carried out quite considerably different effective device transmit radiated powers have been discovered. For the link budget we use the most common Mobile Transmit powers as listed in Table 7 below.

MS/Ues Realistic Transmit Powers (GMSK)

2G 900 MHz class 4 (nominal +33 dBm 2 dB) +30 dBm




Table 7: MS and Ues Effective Transmit Powers (excluding Body Loss)

2.4 BTS AND NODEB TRANSMIT POWERS

Traditional GSM BTSs used single Power Amplifiers per GSM channel. These were rated to two different power capabilities dependant on which Modulation is in use. The highest power stated is for GMSK (Gaussian Minimum Shift Keyed) transmissions used for traditional speech services, whilst typical the 8PSK (8 Phase Shift Keyed transmission) involved in Edge and GPRS are down rated by 3 dB compared to the GMSK rated powers. This down rating is due to the inability to meet the stricter spectral requirements (e.g. EVM, Error Vector Magnitude) requirements of the higher order modulation. In the attached link Budgets we utilize 4 TRX GSM configurations using GMSK Transmit powers of +41.8 dBm per carrier (15 watt per carrier). This transmit power is also relatively common for older generation 2G BTSs which can achieve these levels. An exception is that the older generation 2G 1800MHz BTS are set at +40.7 dBm (approximately 12 watts) so as to balance the uplink and downlinks, this to allow the ability of using downlink coverage budgets to determine coverage. With WCDMA each of the various services has a pre set max RAB (Radio Access Bearer) transmit power which one needs to be aware of. In most cases the all R99 radio bearers are set up to offset max RAB transmit power relative to the CPICH power. R99 Packet bearers are becoming more irrelevant with time as HSDPA capability is introduced into the ecosystems, particularly as we wish to ideally carry ALL packet traffic on the more efficient HSDPA bearers rather than R99. Typical offsets used for R99 bearers are:

QI Confidential


Speech 12.2kbps 0 dB CS 64 +3.2 dB PS64 +3.2 dB PS128 +4.0 dB PS384 +7.1 dB, limited as too costly in power to function at cell boundary As WCDMA today uses Multi Carrier Linear power amplifiers suitable power amplifier dimensioning rules are also required so as to ensure that there is enough capacity for traffic. This is specified as dimensioning rule which is relating the ratio of CPICH power to Total Carrier power. The power dimensioning rule for sizing the Power Amplifiers is as follows Total PA Power per Carrier = CPICH + Other Overhead Channels + 9 dB Traffic

= CPICH (dBm) + 3 dB + 9 dB

Therefore Power Amplifier Sizing is as follows:

20 Watt per Carrier = +31 dBm CPICH, this facilitates 3 carriers each of 20 Watts on a 60 Watt power amplifier for 2100MHz

40 Watt per Carrier = +34 dBm CPICH, this facilitates 1 carrier at 40 Watt UMTS and 20 watts residual for GSM carriers on a 60 Watt power amplifier for 900MHz

Within the rest of this document we will limit the analysis to basic speech service coverage: though a basic understanding of above concepts will become critical when assessing various link budgets and potential tradeoffs.

3.0 SYSTEM PHYSICAL LOSSES AND GAINS

In this area we are gathering up all the various losses introduced by feeders, tails, surge arrestors, tower mounted amplifiers, cross band combiners, filter combiners jumper cables etc.. The challenge here is to clearly identify all the various components that need to be included, then finding out their various individual losses in the various bands they may operate over. This is important because small discrepancies in multiple devices in can add up to a few dB, which may lead to an unsatisfactory outcome and or investments.

3.1 ANTENNA GAINS

Antenna gains are often misquoted by vendors. That is, some use the quoted gain in the highest band the antenna supports, which can in some cases be 0.7 dB different to the gain in the lower part of the Antennas pass bandwidth. Antenna Gains units must also match the prediction model used, whether based on isotropic or dipole measured gains. The Antenna Gains should be in the same reference unit (i.e. dBi or dB). Again experienced operators either separately test Antennas or alternatively obtain detailed test results (in some cases attend testing in person) to understand and dispel these discrepancies.

QI Confidential


3.2 BUILDING PENETRATION LOSSES

The building penetration loss component of the predicted signal strength threshold for in building coverage accounts for the loss that the signal is subjected to as it penetrates a building. The building penetration losses to be used are shown in Table 8.

Building Penetration Loss (dB)


25.0 20.0 15.0 15.0

Table 8: Building Penetration Loss

That is by adding these losses to outdoor predictions the measure of In building coverage for typical morphology classes can be ascertained.

3.3 FEEDER AND JUMPER LOSSES

These are normally difficult to establish though often types of feeders are mistakenly used. Example data base may indicate that a 7/8 inch feeder is used, yet Feeder is actually installed. This obviously makes a significant difference. Often jumpers are not considered at all. It can be shown that the traditional BTSs from Rack Out Connector to Antenna In connector, often will have a minimum of 3 jumpers (with Mast head Amplifiers and or cross band combiners in use). Typical minimum jumper losses are dependent on the manufacturer and length. Though for the link budget purposes the following figures be utilized:

1/2 Inch Jumper Insertion Losses (dB)

800 - 900 MHz 1700 - 2100 MHz

Loss 0.15 - 0.20 0.30 - 0.35

Table 9: Jumper Losss

3.4 FILTERS AND CROSSBAND COMBINERS

Often specific vendors tend to colour the components apparent losses to be less than a competitors product. This can be achieved by specifying the average loss as opposed to peak loss which in some components can easily add an additional 0.5 dB loss. Similarly BTS and NodeB as well as user devices are specified and tested over temperature and humidity whilst often third party ancillary vendors prefer to quote performance and losses at ambient air temperatures as the components appear significantly better in most cases. Again detailed test results from vendors both help to understand and dispel these issues from creeping into the link budget calculations.

4.0 LOGICAL SYSTEM LOSSES AND GAINS

QI Confidential


4.1 DIVERSITY GAIN

Base stations generally are equipped with 2 way receive antenna diversity. These diversity improvements are not included within the Base Station sensitivities quote in Section 2.2. 2 way diversity, improves the link by 3 dB 4 way diversity, improves the link by 6 dB

4.2 SOFT AND SOFTER HANDOVER GAINS

WCDMA based systems have another significant advantage and disadvantage. This being that of Soft and Softer Handover. Soft and softer handover add the ability of the system to use multiple links from the same and or multiple base stations similateously which reduces he impacts of traditional fades/shadowing which are typically characeterized in Hard Handover systems4 (e.g. AMPS and GSM systems). This can be referred to as a Soft/Softer Handover Gain. These Soft/Softer Handover Gain values are listed in Table 10.

Soft/Softer Handover Gain (dB)

Outdoor 0.9

Outdoor + Indoor 1.4

Table 10: Soft/Softer Handover Gains

Note. the above gains do not apply to the Pilot Channels (CPICH) as these are not capable of Soft/Softer handover. Not also that in in Appendix C for simplicity the Shadow Fading Margins have been modified by these Soft/Softer Handover gains.

The downside of the Soft/Softer handover capability is the fact that dedicated resources must be allocated to all sites that are involved in the call, which are in soft/softer handover. Soft handover requires the following additional resources which are not required in a System with Hard Handover only.

Transport

RNC processing

Channel Elements at Base Stations

Base Station Power at Base stations

Channel Codes at Base Stations

A significant amount of optimization effort is focused on reducing the effective amount of traffic in Soft/Softer Handover. Typical a non optimized network has Soft/Softer Handover percentages are around 60% with a tuned system at 35- 40%.

4 Some more insight into this phenomena can be found in Analysis of Fade Margins for Soft and Hard Handover by Rege, Nanda, Weaver and Peng, AT&T Bell Laboratories

QI Confidential


4.3 BODY LOSS

Body loss5 is a phenomenon where the antenna performance of the handset is impacted by the users head and hand. Typical Body Loss margins for various bands are shown in Table 11 below

Body Loss (dB)

900 MHz 5.0

900 MHz 2.0

Table 11: Body loss versus Frequency Note. Body Loss does not apply to data card type devices which are not held by the user and used in close proximity of the head.

4.4 POWER CONTROL MARGIN

Mobile Power Control in the UMTS system operates at around 1500 Hz. Within the link budget an allowance is made for to allow the power control to work correctly when the mobile approaches the cell edge. It allows the mobile to follow the fast fading particularly in slow moving conditions. Typical allowances are 0.7 dB for this effect.

5.0 RELIABILITY AND SHADOW FADING MARGINS

Coverage estimation tools are not capable of predicting the signal strength fluctuations that occur due to local environmental clutter. They can only predict the median signal strength. This is why link budgets allow for a Shadow Fade Margin so as to represent these variations in determining the minimum received signal strength applicable to a particular environment and condition (e.g. Suburban, In Door coverage). This minimum signal strength threshold including Shadow Fade Margins is what is used in the Coverage Prediction tool to estimate likely hood of coverage at a particular location. These Shadow Fade Margins allow for signal strength fluctuations which occur as a mobile station moves through particular environmental clutters. These signal strength fluctuations are due to a mobile in a building or in a vehicle experiencing variations in building and vehicle penetration losses. The Shadow Fading margin is dependent on the Reliability margin use for the design. In these link budgets we will be using 90% cell area reliability target.

5 Effects of the Human Body on Total Radiated Power and the 3-D Radiation Pattern of Mobile Handsets, Krogerus, Toivanen, Icheln, Vainikainen

QI Confidential


5.1 SHADOW FADING LOSSES

Signal strength fluctuations due to Shadow Fading are considered to be log-normally distributed. Since the type of distribution is statistically characterized, then a fade margin can be included in the predicted signal strength thresholds to account for these variations due to shadowing. The magnitude of the absolute fade margin depends upon the standard deviation of the log-normal distribution as well as the required cell edge coverage reliability. The standard deviation of the log-normal distribution effective describes the variability of these fading mechanisms. Having a normal distribution it is relatively easy to establish the probability that the mobile has coverage by defining the desired cell edge coverage reliability (this is the probability that the measured signal strength is greater than the required signal strength for the coverage type). This same approach is applied to the variations in building penetration loss to determine the building penetration margin that needs to be added to the mean building Penetration loss to achieve the desired cell edge coverage reliability. In these cases the predicted signal strength threshold needs to account for signal strength fluctuations due to outdoor clutter as well as variations in building penetration loss. In this case, the standard deviation for the log-normal distribution is the RMS (Root Mean Square) of the standard deviations for the outdoor and building penetration losss log-normal distributions. That is, the composite standard deviation is as below:

22

outincomp Outdoor and Indoor Standard Deviations for particular Environments are shown below in Table 12.

Standard Deviations of Fading Characteristics (dB)


Outdoor Only (out) 10 8 7 5 Indoor Only (in) 5.5 5 4 3

Outdoor + Indoor (comp) 11.4 9.4 8.1 5.8

Table 12: Outdoor and Indoor Standard Deviations

5.2 LOG-NORMAL FADING MARGINS

To derive the Shadow Fade Margin from the Shadow Fading Standard Deviations a number of steps are involved. Firstly, Jakes curves6 are used to convert the above Standard Deviations into the required cell edge reliability to guarantee particular cell area reliability. Defining the area reliability of the design to be 90% of cell area (Y axis) then using Jakes curves you plot the X axis value this being / factor.

6 Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications Principles & Practice, Prentice Hall, NJ, 1996.

QI Confidential


Where:

= the particular environments Standard Deviation of the Fading Characteristic (Table 12) and:

= the Path Loss Exponent (see Table 13)

Path Loss Exponent ()


4.0 3.8 3.5 3.2

Table 13: Path Loss Exponents

This x axis values (i.e. / ) become the results as shown in Table 14.

(/)


Outdoor (out/) 2.5 2.1 2.0 1.6

Outdoor + Indoor (comp/) 2.9 2.5 2.3 1.8

Table 14: / values Now looking up Jakes Curves which represent Cell Edge Reliability figures match this to the Y axis Cell Area Reliability target and identify the pertinent Jakes curve. Now as the distribution is normal we can use Z distribution functions to determine the Shadow Fade Margin required. For example, using the above / values we can establish the required Cell Edge Reliability for the Dense Urban Outdoor case by looking up the / value of 2.5 and match to the 90% Cell Area reliability which is equal to a 76% Cell Edge Reliability requirement.

QI Confidential


Figure 1: Coverage Reliability Curves (i.e. Jakes Curves)

Other Cell Edge Reliability figures values for all environments and conditions are listed in Table 15.

% Cell Edge Reliability for 90% Area Reliability


Outdoor 76% 74% 73% 70%

Outdoor + Indoor 78% 76% 75% 72%

Table 15: Cell Edge Reliability Requirements Appendix A contains the Z functions of the normal distribution. The Z distribution defines the absolute allowance from the mean of the distribution for a particular cell Edge Reliability figure. That is, by multiple the Z function figure by the standard deviation gives the absolute requirement to achieve this cell edge reliability which equates to a 90% cell area reliability. Again using the Dense Urban Outdoor case we find that the Z function value for 76% is 0.71 on the Z function. Now multiplying this (0.71) by the Standard deviation for that environment and condition (i.e. 10 dB from Table 8) we find the required Shadow fading Margin for Dense Urban Outdoor would be 7.1 dB.

QI Confidential


LNFMargin = * z = 10 * 0.71 = 7.1dB All Shadow Fading Margins can be found in Table 16.

Required Shadow Fade Margin (dB)for 90% Reliability


Outdoor 7.1 5.2 4.3 2.7

Outdoor + Indoor 8.9 6.7 5.5 3.4

Table 16: Shadow Fade Margin Requirements for 90% Reliability

6.0 RAYLEIGH FADING MARGIN

Rayleigh fading typical impacts narrow band non hopping systems such as GSM systems. It doesnt impact wide band systems significantly due to non selective nature of the wide band channels utilized, thus can be ignored. This phenomenon is basically the result of severe multipath/reflections in a clutter environment where rapidly changing constructive and destructive signals will occur. At higher speeds vehicle such as TU50 (Typical Urban 50 Km/Hr) this does not occur, as mobile transverses the artifact quickly (i.e. significant advantage of signal averaging) so impact is significantly reduced. Similar if the narrow band systems are Frequency Hopping this also removes this artifact of the extremely constructive and destructive signals, thus can be ignored. Obviously channels on the BCCH (i.e. Speech, Signaling, GPRS and or Edge) dont have this advantage, though can be generally neutralized by Antenna hopping on the BCCH carrier. These channels on the BCCH layer will be ignored within this Link Budget for simplification.

7.0 INTERFERENCE MARGINS AND NOISE RISE

7.1 GSM SYSTEMS

2G systems are allowed a 2 dB interference margin in both uplink and downlink.

7.2 WCDMA SYSTEMS7

Historically very early link budgets (circa 2000/2001) typically limited their analysis to that of the Uplink being the limiting link in the system. Not dissimilar to CDMA Link Budgets of the time. Of more recent times, more elaborate and detailed Link Budgets have been assembled which take a more critical look at the Downlink as well as the Uplink. For simplicity we will give the basic forms of both these links then work through the variables as well as papers which enable us to better understand the complex interactions.

7 Noise Rise Versus Cell Capacity Services "WCDMA for UMTS, Holma pp 160-166"

QI Confidential


Uplink Noise Load8 is defined as:

i is = other cell interference/ own cell interference W is chip rate j is user j Rj is bit rate of user j Vj is Activity factor For Low and medium bit rate services this can be simplified to

Also Noise Rise is equal to

Downlink Noise Load9 is defined as:

The new term j represents the orthgonality factor. Perfect orthgonality is represented as 1, whilst Total non orthgonality is represented by 0. Noise Rise is equal to,

In a typical Planning Link Budget generic assumptions are typically used to derive particular Uplink and Downlink Noise Rises dependant on bit rate load (R99 bearer usage, e.g. 12.2 speech plus other packet bearers). The limiting case is predominantly driven by the effective Downlink Noise rise. That is for example a 7 dB Noise Rise in the downlink as compared to a 3 dB Noise Rise in the Uplink.

8 WCDMA For UMTS Holma, Toskala, Section 8 Radio Network Planning 9 WCDMA For UMTS Holma, Toskala, Section 8 Radio Network Planning

QI Confidential


The way this Downlink Noise Rise is derived is a calculation that considers orthogonality, Total Transmit Power per Node B, amount of Other Cell to Own cell interference at cell edge, limiting bearers Node Bs bearer Tx power and Ue sensitivity, effective cell site spacing with respect to max link loss (TX power from Node B reference point to Ues Receiver). Typical figures used are for Fading case being TU3 (Typical urban 3Km/hr).

Tri Sector Orthgonality 0.24 (1.0 is perfectly orthogonal)

Tri Sector Other Cell to Own Cell Interference 2.1(cell edge)

PS128 Downlink at 35 dBm and Ue sensitivity at -110.1 dBm @ 2100 MHz with 20 watt per carrier or

PS128 Downlink at 38 dBm and Ue sensitivity at -109.1 dBm @ 900 MHz with 40 watt per carrier

Using the above assumptions one can derive a 7 dB noise rise at cell edge for the downlink. Link Budget designs are done to cell edge, as this is the worst location with regard to Noise Rise that can be experienced in the WCDMA systems. These days designing for R99 services is not as relevant as most new terminals are HSPA capable. These HSPA capable terminals are both higher speed capable and more efficient in the air interface as compared to the previous legacy R99 packet service bearers on older R99 only handsets. In fact, without legacy handsets it is advisable to limit R99 packet bearer codes so as to maximize the HSPA user experience (both power and codes). Other typical figures of non orthgonality and other cell to own cell interference ratios can be found in Table 17 below.

Average Edge

Non-Orthoganality (Tri Sector)10 0.4 0.64

Other Cell to Same Cell Interference Ratio (Tri Sector)11 0.65 2.1

Non-Orthoganality (Omni) 12 0.4 0.64

Other Cell to Same Cell Interference Ratio (Omni)13 0.55 1.72

Table 17: Orthogonality and Own Cell to Other Cell Interference Ratios

10 Orthogonality Factor in WCDMA Downlinks in Urban Macrocellular Environments Mehta Molisch and Greenstein Mitsubishi Electric Research 11 WCDMA Downlink Coverage : Interference Margin for Users Located at the Cell Coverage Border Hiltunen Binucci Ericsson R&D Finland/Italy 12 Orthogonality Factor in WCDMA Downlinks in Urban Macrocellular Environments Mehta Molisch and Greenstein Mitsubishi Electric Research 13 Other-cell-interference factor Distribution Model in Downlink WCDMA Systems Masmoudi, Tabbane, INSAT

QI Confidential


8.0 MINIMAL SIGNAL STRENGTH THRESHOLDS FOR PREDICTIONS

As all link budget have been normalized to match uplink and downlink coverage, it is now feasible to predict coverage from downlink predictions if the corresponding transmitter powers are used. These contours will represent the various coverage areas in the different environments (e.g. Dense Urban, Urban, Suburban and Rural) and situations being covered (e.g. Outdoor or Indoor coverage). This is possible as long as following Transmitter power settings are used. Conventional BTSs GSM 900 +41.8 dBm GSM 1800 +40.7 dBm14 RRU at Antennas GSM 90015 +41.8 dBm existing GSM 900 Feeder Losses (match existing 2G 900) GSM 1800 +41.8 dBm UMTS 2100 CPICH +31.0 dBm UMTS 900 CPICH +34.0 dBm Minimum Mobile Received signal Strengths is as per Table 1 MS and Ues Sensitivities. Though these require to be corrected for following attributes in 2 and 3G:

Power Control

Body Loss

Lognormal Fade Margin

Noise Rise or Interference Margins

Soft/Softer Handover Gains Now having accounted for all these factors and the Predication with Transmitters set at above mentioned levels then all that needs to be input are:

Feeder and ancillary component losses

Antenna Gains Having done this by contouring the coverage area by these will give the various percentages of coverage for each environment class (Dense Urban, Urban, Suburban and Rural) for both Indoor and Outdoor coverage requirements.

14 Up powering beyond +40.7 dBm does not help as downlink limited (see Appendix C) 15 This is retaining 2G coverage as exists today so that 3G 900 is significantly better than 2G 900 coverage

QI Confidential


8.1 MINIMUM PREDICTION THRESHOLD CALCULATIONS GSM 900 MHZ

Table 18 contains the calculations for GSM 900 Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength.

GSM 900 MHz Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)


Minimum MS Received Signal (dBm) -100.2 -100.2 -100.2 -100.2

Body Loss 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0

Shadow Fade Margin 7.1 5.2 4.3 2.7

Interference Margin 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0

Minimum Predicted Received Signal (dBm) -86.1 -88.0 -88.9 -90.5

Table 18: GSM 900 MHz Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

Table 19 contains the calculations for GSM 900 Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength.

GSM 900 MHz Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)



Building Penetration Loss 25.0 20.0 15.0 15.0

Body Loss 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0




Table 19: GSM 900 MHz Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

8.2 MINIMUM PREDICTION THRESHOLD CALCULATIONS GSM 1800 MHZ


GSM 1800 MHz Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)



Body Loss 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0




Table 20: GSM 1800 MHz Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

QI Confidential


Table 21 contains the calculations for GSM 1800 Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

GSM 1800 MHz Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)




Body Loss 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0




Table 21: GSM 1800 MHz Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

8.3 MINIMUM PREDICTION THRESHOLD CALCULATIONS UMTS 900MHZ

Table 22 contains the calculations for UMTS 900 Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength.

UMTS 900 MHz Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)



Power Control Margin 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7

Body Loss 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0



Soft/Softer Handover Margin -0.9 -0.9 -0.9 -0.9


Table 22: UMTS 900 MHz Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

Table 23 contains the calculations for UMTS 900 Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

UMTS 900 MHz Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)





Body Loss 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0





Table 23: UMTS 900 MHz Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

QI Confidential


8.4 MINIMUM PREDICTION THRESHOLD CALCULATIONS UMTS 2100MHZ

Table 24 contains the calculations for UMTS 2100 Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength.

UMTS 2100 MHz Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)




Body Loss 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0





Table 24: UMTS 2100 MHz Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Table 25 contains the calculations for UMTS 2100 Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

UMTS 2100 MHz Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)





Body Loss 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0





Table 25: UMTS 2100 MHz Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength

8.5 SUMMARY MINIMUM PREDICTION THRESHOLD

Table 26 contains the calculations for Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strengths

Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)


GSM 900 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -86.1 -88.0 -88.9 -90.6

GSM 1800 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -89.7 -91.6 -92.5 -94.2

UMTS 900 @ +34 dBm CPICH -97.3 -99.2 -100.1 -101.8

UMTS 2100 @ + 31 dBm CPICH -101.3 -103.2 -104.1 -105.8

Table 26: Outdoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strengths Table 27 contains the calculations for Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strengths

QI Confidential


Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)


GSM 900 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -59.3 -66.5 -72.7 -74.8

GSM 1800 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -62.9 -70.1 -76.3 -78.4

UMTS 900 @ +34 dBm CPICH -71.0 -78.2 -84.4 -86.5

UMTS 2100 @ + 31 dBm CPICH -75.0 -82.2 -88.4 -90.5

Table 27: Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strengths

9.0 MINIMAL SIGNAL STRENGTH THRESHOLDS FOR MEASUREMENTS161718

Below you will find a typical view of a measurement result in figure 2.

Figure2: Typical Narrow Band Signal Strength Characteristics

The important point is that the Rayleigh Fading characteristic is shown as the rapid variations around a mean signal strength being the Shadow Fade characteristics. The Rayleigh Fading has been described before though, the critical nature of this is in terms of the fact that often RF surveys are utilizing fixed narrow band non frequency hopping transmitters (e.g. GSM BCCH Transmitters). Thus must be considered and understood with regards the survey equipment. In the previous Link Budgets for Predictions the impact of the Rayleigh Fading (see Section 6.0) can be neglected due to either Frequency Hopping in GSM and or alternatively Broad band Transmissions (e.g. 5 MHz UMTS transmitter) which do not suffer from this phenomenon. With narrow band transmitters, the sampling rate interval and sample averaging filter length needs close consideration, otherwise it is feasible to have Rayleigh Fading characteristics moving the average around somewhat and misrepresenting the received signal strength. This upsets both Prediction modelling Calibration as well as plain measured signal strengths.

16 Estimating local mean signal strength of indoor multipath propagation Valenzuela, R.A. Landron, O. Jacobs, D.L. Bell Labs. Div., Lucent Technol., Holmdel 17 Estimate of local average power of a mobile radio signal by Lee 18 Mean and variance of the local maxima of a Rayleigh fading envelope

Rayleigh Fading Impact

Shadow Fading Impact

QI Confidential


The selected sampling rate19 within the survey receiver is impacted by both drive survey speeds and type of mobile measurement receivers chosen. If one sample too fast (i.e. both sampling and averaging duration within the instrument) then the resultant signal strength result will include effects of both the slow term (Shadow Fade) and short term (Rayleigh Fading) characteristics. This is not what we are trying to measure, particularly for model tuning. Alternatively if the sampling is too slow, then the result will also not reflect the actual environment and the potential miss identification of coverage gaps. These coverage gaps can be missed due to samples on either side of the gap effectively averaging the signal strength up, thus masking the coverage gap and not reflect what we are trying to achieve. The industry practice to survey the local mean is to average the samples between 20 to 40 wavelengths with a sliding window technique. That is between 3 to 6 meters of samples for 1800 / 2100 MHz signals and around 6 to 12 meters for 900 MHz signals. Most of the survey receivers today take samples of received RF level every 10 ms and usually facilitate the user defining how often these are to be averaged over (i.e. the measurement period). If we set the measurement period to 100ms then the running average of the last 10 measurement results will be averaged and placed in the log file. Basically there is a trade off with log file size (less of an issue these days with typical PCs) but more importantly the ability to obtain the average receive signal strength with the Rayleigh characteristics filtered out correctly. As often now we are measuring both High and Low bands simultaneously (e.g. 900 and 2100 MHz) then great care needs to be put into selecting these filtering characteristics for both bands. For completeness we have included Table in Appendix B which gives an indication of number of samples averaged for particular bands at specific measurement receiver speeds. As the basis of the measurements are done with a survey vehicle then an external antenna (with appropriate ground plane) coupled to calibrated receivers should be used to measure the signal strengths. Internal antennas used within a vehicle or alternatively Integrated Handsets antennas cannot be referenced back to on street reference signals used in establishing the relative Link Budgets. Using a calibrated receiver with external antenna then the measured levels can be referenced back to the outdoor thresholds established in Tables 36. In referencing these surveyed levels back to the outdoor thresholds we need to correct for the fact that the link budget have been normalized for the typical handsets utilizing integrated antenna. Within terms of the Predicted Link Budgets the additional antenna coupling loss efficiencies have been normalized by corrections in terms of both Effective Radiated Powers and MS/Ue sensitivities. Therefore the surveyed signal strengths need to be corrected by 2 3 dB as the vehicle mounted external antenna will not suffer these issues. That is 2-3 dB needs to be reduced from surveyed levels to match those of the Predicted Link Budgets. The other most significant artifact that is often forgotten to the operators peril is the fact that as the surveyed signal strengths actually measure the Shadow Fade Margin the allowance for the Shadow Fading needs to be removed from Outdoor Signal strength targets. Now the Indoor (i.e. Outdoor + Indoor Standard deviations) also need to be harmonized with the fact that the Outdoor Shadow Fading Margin has been measured. To correct for this we

19 Estimate of Local Average Power of a Mobile Radio Signal William Lee

QI Confidential


effectively need to reduce the Shadow fading Margin for measured Outdoor to translate into Indoor coverage probability by adjusting the appropriate Shadow Fade Margin but retaining the original cell edge reliability figure for the composite requirement. Unlike Predictions the soft and softer handover is not corrected for in the measured results, as the system uses this where suitable to continue the link to the Mobile and Base station. If fact, when a Mobile Station goes into soft or softer handover the NodeBs transmits less power as the link is more robust and retains the same BER performance and set point. Note in following sections Body Loss = 0 dB as using vehicle mounted antenna20

9.1 MINIMUM MEASURED THRESHOLD CALCULATIONS GSM 900 MHZ


GSM 900 MHz Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)





Table 28: GSM 900 MHz Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength

Table 29 contains the calculations for GSM 900 Indoor Minimum Predicted Signal Strength as measured at street outdoor.

GSM 900 MHz Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)






Minimum Measured Received Signal (dBm) -69.0 -74.7 -80.5 -81.5

Table 29: GSM 900 MHz Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength as measured at street outdoor

20 When using handset to measure the signal then it should measure approximately 2-3 dB lower due to the antenna coupling issues described in Section 2.1. Also ensure does not hold near the head as will impact the measured signal strength by typical Body Loss values as listed in Section 4.3.

QI Confidential


9.2 MINIMUM MEASURED THRESHOLD CALCULATIONS GSM 1800 MHZ


GSM 1800 MHz Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)





Table 30: GSM 1800 MHz Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength

Table 31 contains the calculations for GSM 1800 Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength as measured at street outdoor

GSM 1800 MHz Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)







Table 31: GSM 1800 MHz Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength as measured at street outdoor

9.3 MINIMUM MEASURED THRESHOLD CALCULATIONS UMTS 900MHZ

Table 32 contains the calculations for UMTS 900 Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength.

UMTS 900 MHz Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)






Table 32: UMTS 900 MHz Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength

QI Confidential


Table 33 contains the calculations for UMTS 900 Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength

UMTS 900 MHz Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)








Table 33: UMTS 900 MHz Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength as measured at street outdoor

9.4 MINIMUM MEASURED THRESHOLD CALCULATIONS UMTS 2100MHZ

Table 34 contains the calculations for UMTS 2100 Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength.

UMTS 2100 MHz Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)






Table 34: UMTS 2100 MHz Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength

Table 35 contains the calculations for UMTS 2100 Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength

UMTS 2100 MHz Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)








Table 35: UMTS 2100 MHz Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength as measured at street outdoor

QI Confidential


9.5 SUMMARY MINIMUM MEASURED THRESHOLD

Table 36 contains the calculations for Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strengths

Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)


GSM 900 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -98.2 -98.2 -98.2 -98.2

GSM 1800 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -98.8 -98.8 -98.8 -98.8

UMTS 900 @ +34 dBm CPICH -108.5 -108.5 -108.5 -108.5

UMTS 2100 @ + 31 dBm CPICH -109.5 -109.5 -109.5 -109.5

Table 36: Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strengths as measured at street outdoor

Table 37 contains the calculations for Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strengths

Indoor Minimum Measured Signal Strength Contour Levels (dBm)


GSM 900 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -69.0 -74.7 -80.5 -81.5

GSM 1800 @ +41.8 dBm/carrier -69.6 -75.3 -81.1 -82.1

UMTS 900 @ +34 dBm CPICH -79.3 -85.0 -90.8 -91.8

UMTS 2100 @ + 31 dBm CPICH -80.3 -86.0 -91.8 -92.8

Table 37: Outdoor Minimum Measured Signal Strengths as measured at street outdoor

10.0 ADVANTAGE OF RRU AT ANTENNA COMPARED TO CONVENTIONAL BTS OR NODEB.

The RRU at antenna improves the Link Budgets for all bands. In demonstrates a large advantage as compared to a conventional 2G Base Station installation. Link Budgets in Appendix B & C demonstrate that by placing 3G 900 MHz RRUs at Antennas contribute to a 4.1 to 4.6 dB21 coverage advantage as compared to 2G 900 MHz with a 0 dB feeder loss for a conventional 2G BTS solution. This further improves dB for dB of additional feeder loss beyond 0 dB. The Link Budgets also demonstrate how the coverage disadvantages of the higher bands (i.e. 1800 and 2100 MHz) are equalized somewhat by placing the RRUs at the antennas. This enables the Capacity Layers in the higher bands more capability of de loading the Coverage layers.

21 This advantage is dependent on environment (i.e. Dense Urban, Urban, Suburban and Rural) and condition (i.e. Indoor or Outdoor).

QI Confidential


APPENDIX A: Z TABLES OF THE NORMAL DISTRIBUTION

Probability Content from - to Z

Example 76.11 % Cell Edge Probability equates to Z of is 0.71

Z | 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09

----+----------------------------------------------------------------------

0.0 | 0.5000 0.5040 0.5080 0.5120 0.5160 0.5199 0.5239 0.5279 0.5319 0.5359

0.1 | 0.5398 0.5438 0.5478 0.5517 0.5557 0.5596 0.5636 0.5675 0.5714 0.5753

0.2 | 0.5793 0.5832 0.5871 0.5910 0.5948 0.5987 0.6026 0.6064 0.6103 0.6141

0.3 | 0.6179 0.6217 0.6255 0.6293 0.6331 0.6368 0.6406 0.6443 0.6480 0.6517

0.4 | 0.6554 0.6591 0.6628 0.6664 0.6700 0.6736 0.6772 0.6808 0.6844 0.6879

0.5 | 0.6915 0.6950 0.6985 0.7019 0.7054 0.7088 0.7123 0.7157 0.7190 0.7224

0.6 | 0.7257 0.7291 0.7324 0.7357 0.7389 0.7422 0.7454 0.7486 0.7517 0.7549

0.7 | 0.7580 0.7611 0.7642 0.7673 0.7704 0.7734 0.7764 0.7794 0.7823 0.7852

0.8 | 0.7881 0.7910 0.7939 0.7967 0.7995 0.8023 0.8051 0.8078 0.8106 0.8133

0.9 | 0.8159 0.8186 0.8212 0.8238 0.8264 0.8289 0.8315 0.8340 0.8365 0.8389

1.0 | 0.8413 0.8438 0.8461 0.8485 0.8508 0.8531 0.8554 0.8577 0.8599 0.8621

1.1 | 0.8643 0.8665 0.8686 0.8708 0.8729 0.8749 0.8770 0.8790 0.8810 0.8830

1.2 | 0.8849 0.8869 0.8888 0.8907 0.8925 0.8944 0.8962 0.8980 0.8997 0.9015

1.3 | 0.9032 0.9049 0.9066 0.9082 0.9099 0.9115 0.9131 0.9147 0.9162 0.9177

1.4 | 0.9192 0.9207 0.9222 0.9236 0.9251 0.9265 0.9279 0.9292 0.9306 0.9319

1.5 | 0.9332 0.9345 0.9357 0.9370 0.9382 0.9394 0.9406 0.9418 0.9429 0.9441

1.6 | 0.9452 0.9463 0.9474 0.9484 0.9495 0.9505 0.9515 0.9525 0.9535 0.9545

1.7 | 0.9554 0.9564 0.9573 0.9582 0.9591 0.9599 0.9608 0.9616 0.9625 0.9633

1.8 | 0.9641 0.9649 0.9656 0.9664 0.9671 0.9678 0.9686 0.9693 0.9699 0.9706

1.9 | 0.9713 0.9719 0.9726 0.9732 0.9738 0.9744 0.9750 0.9756 0.9761 0.9767

2.0 | 0.9772 0.9778 0.9783 0.9788 0.9793 0.9798 0.9803 0.9808 0.9812 0.9817

2.1 | 0.9821 0.9826 0.9830 0.9834 0.9838 0.9842 0.9846 0.9850 0.9854 0.9857

2.2 | 0.9861 0.9864 0.9868 0.9871 0.9875 0.9878 0.9881 0.9884 0.9887 0.9890

2.3 | 0.9893 0.9896 0.9898 0.9901 0.9904 0.9906 0.9909 0.9911 0.9913 0.9916

2.4 | 0.9918 0.9920 0.9922 0.9925 0.9927 0.9929 0.9931 0.9932 0.9934 0.9936

2.5 | 0.9938 0.9940 0.9941 0.9943 0.9945 0.9946 0.9948 0.9949 0.9951 0.9952

2.6 | 0.9953 0.9955 0.9956 0.9957 0.9959 0.9960 0.9961 0.9962 0.9963 0.9964

2.7 | 0.9965 0.9966 0.9967 0.9968 0.9969 0.9970 0.9971 0.9972 0.9973 0.9974

2.8 | 0.9974 0.9975 0.9976 0.9977 0.9977 0.9978 0.9979 0.9979 0.9980 0.9981

2.9 | 0.9981 0.9982 0.9982 0.9983 0.9984 0.9984 0.9985 0.9985 0.9986 0.9986

3.0 | 0.9987 0.9987 0.9987 0.9988 0.9988 0.9989 0.9989 0.9989 0.9990 0.9990

QI Confidential


APPENDIX B: SCANNER TABLE AVERAGING FILTER CONFIGURATIONS

The table below shows the minimum sampling rate for various frequencies at various vehicle speeds to meet the Lee Criteria22. Once the sampling can meet the Lee Criteria (Lees criteria is to have 40 wavelengths of measurements with a minimum sampling of between 36 and 50 samples) Table of Speed Vs Minimum Sampling Rate for different Bands (using min 50 samples)

Frequency MHz

speed km/h speed m/h m/s 700 900 1800 2100 2600 3500

1 1000 0.28 1 1 2 2 3 4

5 5000 1.39 4 5 10 12 15 20

10 10000 2.78 8 10 21 24 30 41

15 15000 4.17 12 16 31 36 45 61

20 20000 5.56 16 21 42 49 60 81

25 25000 6.94 20 26 52 61 75 101

30 30000 8.33 24 31 63 73 90 122

35 35000 9.72 28 36 73 85 105 142

40 40000 11.11 32 42 83 97 120 162

45 45000 12.50 36 47 94 109 136 182

50 50000 13.89 41 52 104 122 151 203

55 55000 15.28 45 57 115 134 166 223

60 60000 16.67 49 63 125 146 181 243

65 65000 18.06 53 68 136 158 196 263

70 70000 19.44 57 73 146 170 211 284

75 75000 20.83 61 78 156 182 226 304

80 80000 22.22 65 83 167 195 241 324

85 85000 23.61 69 89 177 207 256 345

90 90000 25.00 73 94 188 219 271 365

95 95000 26.39 77 99 198 231 286 385

100 100000 27.78 81 104 208 243 301 405

105 105000 29.17 85 109 219 255 316 426

110 110000 30.56 89 115 229 268 331 446

115 115000 31.94 93 120 240 280 346 466

120 120000 33.33 97 125 250 292 361 486

125 125000 34.72 101 130 261 304 376 507

130 130000 36.11 105 136 271 316 391 527

135 135000 37.50 109 141 281 328 407 547

22 Estimate of Local Average Power of a Mobile Radio Signal William Lee , IEEE 1985

QI Confidential


140 140000 38.89 114 146 292 341 422 568

145 145000 40.28 118 151 302 353 437 588

150 150000 41.67 122 156 313 365 452 608

155 155000 43.06 126 162 323 377 467 628

160 160000 44.44 130 167 334 389 482 649

165 165000 45.83 134 172 344 401 497 669

170 170000 47.22 138 177 354 413 512 689

175 175000 48.61 142 182 365 426 527 709

180 180000 50.00 146 188 375 438 542 730

185 185000 51.39 150 193 386 450 557 750

190 190000 52.78 154 198 396 462 572 770

195 195000 54.17 158 203 407 474 587 790

200 200000 55.56 162 208 417 486 602 811

205 205000 56.94 166 214 427 499 617 831

210 210000 58.33 170 219 438 511 632 851

215 215000 59.72 174 224 448 523 647 872

220 220000 61.11 178 229 459 535 662 892

225 225000 62.50 182 235 469 547 678 912

230 230000 63.89 186 240 479 559 693 932

235 235000 65.28 191 245 490 572 708 953

240 240000 66.67 195 250 500 584 723 973

245 245000 68.06 199 255 511 596 738 993

250 250000 69.44 203 261 521 608 753 1013

Having determined and configured the minimum sampling rate for the maximum vehicle speed, one needs to consult the technical handbook for the scanner to understand if additional settings are required to bin these samples into a single result per 40 wavelengths. Specific Information on TEMs Both TEMS Investigation and TEMS Pocket is sampling continuously without considering the moving speed of the vehicle. TEMs does not average anything in the logged data. Each sample measured by a device is saved into the log file as a so called Mode report. Mode reports are then parsed by the application and presented in various different views. But by analyzing the Mode reports you will get access to all the samples that is being collected from the measurement device.

QI Confidential


APPENDIX C: LINK BUDGETS

DENSE URBAN

REF

RRU At Ground Situation NO MHA

RRU At Antenna

Uplink Link Budgets

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

Band (MHz)

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

Bearer

EFR FR EFR FR

speech

speech

EFR FR EFR FR

speech

speech

EFR FR EFR FR

MS/UE TX power a 30 29

20

20

30 29

20

20

30 29

Thermal noise b -174 -174

-174

-174

-174 -174

-174

-174

-174 -174

Channel model c TU3 FH TU3 FH

TU3

TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH

TU3

TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH

NodeB/BTS sensitivity d -109.5 -109.5

-123.7

-123.7

-111.5 -111.5

-123.7

-123.7

-111.5 -111.5

Antenna gain (dBi) e 17.0 17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0 17.0

Power control margin (dB) f

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7 Feeder loss (if TMA then 0dB) g 3.0 4.3

4.8

3.0

3.0 4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0

Jumper /Splitter loss h 0.3 0.6

0.6

0.3

0.3 0.6

0.3

0.2

0.2 0.3

Body loss i 5.0 2.0

2.0

5.0

5.0 2.0

2.0

5.0

5.0 2.0

Car loss j

Building loss k 25 25

25

25

25 25

25

25

25 25

LNF margin (outdoor)** l 7.1 7.1

6.2

6.2

7.1 7.1

6.2

6.2

7.1 7.1

LNF margin (indoor + outdoor)** m 8.9 8.9

7.5

7.5

8.9 8.9

7.5

7.5

8.9 8.9

CDMA Noise rise (50% loading) GSM Interference Margin n 2 2

3

3

2 2

3

3

2 2

Diversity Gain p 3 3

3

3

3 3

3

3

3 3

** includes soft handover margin for 3G UL Lp max outdoor a-d+e-f-g-h-n-i-l+p 142.1 142.5

146.4

145.5

144.1 144.5

151.5

148.7

147.3 149.1

UL Lp max indoor a-d+e-f-g-h-n-I-m-k+p 115.3 115.7

120.1

119.2

117.3 117.7

125.2

122.4

120.5 122.3

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

Downlink Link Budgets

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

Bearer

EFR FR EFR FR

CPICH speech

CPICH speech

EFR FR EFR FR

CPICH speech

CPICH speech

EFR FR EFR FR

CPICH Tx Power @ Ant./BCCH TX Pwr rack Out a 41.8 40.7

31

34

41.8 41.8

31

34

38.6 41.8

RAB Service TX power b 41.8 40.7

31 31

34 34

41.8 41.8

31 31

34 34

38.6 41.8

Thermal noise c -174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

Channel model d TU3 FH TU3 FH

TU3 TU3

TU3 TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH

TU3 TU3

TU3 TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH

MS/UE sensitivity (inc Ant gain) e -100.2 -100.8

-118.1 -117.9

-117.1 -116.9

-100.2 -100.8

-118.1 -117.9

-117.1 -116.9

-100.2 -100.8

BTS Antenna gain f 17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

Power control margin g

0.7

0.7

0.7

0.7 Feeder loss DL and TMA insertion loss h 3.0 4.3

4.8 4.8

3.0 3.0

3.0 4.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

Jumper loss/Splitter loss i 0.3 0.6

0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.3 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.3

Body loss i 5.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

5.0 5.0

5.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

5.0 5.0

5.0 2.0

Car Penetration loss k Building Penetration loss l 25 25

25 25

25 25

25 25

25 25

25 25

25 25

LNF margin (outdoor)** m 7.1 7.1

7.1 6.2

7.1 6.2

7.1 7.1

7.1 6.2

7.1 6.2

7.1 7.1

LNF margin (indoor + outdoor)** n 8.9 8.9

8.9 7.5

8.9 7.5

8.9 8.9

8.9 7.5

8.9 7.5

8.9 8.9

Noise rise / Interference Margin r 2.0 2.0

7.0 7.0

7.0 7.0

2.0 2.0

7.0 7.0

7.0 7.0

2.0 2.0

Noise rise (0% User Loading) q

1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2

** includes soft handover margin for 3G DL CPICH Lp max outdoor a-e+f-h-i-j-m-r

144.6

145.7

149.7

148.9

DL CPICH Lp max indoor a-e+f-h-i-j-n-r-l

117.8

118.9

122.9

122.1

DL Lp max outdoor b-e+f-g-h-i-j-m-r 141.6 142.5

144.6 144.6

145.7 145.7

141.6 143.6

149.7 149.7

148.9 148.9

141.6 148.2

DL Lp max indoor b-e+f-g-h-i-j-n-r-l 114.8 115.7

117.8 118.3

118.9 119.4

114.8 116.8

122.9 123.4

122.1 122.6

114.8 121.4

QI Confidential


URBAN

REF


RRU At Antenna

Uplink Link Budgets

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

Band (MHz)

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

Bearer

EFR FR EFR FR

speech

speech

EFR FR EFR FR

speech

speech

EFR FR EFR FR


20

20

30 29

20

20

30 29


-174

-174

-174 -174

-174

-174

-174 -174


TU3

TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH

TU3

TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH


-123.7

-123.7

-111.5 -111.5

-123.7

-123.7

-111.5 -111.5


17.0

17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0 17.0


0.7

0.7

0.7


4.8

3.0

3.0 4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0


0.6

0.3

0.3 0.6

0.3

0.2

0.2 0.3

Body loss i 5.0 2.0

2.0

5.0

5.0 2.0

2.0

5.0

5.0 2.0

Car loss j


20

20

20 20

20

20

20 20

LNF margin (outdoor)** l 5.2 5.2

4.3

4.3

5.2 5.2

4.3

4.3

5.2 5.2

LNF margin (indoor + outdoor)** m 6.7 6.7

5.3

5.3

6.7 6.7

5.3

5.3

6.7 6.7


3

3

2 2

3

3

2 2


3

3

3 3

3

3

3 3


148.3

147.4

146.0 146.4

153.4

150.6

149.2 151.0


127.3

126.4

124.5 124.9

132.4

129.6

127.7 129.5

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM


900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

Bearer

EFR FR EFR FR

CPICH speech

CPICH speech

EFR FR EFR FR

CPICH speech

CPICH speech

EFR FR EFR FR


31

34

41.8 41.8

31

34

38.6 41.8


31

34

41.8 41.8

31

34

38.6 41.8


-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174


TU3 TU3

TU3 TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH

TU3 TU3

TU3 TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH


-118.1 -117.9

-117.1 -116.9

-100.2 -100.8

-118.1 -117.9

-117.1 -116.9

-100.2 -100.8


17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0


0.7

0.7

0.7


4.8 4.8

3.0 3.0

3.0 4.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0


0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.3 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.3

Body loss i 5.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

5.0 5.0

5.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

5.0 5.0

5.0 2.0


20 20

20 20

20 20

20 20

20 20

20 20


5.2 4.3

5.2 4.3

5.2 5.2

5.2 4.3

5.2 4.3

5.2 5.2


6.7 5.3

6.7 5.3

6.7 6.7

6.7 5.3

6.7 5.3

6.7 6.7


7.0 7.0

7.0 7.0

2.0 2.0

7.0 7.0

7.0 7.0

2.0 2.0


1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2


146.5

147.6

151.6

150.8

DL CPICH Lp max indoor a-e+f-h-i-j-n-r-l

125.0

126.1

130.1

129.3

DL Lp max outdoor b-e+f-g-h-i-j-m-r+s 143.5 144.4

146.5 146.5

147.6 147.6

143.5 145.5

151.6 151.6

150.8 150.8

143.5 150.1

DL Lp max indoor b-e+f-g-h-i-j-n-r-l+t 122.0 122.9

125.0 125.5

126.1 126.6

122.0 124.0

130.1 130.6

129.3 129.8

122.0 128.6

QI Confidential


SUBURBAN

REF


RRU At Antenna

Uplink Link Budgets

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

Band (MHz)

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

Bearer

EFR FR EFR FR

speech

speech

EFR FR EFR FR

speech

speech

EFR FR EFR FR


20

20

30 29

20

20

30 29


-174

-174

-174 -174

-174

-174

-174 -174


TU3

TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH

TU3

TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH


-123.7

-123.7

-111.5 -111.5

-123.7

-123.7

-111.5 -111.5


17.0

17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0

17.0

17.0 17.0


0.7

0.7

0.7


4.8

3.0

3.0 4.3

0.0

0.0

0.0 0.0


0.6

0.3

0.3 0.6

0.3

0.2

0.2 0.3

Body loss i 5.0 2.0

2.0

5.0

5.0 2.0

2.0

5.0

5.0 2.0

Car loss j


15

15

15 15

15

15

15 15

LNF margin (outdoor) l 4.3 4.3

3.4

3.4

4.3 4.3

3.4

3.4

4.3 4.3

LNF margin (indoor + outdoor) m 5.5 5.5

4.1

4.1

5.5 5.5

4.1

4.1

5.5 5.5


3

3

2 2

3

3

2 2


3

3

3 3

3

3

3 3


149.2

148.3

146.9 147.3

154.3

151.5

150.1 151.9


133.5

132.6

130.7 131.1

138.6

135.8

133.9 135.7

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM

UMTS

UMTS

GSM GSM


900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

2100

900

900 1800

Bearer

EFR FR EFR FR

CPICH speech

CPICH speech

EFR FR EFR FR

CPICH speech

CPICH speech

EFR FR EFR FR


31

34

41.8 41.8

31

34

38.6 41.8


31 31

34 34

41.8 41.8

31 31

34 34

38.6 41.8


-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174

-174 -174


TU3 TU3

TU3 TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH

TU3 TU3

TU3 TU3

TU3 FH TU3 FH


-118.1 -117.9

-117.1 -116.9

-100.2 -100.8

-118.1 -117.9

-117.1 -116.9

-100.2 -100.8


17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0

17.0 17.0


0.7

0.7

0.7


4.8 4.8

3.0 3.0

3.0 4.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0


0.6 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.3 0.6

0.3 0.3

0.2 0.2

0.2 0.3

Body loss i 5.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

5.0 5.0

5.0 2.0

2.0 2.0

5.0 5.0

5.0 2.0


15 15

15 15

15 15

15 15

15 15

15 15


4.3 3.4

4.3 3.4

4.3 4.3

4.3 3.4

4.3 3.4

4.3 4.3


5.5 4.1

5.5 4.1

5.5 5.5

5.5 4.1

5.5 4.1

5.5 5.5


7.0 7.0

7.0 7.0

2.0 2.0

7.0 7.0

7.0 7.0

2.0 2.0


1.2

1.2

1.2

1.2


147.4

148.5

152.5

151.7

DL CPICH Lp max indoor a-e+f-h-i-j

qi nt022 v1 14dec10 2g and 3g link budgets

Documents

g coverage levels

g eirps

g service coverage

g radio link budgets

measured signal strengths

qi confidential qi

budgets page

dbm cpich