003-Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells High-Band

SMALL CELL FORUM
RELEASE One
scf.io/
DOCUMENT
003.01.02
Interference Management in
UMTS Femtocells
High-band
February 2010
www.scf.io/
www.smallcellforum.org
Small Cell Forum supports the wide-scale adoption of small cells. Its mission is
to accelerate small cell adoption to change the shape of mobile networks and
maximise the potential of the mobile internet.
Small cells is an umbrella term for operator-controlled, low-powered radio access
nodes, including those that operate in licensed spectrum and unlicensed carrier-grade
Wi-Fi. Small cells typically have a range from 10 metres to several hundred metres.
These contrast with a typical mobile macrocell that might have a range of up to several
tens of kilometres. The term small cells covers femtocells, picocells, microcells and
metrocells.
Small Cell Forum is a not-for-profit, international organisation, with membership open
to providers of small cell technology and to operators with spectrum licences for
providing mobile services.
At the time of writing, the Small Cell Forum has 141 members including 68 operators
representing more than 3 billion mobile subscribers 46 per cent of the global total
as well as telecoms hardware and software vendors, content providers and innovative
start-ups.
The Small Cell Forum is technology-agnostic and independent. It is not a standardssetting body, but works with standards organisations and regulators worldwide to
provide an aggregated view of the small cell market.
This document forms part of the Small Cell Forums Release One which addresses the
full range of applications for small cells: Home, Enterprise, Metro, Rural. The main
theme of Release One is the Home, and includes the complete body of work operators
will need to know for wide-scale deployment of femtocells intended for home or small
office applications. These applications are based typically indoors and involve locations
where a single femtocell is usually sufficient. Both 3GPP and 3GPP2 femtocells are
included.
Release One also contains works clarifying market needs and addressing barriers to
deployment of enterprise, metro and rural small cells.
The Small Cell Forum Release website can be found here www.scf.io. A description and
roadmap for the release programme can be found here www.scf.io/doc/100
If you would like more information about the Small Cell Forum or would like to
be included on our mailing list, please contact:
Email info@smallcellforum.org
Post Small Cell Forum, PO Box 23, GL11 5WA UK
Member Services Lynne Price-Walker lynne@smallcellforum.org
For a full list of members and further information visit our website
www.smallcellforum.org
Scope
This paper [2] provides detailed results of in-depth studies of interference between femtocells and macrocells deployed in the UMTS
high bands around 2GHz. An accompanying study is also available for the UMTS low bands around 850/900MHz [3]. For a higher
level overview of the findings from both of these studies, we recommend reading our associated topic brief [1]

Related SCF Publications
[1] Topic brief: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells, Small Cell Forum, www.scf.io/doc/008
[2] Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells ("High-band"), Small Cell Forum, www.scf.io/doc/003
[3] Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells ("Low-band"), Small Cell Forum, www.scf.io/doc/009
Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Issue date: 09 February 2010
Version: 003.01.02
Executive summary
Femtocells, by virtue of their simultaneous small size, low cost and high performance, are a potentially
industrychanging disruptive shift in technology for radio access in cellular networks. Their small size means
that the spectrum efficiency they can attain is much greater than that achievable using macrocells alone.
Their low cost means they can be deployed as consumer equipment, reducing the capital load and operating
expenses of the host network. And their high performance means that all this can be gained at no loss of
service to the customer, and in many cases, owing to the improved link budgets, improved service.
However, for these apparent benefits to translate into real advantage for network operator and consumer
alike, we must answer serious questions about the interaction between the femtocell technology and the
host macrocellular radio network into which they are deployed. If femtocells can only achieve their potential
by disrupting the macro network, then they will be relegated to niche deployments, of little overall
relevance to next generation networks. On the other hand, if the interactions between macro and femto
radio layers can be managed to the benefit of all, then their properties (in terms of lowered cost, improved
spectrum efficiency and link budget and general performance) can be fully realised, and femtocells will find
themselves an essential component of all future radio access network designs
So, what are these interactions, and how can they be managed, and what does that all mean for the
technology, to the operator and to the consumer? These are the questions that this paper is helping to
answer. In doing so, it has deliberately maintained a tight focus, according to the priorities of its authors. It
is exclusively concerned with WCDMA as an air interface technology. (Other teams within Small Cell Forum
are looking at other air interfaces.) It is, at this edition, concerned exclusively with operation around 2GHz
this being seen as the most important frequency range for early, inbuilding deployment. (We provide also
an edition of this paper for 850/900MHz deployment [3].) And it is exclusively a theoretical treatment, using
link level and system level simulations to draw its conclusions, though we expect to back these conclusions
up in due course with trial campaign data. In view of the residential application that femtocells are
addressing, this paper is also exclusively concerned with femtocells operating with closed user groups.
Perhaps most importantly, this paper stands on the shoulders of giants, drawing on the great mass of
study work that has already been undertaken by 3GPP RAN4 participants in analysing these issues, and
referencing them for further reading.
The interacting components of the femtoenabled network include femtocells themselves, which can be
interacting in their downlinks with other nearby femtocells and macro cells; macrocells, which interact with
nearby femtocells; users and user equipment (UEs) which by virtue of intentional radio links to femtocells
and macrocells, may be causing unintentional interactions with both.
In approach, this paper has chosen to look at extreme cases, to complement as far as possible the average,
or typical scenarios that RAN4 has already studied in 3GPP. In the main, the analysis has shown up internal
contradictions in those extreme cases meaning that they will never occur. For instance: analysing the case
when the UE is operating at full power in its uplink towards a femtocell is shown to occur only when the
macro cell is nearby in which case the macro downlink signal is so strong that the UE will never select the
femtocell over the macrocell. This contradiction shows, for instance, that the high noise rise that a UE could
in principle cause will happily never occur. In other cases, the extreme cases are avoided by uplink
powercapping or other techniques recommended in the paper.
With these extreme cases disarmed, then of the many potential interactions between UEs, femtocells and
macrocells, the summary conclusion that we have reached, in common with other studies, is that in order to
be successful, femtocell technology must manage three things,Femtocell downlink power if femtocells
transmit inappropriately loudly, then the cell may be large, but nonmembers of the closed user group will
experience a loss of service close to the femtocell. On the other hand, if the femtocell transmits too softly,
then nongroup members will be unaffected, but the femtocell coverage area will be too small to give
benefit to its users. Femtocell receiver gain since UEs have a minimum transmit power below which they
cannot operate, and since they can approach the femtocell far more closely than they can a normal
macrocell, we must reduce the femtocell receiver gain, so that nearby UEs do not overload it. This must be
done dynamically, so that distant UEs are not transmitting at high power, and contributing to macro
network noise rise on a permanent basis. UE uplink power since UEs transmitting widely at high power can
generate unacceptable noise rise interference in the macro network, we signal a maximum power to the UE
(a power cap) to ensure that it hands off to the macro network in good time, rather than transmit at too
high a power in clinging to the femtocell.
We have also shown that, with these issues addressed, the net effect of deploying femtocells alongside a
macro network is significantly to increase its capacity. In numerical terms, and in terms of the simulated
scenario, the available air interface data capacity is shown to increase by over a hundredfold by the
introduction of femtocells.

Version: 003.01.02
Contents
1.
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
7.
7.1
7.2
7.3
8.
8.1
8.2
8.3
9.
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10.
10.1
10.2
10.3
Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Small Cell

Forum .............................................................................. 1
What are Femtocell Access Points? ....................................... 1
What do Femtocells offer? ................................................... 1
What is the Small Cell Forum? ............................................. 2
Introduction .................................................................... 2
Previous Work ................................................................. 4
Simulation Scenarios and Definitions ............................... 6
Abbreviations and Defined Terms .................................... 9
Scenario A: Macrocell Downlink Interference to the
Femtocell UE Receiver ................................................... 10
Description .......................................................................10
Analysis ...........................................................................10
Extended scenario: HSDPA coverage ....................................13
Conclusions ......................................................................14
Scenario B: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the
Femtocell Receiver......................................................... 15
Description .......................................................................15
Analysis ...........................................................................15
Conclusions ......................................................................20
Scenario C: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the
Macrocell UE Receiver .................................................... 22
Description .......................................................................22
Analysis ...........................................................................23
Scenario analysis and conclusions .......................................25
Scenario D: Femtocell Uplink Interference to the
Macrocell NodeB Receiver .............................................. 26
Introduction .....................................................................26
Analysis of Scenario D - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA ....................26
Conclusions ......................................................................29
Recommendations .............................................................30
Scenario E: Femtocell Downlink Interference to nearby
Femtocell UE Receiver. .................................................. 31
Description .......................................................................31
Capacity Analysis ..............................................................31
Conclusions ......................................................................34

Version: 003.01.02
11.
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
12.
12.1
12.2
12.3
13.
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
14.
14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
15.
15.1
15.2
15.3
16.
16.1
16.2
16.3
17.
18.
19.
19.1
Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby

Femtocell Receivers ....................................................... 35
Description .......................................................................35
Analysis ...........................................................................35
Conclusions ......................................................................37
Recommendations .............................................................38
Scenario G: Macrocell Downlink Interference to an
adjacent-channel Femtocell UE Receiver........................ 39
Description .......................................................................39
Analysis ...........................................................................39
Conclusions ......................................................................41
Scenario H: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the
adjacent channel Femtocell Receiver ............................. 42
Description .......................................................................42
Analysis ...........................................................................42
Conclusions ......................................................................48
Femto System Impact ........................................................48
Mitigation techniques .........................................................49
Scenario I: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the
adjacent channel macrocell UE Receiver ........................ 50
Description .......................................................................50
Analysis ...........................................................................50
Conclusions ......................................................................54
Customer (MUE) Impact .....................................................55
Mitigation techniques .........................................................55
Scenario J: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to the
adjacent channel Macrocell NodeB Receiver .................. 56
Introduction .....................................................................56
Analysis of Scenario J - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA .....................56
Conclusions ......................................................................59
Downlink and Uplink Scenarios Modelling Power
Control Techniques for Interference Mitigation.............. 60
Modelling of Propagation loss ..............................................60
HNB transmit power calibration for 850 MHz .........................60
Simulation results for Dense Urban Deployment ....................61
Summary of Findings ..................................................... 69
Overall Conclusions ....................................................... 78
Further Reading ............................................................. 79
Scenario A .......................................................................79

Version: 003.01.02
19.2
Scenario B .......................................................................79
19.3
Scenario C .......................................................................79
19.4
Scenario D .......................................................................79
19.5
Scenario E ........................................................................79
19.6
Scenario F ........................................................................80
19.7
Scenario G .......................................................................80
19.8
Scenario H .......................................................................80
19.9
Scenario I ........................................................................80
19.10 Scenario J ........................................................................80
19.11 Scenarios Section 16.......................................................80
20.
Simulation Parameters and Path Loss Models ................ 81
20.1
Simulation parameters .......................................................81
20.2
Path Loss Models ...............................................................82
References ............................................................................... 84
Tables
Table 3-1
Table Title ..................................................................................... 5
Table 4-1
Femtocell Deployments in Shared Spectrum ...................................... 6
Table 4-2
Femtocell Deployments in non-Shared Spectrum ................................ 7
Table 6-1
Macro Node B assumptions and transmit EIRP calculation .................. 11
Table 6-2
Link budget for the received power from macro Node B to UE ............ 11
Table 6-3
EIRP for the femtocell ................................................................... 12
Table 6-4
Required Ec/No for voice connection ............................................... 13
Table 7-1
Assumptions for Scenario B ........................................................... 15
Table 7-2
MUE link budget at the femtocell receiver. ....................................... 16
Table 7-3
FUE transmitter power requirements in order to hold a voice call ........ 16
Table 7-4
Maximum co-channel DL deadzone created by the femtocell for MUEs,

based on [R4-070969] and assuming RSSI of -65dBm ...................... 17
Table 7-5
Link budget for HSUPA .................................................................. 18
Table 9-1
Macro Node B noise floor ............................................................... 27
Table 9-2
Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B .............................. 28
Table 9-3
Noise rise calculation for Scenario D (femto UE is transmitting at

8.39dBm and 21dBm 1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service
and 2Mbps HSUPA service) ............................................................ 29
Table 9-4
Macro UE Tx power 1,000m away from macro Node B receiver by

window on a 12K2 voice and 2Mbps HSUPA data service. .................. 29
Table 11-1
Femtocell Sensitivity and Noise Rise at AP1 ..................................... 36
Table 12-1
Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE

in this worst-case scenario ............................................................ 40
Table 13-1
Uplink radio link-budget for AMR 12.2 kbps RAB ............................... 44
Table 14-1
Maximum Macro NB MUE separation for a given maximum

Femtocell transmit power level, when the Femtocell MUE separation
is fixed at 5 m. ............................................................................ 53

Version: 003.01.02
Table 14-2
UE receiver performance requirement (HSDPA), [TS25.101] .............. 53
Table 15-1
Macro Node B noise floor ............................................................... 57
Table 15-2
Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B .............................. 58
Table 15-3
Noise rise calculation for Scenario D1 (femto UE is transmitting at

8.39dBm and 21dBm 1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service
and 2Mbps HSUPA service) ............................................................ 58
Table 16-1 Parameters for the co-channel idle cell reselection procedure. ............... 61
Table 16-2
Coverage Statistics at 850 MHz for Calibrated HNB Transmit Power ..... 61
Table 16-3
Pilot acquisition statistics at 850 MHz for dense-urban model with 24

active HNBs and calibrated HNB transmit power ............................... 62
Table 16-4
Coverage statistics for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and

calibrated HNB transmit power ....................................................... 62
Table 21-1
Recommended simulation parameters ............................................. 81
Figures
Figure 1-1
Typical femtocell deployment scenario. ............................................. 1
Figure 6-1
Scenario A .................................................................................. 10
Figure 6-2
Received signal strengths at UE, from macrocell and femtocell. .......... 12
Figure 6-3
HSDPA throughput vs. UE to femtocell distance for various femtocell

Tx powers. .................................................................................. 14
Figure 7-1
Scenario B .................................................................................. 15
Figure 7-2
Interference Scenario B, voice call .................................................. 17
Figure 7-3
HSUPA simulation, Scenario B. E-DPDCH Ec/No compared to

throughput for RFC3. .................................................................... 19
Figure 7-4
Throughput for HSUPA. 70% max bit rate for all FRCs. ..................... 20
Figure 8-1
Illustration of the interference analysis for Scenario C ....................... 22
Figure 8-2
Path loss model ........................................................................... 23
Figure 8-3
TX power needed for 12.2 kbps for MUE (1000 metres away and 100
metres away respectively). ............................................................ 24
Figure 8-4
MUE throughput with HSDPA for locations at 1,000 and 100 metres
respectively. ................................................................................ 25
Figure 9-1
Interference Scenario D ................................................................ 26
Figure 10-1 Scenario E. Adjacent femto with UEs connected to each AP. ............... 31
Figure 10-2 Apartments Plan Flats layout ....................................................... 32
Figure 10-3 Macrocell location relative to the house where the femtos are located . 32
Figure 10-4 Dedicated carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput ................................... 33
Figure 10-5 Shared carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput ....................................... 33
Figure 11-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario F ........................................ 35
Figure 12-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario G ....................................... 39
Figure 12-2 CPICH Ec/Io for Femto .................................................................. 40
Figure 13-1 Illustration of the interference Scenario H ........................................ 42
Figure 13-2 Minimum separation between Femtocell and MUE to avoid blocking,
for a given MUE transmit power level .............................................. 45
Figure 13-3 E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level ... 46
Figure 13-4 Required average FUE transmit power level to meet HSUPA
throughput requirements. ............................................................. 47

Version: 003.01.02
Figure 13-5 E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level ... 48
Figure 14-1 Illustration of the Interference Scenario I ........................................ 50
Figure 14-2 Macro Node B signal strength relative to the interfering femtocell
signal strength measured at the MUE, required for successful
decoding of AMR .......................................................................... 52
Figure 14-3 Maximum MNB - MUE separation as a function of femtocell MUE
separation, assuming AMR voice service. ......................................... 53
Figure 14-4 Maximum macrocell-MUE separation as a function of femtocell-MUE
separation, for reception of HSDPA ................................................. 54
Figure 15-1 Interference Scenario J. ................................................................ 56
Figure 16-1 In variance of HNB calibrated Tx Power in the two frequencies. .......... 63
Figure 16-2 DL user throughput distribution under different minimum powers ....... 64
Figure 16-3 Magnified version of Figure 1-2 showing outage statistics .................. 64
Figure 16-4 HUE uplink throughput distribution ................................................... 66
Figure 16-5 MUE uplink throughput distribution................................................... 66
Figure 16-6 Transmit power distribution ............................................................. 67
Figure 16-7 Transmit power distribution. ............................................................ 67
Figure 16-8 UE uplink throughput distributions in 850 MHz. There are, in total, 34
UEs per macrocell, of which 24 UEs migrate to MNB in the No HNBs
case. HNB deployment increases the system capacity significantly ...... 68

Version: 003.01.02
1. Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Small Cell Forum

1.1
What are Femtocell Access Points?
Femtocell Access Points (FAPs) are low-power radio access points, providing wireless voice and broadband
services to customers primarily in the home environment. The FAP provides cellular access in the home and
connects this to the operators network through the customers own broadband connection to the Internet.
FAPs usually have an output power less than 0.1 Watt, similar to other wireless home network equipment,
and they allow a small number (typically less than 10) of simultaneous calls and data sessions at any time.
By making the access points small and low-power, they can be deployed far more densely than macrocells
(for instance, one per household). The high density of deployment means that the femtocell spectrum is reused over and over again, far more often than the re-use that the macro network (with its comparatively
large cells) can achieve. Trying to reach the same levels of re-use with macrocellular technology would be
prohibitively expensive in equipment and site acquisition costs. By using femtocells, the re-use, spectrum
efficiency, and therefore the aggregate capacity of the network can be greatly increased at a fraction of the
macrocellular cost.
A typical deployment scenario is shown in Figure 1-1.
Figure 1-1
1.2
Typical femtocell deployment scenario.
What do Femtocells offer?
Zero-touch installation by end user: Femtocells are installed by the end user without
intervention from the operator. The devices will automatically configure themselves to the
network, typically using Network Listen capabilities to select settings that minimise interference
with the macro network.
Moveability: The end user may move their femtocells for example, to another room, or,
subject to operator consent, to another location entirely.
Backhaul via the end users fixed broadband connection: Femtocells will use the
subscribers broadband connection for backhaul, which typically will be shared with other devices
in the home.
Access control the closed user group: The operator and/or end user will be able to
control which mobile devices can access the femtocell. For example, subscribers may be able to
add guest phone numbers via a web page.
Supports a restricted number of simultaneous users: Femtocells will support a limited
number (typically, fewerthan ten) of simultaneous calls and data sessions.
Femtozone (homezone) tariffs: Mobile services accessed through the femtocell may be
offered at a cheaper rate than the same services on the macro network. End users are advised

Version: 003.01.02
1.3
when services are accessed via the femtocell, either by an advisory tone, or a display icon or
some other means, so they know when the femto-tariffs apply.
Ownership: Various ownership models are possible for example, end users may own their
femtocells, just as they own their mobile phones, or the operator may retain ownership, with end
users renting the equipment (like a cable modem).
Small cell size/millions of cells in the network: The femtocell network can easily extend to
millions of devices.
Femto as a service platform: Novel mobile services can be made available on the femtocell.
For example, a femtocell-aware application on the mobile handset could automatically upload
photos to a website when the user enters the home, and download podcasts.
What is the Small Cell Forum?
The Small Cell Forum (www.smallcellforum.org), formerly known as the Femto Forum, supports the wide-scale
adoption of small cells.
Small cells are low-power wireless access points that operate in licensed spectrum, are operator-managed
and feature edge-based intelligence. They provide improved cellular coverage, capacity and applications for
homes and enterprises as well as metropolitan and rural public spaces. They include technologies variously
described as femtocells, picocells, microcells and metrocells.
The Forum has in excess of 140 members including 68 operators representing more than 2.92 billion mobile
subscribers 46 per cent of the global total as well as telecoms hardware and software vendors, content
providers and innovative start-ups.

Version: 003.01.02
2. Objectives and methods of this paper

The benefits of femtocells are not straightforward to realise. While network operators will see significant
capacity gains, and end users can expect higher performance, to achieve this the radio layer must be
carefully managed. The management of the radio interference between the Macro and Femto Layers is a key
industry concern addressed by this paper.
Interference adversely affects the capacity of a radio system and the quality of the individual
communication links on that system. Adding capacity is always based on a trade-off between interference,
quality and capacity. Hence, there is a need for interference management techniques to minimise
interference that might otherwise counteract the capacity gains and degrade the quality of the network.
1.
The principal objectives of this study are:
To develop an industry position on the interference risks from femtocell deployments.

To recommend mitigation techniques and any necessary associated radio frequency (RF)
parameters and performance requirements, to ensure minimal disruption to the macro network
or other femtocells.
2.
To achieve these objectives, this paper develops detailed interference scenarios for evaluation
and inclusion in the interference management assessment. The scenarios will cover worst-case
deployment conditions and assess the respective system impact.
An immediate focus is to develop the assessment for W-CDMA, and in doing so devise a process
that should be consistent with alternative radio technologies.
Two main steps were identified in order to accomplish the above goal:
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
First, a baseline set of interference analysis conclusions for UMTS femtocells, based on 3GPP
RAN4 interference studies, was required. This would be supplemented with specific analysis of
identified micro scenarios, their likelihood, and potential impact. Interference mitigation
techniques should also be considered on the understanding that vendor independence be
preserved wherever possible.
Secondly, a recommendation for a common set of behaviours (RF parameters and/or test cases)
that can be derived by any UMTS femtocell was required. This is so that the femtocell can
configure itself for minimal disruption to either the macrocell layer or other deployed femtocells.
We focus exclusively on the Closed User Group model. This is the most likely residential
deployment model, and restricts the pool of allowed users to a small group authorised by the
operator or the owner of the femtocell. Non-authorised subscribers may suffer coverage and
service impairment in the vicinity of a closed-access femtocell (the so-called deadzone), which
is important to assess.
The study will also investigate methods of controlling the impact of deploying large numbers of
femtocells on the macro network. For example, different scrambling codes and adaptive power
controls may be used to manage the interference in the network.
This paper has limited itself in scope, according to perceived priorities, as follows:
It is exclusively concerned with W-CDMA as an air interface technology (other teams within
Small Cell Forum are looking at other air interfaces).
It is concerned primarily with the 850 MHz band in the United States, but is equally applicable to
the 900 MHz band in Europe and elsewhere. It should also be broadly applicable to similar bands
(eg. 700 MHz).
It is exclusively a theoretical treatment, using link level and system level simulations to draw its
conclusions, although we expect to back up these conclusions in due course with experiment.
The femtocells have been modelled in terms of three power classes (10dBm, 15dBm, 21dBm) or
(10mW, 30mW, 125mW), although not all cases examine all three classes.
In approach, this paper has chosen to look at extreme cases of general industry concern, to
complement as far as possible the RAN4 scenarios already studied in 3GPP. In the main, the
analysis has shown up internal contradictions in those extreme cases meaning that they will
never occur in practice. Such contradictory analyses are then followed up with less extreme,
more realistic scenarios, where the interference effects and their mitigation can be modelled and
analysed.

Version: 003.01.02
3. Previous Work
Analysis in this problem space has already been carried out as part of the 3GPP Home Node B study item.
3GPP RAN4 concluded their study into the radio interface feasibility of Home Node B (aka femtocells) at
RAN#39 in March 2008. Their results are presented in [TR25.820]. Part of their study included the analysis
of anticipated interference scenarios covering a range of HNB deployments. A summary of their findings is
presented in Table 3-1 below.
The scenarios for this paper are defined in Section 4.
Scenario
(this
paper)
25.820
scenario
id
Summary of RAN4 conclusions
Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as

the femtocell has sufficient transmit dynamic range.
The femtocell receiver must reach a compromise between

protecting itself against uncoordinated interference from the
macro UEs, and controlling the interference caused by its own UEs
towards the Macro Layer. Adaptive uplink attenuation can improve
performance, but consideration must also be given to other
system issues like the associated reduction in UE battery life.
Downlink interference from a closed-access femtocell will result in

coverage holes in the macro network. In co-channel deployments
the coverage holes are considerably more significant than when
the femtocell is deployed on a dedicated carrier. A number of
models are presented for controlling maximum femtocell
transmission power, but it is acknowledged that no single
mechanism alone provides a definitive solution. Open access
deployment should also be considered as a mitigating option.
Noise rise on the Macro Layer will significantly reduce macro

performance; consequently, the transmit power of the femto UE
should be controlled. A number of mechanisms to achieve this are
presented, generally providing a compromise between macro and
femtocell performance. Again, open access deployment should be
seen as a mitigating option in the co-channel case.
This scenario has received less coverage than the macro

interference cases, but it is noted that the performance of Closed
Subscriber Group (CSG) femtocells is significantly degraded unless
interference mitigation techniques are used. This is generally a
similar problem to macro DL interference in the co-channel
scenario.
It is difficult to avoid co-channel interference between CSG

femtocells, and this limits the interference reductions achieved by
deploying the femtocell on a separate carrier from the macro
network. Again, interference management techniques are required
to manage femto-to-femto interference.
Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as

the femtocell has sufficient transmit dynamic range.
The femtocell receiver must reach a compromise between

protecting itself against uncoordinated interference from the
macro UEs, and controlling the interference caused by its own UEs
towards the Macro Layer. This is generally an easier compromise
to arrive at with adjacent-channel deployments than it is with cochannel.

Version: 003.01.02
Scenario
(this
paper)
25.820
scenario
id
Summary of RAN4 conclusions
Downlink interference from a closed-access femtocell will result in

coverage holes in the macro network. In adjacent-channel
deployments the coverage holes are considerably easier to
minimise and control than when the femtocell is deployed on the
same carrier as the Macro Layer. A number of models are
presented for controlling maximum femtocell transmission power;
all except the fixed maximum power approach are generally
acceptable.
Noise rise on the Macro Layer will significantly reduce macro

performance; consequently, the transmit power of the Femto UE
should be controlled. A number of mechanisms to achieve this are
presented, generally providing a compromise between macro and
femtocell performance. Adjacent-channel deployments can
generally be accommodated.
Table 3-1
Table Title
In addition to the previous 3GPP analysis work, the Forum conducted an earlier study covering the same
scenarios at 2 GHz [FF08]. For this study at 850 MHz, several changes were made to the simulation
parameters used in that earlier 2 GHz study:
Wall loss was reduced from 20 to 10dB, to reflect greater building penetration at 850MHz.
Macro basestation antenna height was increased from 25 to 30 metres, to reflect the higher antenna heights
(larger cell size) typical in North American deployments.
The minimum distance from a macro basestation was increased from 30 to 1,000 meters, to again reflect
typical North American deployment scenarios where cells are larger and basestations are not typically
located in residential areas. This also allowed us to eliminate the use of the ITU P.1411 propagation model,
and to use the Okumura-Hata model, simplifying the analysis work.

Version: 003.01.02
4. Simulation Scenarios and Definitions

The Forum has identified 10 stretch scenarios that explore the limits of operation of femtocells and femtocell
subscriber equipment.
The scenarios are summarised in the following tables and figure.
Scenario
Description
Macrocell Downlink Interference

to the Femtocell UE Receiver (A)
A femtocell UE receiver, located on a table next to the

apartment window, is in the direct bore sight of a macrocell
(1 km distance). The macrocell becomes fully loaded, while
a femtocell UE is connected to the femtocell at the edge of
its range.
Macrocell Uplink Interference to

the Femtocell Receiver (B)
A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment.

Weak coverage of the macro network is obtained
throughout the apartment. A user UE1 (that does not have
access to the femtocell) is located next to the femtocell and
has a call established at full power from the UE1 device.
Another device UE2 has an ongoing call at the edge of
femtocell coverage.
Femtocell Downlink Interference

to the Macrocell UE Receiver (C)
UE1 is connected to the macro network at the edge of

macro coverage. It is also located in the same room as a
femtocell (to which it is not allowed to access). The
femtocell is fully loaded in the downlink.
UE1 is located next to the apartment window, in direct bore
sight of a macrocell (1 km distance). UE1 is connected to
the femtocell at the edge of its range, and is transmitting
at full power.
Femtocell Uplink Interference to

the Macrocell Node B Receiver (D)

to Nearby Femtocell UE Receivers
(E)
Two apartments are adjacent to each other. Femtocells

(AP1 and AP2) are located one within each apartment. The
owner of AP2 visits their neighbours apartment, and is on
the edge of coverage of their own femtocell (AP2) but very
close (<3m) to AP1. The owner of AP1 establishes a call
requiring full power from the femtocell.

Nearby Femtocell Receivers (F)
Two apartments are adjacent to each other. Femtocells

(AP1 and AP2) are located one within each apartment. The
owner of AP2 visits their neighbours apartment, and is on
the edge of coverage of their own femtocell. The owner of
AP2 establishes a call that requires peak UE power to their
own femtocell while they are located next to AP1 (< 3m).
Table 4-1
Femtocell Deployments in Shared Spectrum
Scenario
Description
Macrocell Downlink Interference

to the adjacent-channel Femtocell
UE Receiver (G)
A femtocell UE is located on a table next to the apartment

window, in direct bore sight of a macrocell (1 km distance).
The macrocell becomes fully loaded, while a femtocell UE is
connected to the femtocell at the edge of its range.
Macrocell Uplink Interference to

the adjacent-channel Femtocell
Receiver (H)
A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment.

Weak coverage of the macro network is obtained
throughout the apartment. A user (that does not have
access to the femtocell) is located next to the femtocell and
has a call established at full power from the UE1 device.
Another device UE2 has an ongoing call at the edge of
femtocell coverage.

Version: 003.01.02
Scenario
Description

to the adjacent-channel Macrocell
UE Receiver (I)
Two users (UE1 and UE2) are within an apartment. UE1 is

connected to a femtocell at the edge of coverage. UE2 is
connected to the macrocell at the edge of coverage, and
located next to the femtocell transmitting at full power.

the adjacent-channel Macrocell
NodeB Receiver (J)
A femtocell is located in an apartment, in direct bore sight

of a macrocell (1 km distance). UE1 is connected to the
femtocell at the edge of coverage, but next to the widow
thus, in the direct bore sight of the macrocell antenna.
Table 4-2
Femtocell Deployments in non-Shared Spectrum
In addition to these extreme scenarios, we include shared-spectrum system level simulations specifically
modelling the mitigation of downlink interference and uplink noise rise by power control techniques (Section
16). These simulations also model the effect of femtocells on the total throughput and capacity of the
network.
The relationship between these scenarios and those already studied in RAN4 is summarised in the following
table and figure.
Victim
Femto UE
DL Rx
Macro NodeB
DL Tx
Macro UE
UL Tx
Femto AP
UL Rx
Neighbour
Femto UE
DL Rx
B, H
3
C, I
2
Femto UE
UL Tx
E
6
D, J
1
Neighbour Femto UE
UL Tx
Table 4-3
Macro
NodeB
UL Rx
A, G
4
Femto AP
DL Tx
Aggressor
Macro UE
DL Rx
F
5
Table Title
AF are the interference scenarios for co-channel deployments

GJ are the interference scenarios for adjacent-channel deployments
16 are the equivalent interference scenario IDs used in the 3GPP HNB analyses [TR25.820]
The following diagram illustrates and summarises Small Cell Forum Scenarios A-J:

Version: 003.01.02
A,G
F
FUE
Macro
NodeB
FUE
E
F
B,H
MUE
UE Association
C,I
Apartments
Figure 4-1
D,J
Interference
path
F
Femto AP
FUE
Femto UE
MUE
Macro UE
Figure Title

Version: 003.01.02
5. Abbreviations and Defined Terms

Throughout this paper a number of abbreviations are used to identify various system elements and
parameters. The most frequently used are presented here for quick reference. However, a more extensive
list has been produced and is available under separate cover.
AP
Access Point
BER
Bit Error Rate (or Bit Error Ratio) the proportion of the total number of bits received that are
decoded wrongly
BS
Base Station (assumed to be a wide-area BS, as defined in [TS25.104], unless otherwise

stated)
EIRP
Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power a measure of the transmitted power in a particular

direction that takes account of the antenna gain in that direction
FAP
Femto AP, also known as the femtocell
FUE
Femto UE, also called the Home UE (HUE)
HUE
Home UE, also called the femto UE (FUE)
HNB
Home NodeB
MNB
Macro NodeB
MUE
Macro UE
QoS
Quality of Service
UE
User Equipment (handset, data terminal or other device)
RAN
Radio Access Network
RAT
Radio Access Technology
RSCP
Received Signal Code Power
RTWP
Received Total Wideband Power
LOS
Line-Of-Sight
P-CPICH
Primary Common Pilot Channel
Victim
Is a radio node (macro node-B, or femto access point) whose receiver performance is
compromised by interference from one or more other radio nodes (the Aggressor).
Alternatively, the Victim may be a radio link, whose quality is degraded by unwanted
interference from Aggressor nodes
Aggressor
Is a radio node (either macro node-B, femto access point or UE) whose transmissions are
compromising the performance of another radio node (the Victim), or which are contributing to
the degradation of quality of a (Victim) radio link
Deadzone
Is an area where the quality of service is so poor as a result of interference that it is not
possible to provide the demanded service. Deadzones are also characterised by the fact that in
the absence of any interference, a normal service would be possible.
Deadzones are often specified in terms of the path loss to the Aggressor transmitter. A 60dB deadzone in
the femtocell is, therefore, a region around the femtocell where the path loss to the FAP is less than 60dB.

Version: 003.01.02
6. Scenario A: Macrocell Downlink Interference to the Femtocell

UE Receiver
6.1
Description
A UE is located on a table next to the apartment window that is 1 km distance away from a macrocell. The
macrocell is operating at 50% load, while the UE is connected to the femtocell (ie. FUE) at the edge of its
range. In this scenario the Victim link is the downlink from the femtocell to the FUE, while the Aggressor
transmitter is the downlink from the macrocell. This interpretation of Scenario A is summarised in Figure 61.
Figure 6-1
6.2
Scenario A
Analysis
The objective of the analysis of this scenario is to work out the services that can be delivered to a femto UE
when it is on the edge of the femtocell the femtocell itself being positioned, as required by the scenario,
1km from the macro. The analysis strategy for this scenario is broken down as follows:
The first task is to determine the range of the femtocell as defined by the pilot power. This gives us the
maximum range at which the UE can detect and decode the femto beacon, and therefore camp on to it.
Secondly, we work out the services that can be offered by the femtocell at the edge of its coverage, given
that interference level. The first step is accomplished by the following sequence:
Assume a given P-CPICH transmit power for both macro and femto; then
find the power due to the macro at the distance given by the scenario (1km); then
find the distance from the femto at which the ratio of femto power to macro power is sufficient
for the UE to detect the femtocell. This distance is the range of the femtocell as defined by the
pilot power the maximum range at which a UE can detect the femtocell and camp on to it.
The second step (to work out the services that can be offered at this range) is accomplished as follows:
For voice, work out how much dedicated channel power is required to sustain a voice call, given
the interference level calculated in the first step, and reconcile that with the total amount of
power available to give the number of voice calls that may be sustained.
For data, work out the Ec/Io that can be achieved by allocating all the remaining power to the
HSDPA downlink shared channel, and derive a throughput from that, given an industry standard
relationship between Ec/Io and throughput.
Assumptions for the macrocell are as defined in [FF09] with variant values shown in Table 6-1, which shows
the transmit EIRP of the macrocell. The link budget for the macrocell is defined in Table 6-2.

Version: 003.01.02
10
Value Units Comments

Macro Node B utilisation as percentage of total
power
50
Macro Node B maximum Tx power
43
dBm
Ptx_max
Macro Node B Tx power
40
dBm
Ptx_m= Ptx_max +
10*log(0.5)
Antenna gain
17
dBi
Gm
Feeders and cable losses
dB
Lc
Tx EIRP
54
dBm
EIRP_m=Ptx_m+Gm-Lc
Table 6-1
Macro Node B assumptions and transmit EIRP calculation
Value
Unit
Comments
Distance macro nodeB

to UE
1000
d_mu
Height macro nodeB

antenna
30
hb
Height UE from ground
1.5
hM
Path loss
125.75
dB
PL_m is calculated from the

Okumura-Hata Model, + 5dB window
loss
UE antenna gain
dBi
Gue
UE connector and body

losses
dBi
Lc_u
Macro nodeB received

power at UE
-79.75
dBm
Table 6-2
Prx_m=eirp_mPL_m+GueLc_u
Link budget for the received power from macro Node B to UE
The value Prx_m in Table 6-3 is the power due to the macrocell at the scenario distance (1 km), and takes
account of the propagation, plus an allowance for the window loss (5dB).
The femtocell assumptions are presented in Table 6-4. Note that three types of femtocell are assumed with
the defined femto transmit power classes (10dBm, 15dBm and 21dBm).
Value
Unit Comments
10
Femtocell max transmit power
15
dBm Ptx_f for the three power classes modelled
21
Femtocell antenna gain
dBi
Femtocell feeders/connector
losses
dB
Gf (same as UE)
Lc_f
9
Maximum transmit EIRP
14
dBm
eirp_f=Ptx_f+Gf-Lc_f, for the three power

classes modelled
20

Version: 003.01.02
11
P-CPICH power relative to

maximum power
Value
Unit Comments
10
pcp_pctage
-1
P-CPICH transmit EIRP
dBm Eirp_pcp_f = eirp_f * pcp_pctage
10
Table 6-3
EIRP for the femtocell
In order to complete the calculation of position of the cell edge according to P-CPICH, we calculate the PCPICH power at the UE and compare it to the power at the UE due to the macrocell. Note that in this
scenario we are fixing the UE at the window and moving the femtocell location so the macrocell power is
constant at the value calculated in Table 6-4. We use the indoor propagation model ITU-R P.1238, assuming
a residential building and same floor operation, the femtocell characteristics from Error! Reference source
not found. as well as the same UE characteristics as in Table 6-4. Figure 6-2 shows the femtocell P-CPICH
power received at the UE, and the power at the UE from the macrocell as taken from Table 6-4.
In order for the FUE to detect the femtocell and camp onto it, the P-CPICH Ec/No must be sufficient. It is
assumed that a level of -18 dB will be adequate in this respect. To find the range of the femtocell we need
to find the distance below which the P-CPICH power is less than 18 dB below the power from the macrocell.
By observing in Table 6-4 where the P-CPICH power exceeds the bounds on the macro interference power
minus 18 dB, it can be seen that even at the 10 dBm transmit power, the FAP has a range of more than 100
m. It is to be noted that this does not necessarily mean that a UE 100m away from the FAP will select the
FAP in idle mode. Rather, it means that if the UE is already connected to this FAP, it can still sustain the
connection at this distance
Figure 6-2
Received signal strengths at UE, from macrocell and femtocell.

Version: 003.01.02
12
Further, it can be seen that, based on Table 6-4Error! Reference source not found., voice services are
readily achievable at the edge of coverage, since they require about the same Ec/No as the minimum CPICH
Ec/No assumed above.
Value
Unit
Comments
Chiprate
3.84e6
cps
Bitrate of AMR voice call
12.2
kbps
Eb/No requirement for voice

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

connection
-18
dB
Ec/Io=Eb/No-10*log10(W/R)
Table 6-4
Required Ec/No for voice connection
Similarly for HSDPA, assuming that 80% of the femtocell power is reserved for HSDPA services (9dB above
P-CPICH), the HSDPA Ec/No will be at least -1.8 dB (@ 100m from HNB), which corresponds to > 1.5 Mbps,
according to the translation equation in [R4-080149].
6.3
Extended scenario: HSDPA coverage
The HSDPA throughput at the UE as a function of the distance between the HNB and the window is analysed
by employing the rate mapping equation presented in reference [R4-080149]. The HSDPA max data rate is
presented as a function of average HS-DSCH SINR.
In this work, SINR is calculated using the formula in [Hol06]:
SINR = SF16
PHS DSCH
(1 ) Pown + Pother + Pnoise
Equation 6-1
where:
SF16 is the spreading factor,

PHS-DSCH is the received power of the HS-DSCH, summing over all active HS-PDSCH codes,
Pown is the received own-cell interference,
is the downlink orthogonality factor (assumed to be 1, fully orthogonal),
Pother is the received other-cell interference,
Pnoise is the received noise power (here it is assumed that the UE Noise figure is 7dB).
Assuming:
The femtocell transmit powers are 10dBm, 15 dBm and 21 dBm, with 80% allocated to HS-DSCH
And employing the path loss assumptions of the previous section
The UE is still assumed to be 1 km away from the macrocell.
The HSDPA throughput for the FUE at different distances from the femtocell is shown in Figure 6-3.

Version: 003.01.02
13

Figure 6-3
HSDPA throughput vs. UE to femtocell distance

for various femtocell Tx powers.
It can be seen from Figure 6-3 that the maximum HSDPA throughput can be expected up to 25 m away
from the femto, even at the 10 dBm transmit power.
6.4
Conclusions
The scenario that has been analysed in this section examines the case of the UE being located in front of a
window overlooking a macrocell that is 1 km away. Assuming standard models and parameters, it is shown
that, even at 10 dBm transmit power, the femtocell is able to comfortably provide voice to the UE when the
femtocell is located as far as 100 m away, and maximum HSDPA throughput can be expected up to 25 m
away.

Version: 003.01.02
14
7. Scenario B: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the Femtocell

Receiver
7.1
Description
A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment. Weak coverage of the macro network is obtained
throughout the apartment. A user that does not have access to the femtocell (MUE) is located next to the
femtocell. Another user device (FUE) is connected to the femtocell and has an ongoing call at the edge of
femtocell coverage. The scenario is depicted in Figure 7-1. In this case the Victim receiver belongs to the
femtocell access point (FAP), and the Aggressor transmitter is that of the nearby MUE.

Figure 7-1
7.2
Scenario B
Analysis
The general assumptions for the analysis of this scenario are presented in Table 7-1. The link budget for the
MUE is shown in Table 7-2; note that three separation distances between the MUE and the femtocell are
taken into account (5, 10 and 15m).
Value
Unit
Comments
Voice call service rate
12.2
kbps
Chip rate
3.84
Mbps
Processing gain
24.98
dB
PG=10*log10(W/R)
Required Eb/No for voice call
8.3
dB
Eb/No (performance requirement in

[TS25.104] for AWGN channel, no
diversity)
Frequency
850
MHz
Fc (Band V)
Table 7-1
Assumptions for Scenario B
Value
Unit Comments
MUE uplink transmitted power
21
dBm Ptx_mue (power class 4)
UE antenna gain
dBi
Gue
Connectors/body loss
dB
Lue
MUE Tx EIRP
18
dBm eirp_mue=Ptx_mue+Gue-Lue

Version: 003.01.02
15
Value
Unit Comments
Distance MUE-femtocell
5, 10, 15
d_mue
MUE-femtocell path loss
50.16 (@5m)
58.59(@10m)
63.52 (@15m)
dB
PL_mue, Indoor to indoor path

loss model , where d=d_mue,
f=fc
Femtocell antenna gain
dBi
Gf
Femtocell feeders/connector losses
dB
Lf
Uplink power received by the

femtocell from MUE at different MUEfemtocell separation distances
-33.16(@5m)
-41.59(@10m)
-46.52(@15m)
dBm
Prx_mue=eirp_mue-PL_mue+GfLf
Table 7-2
MUE link budget at the femtocell receiver.
In Table 8-3, the FUE's minimum transmitted power requirement for holding a voice call is calculated. Note
that the power is well within the FUE's capabilities, even at the largest separation distance.
Value
Units
Comments
Distance between FUE and

femtocell
15
d_fue
Path loss
63.51
dB
PL_fue
Indoor to indoor path loss model
(d=d_fue, f=fc)
Eb/N0 requirements for a

voice call
8.3
dB
Eb/No_fue
[TS25.104]
Processing Gain
24.98
dB
PG_fue
Noise power
-103
dBm
PN from [TS25.942]
FUE received power in order -49.84 (@5m)

to obtain required Eb/N0 for -58.27(@10m)
different MUE distances
-63.20 (@15m)
(d_mue)
dBm
Prx_fue is calculated from

equation [Hol06]:
FUE transmitted power

requirements for different
MUE distances (d_mue)
dBm
Table 7-3
17.68 (@5m)
9.25 (@10m)
4.32 (@15m)
(Eb / No )fue =
PG fue Prx, fue

Prx,mue (d mue )+ PN
Ptx_fue=Prx_fueGue+Lue+PL_fue-Gf+Lf
FUE transmitter power requirements in order to hold a voice call
The values calculated in Table 7-3 for the transmitted power of the FUE required are the same as the one
calculated for the 1900Mhz study. The reason for this is that the reduction on frequency affects both FUE
and MUE in the same way. Moreover, as the MUE is near to the femtocell, the affect of Noise Power is small
in the calculation of Prx_fue.
In Figure 7-2, the results are interpolated for different UE distances and power levels.
Note that the plot includes the downlink deadzones created by the femtocell, which affects the MUE.
Downlink deadzone assumptions are summarised in Table 7-4.

Version: 003.01.02
16
DL Tx power
Maximum co-channel
DL deadzone
MUE-femtocell
distance
(using ITU-P.1238 indoor path loss
model)
10dBm
60dB
11.3m
15dBm
65dB
17m
20dBm
70dB
25.7m
Table 7-4
Maximum co-channel DL deadzone created by the femtocell for MUEs, based on

[R4-070969] and assuming RSSI of -65dBm
Within these zones, the MUE will be re-directed to another WCDMA frequency or Radio Access Technology
(RAT) by the macrocells, or the call may be dropped. In both case the interference level in the femtocell
reduces, and the uplink power requirements will relax.
Figure 7-2
Interference Scenario B, voice call
7.2.1
HSUPA
In this section the affects of HSUPA are analysed. The link budget is shown in Table 7-5.
Value
Unit Comments
FUE uplink transmitted power
21
dBm Ptx_fue
UE antenna gain
dBi
Gue
Connectors/body loss
dB
Lue
FUE Tx EIRP
18
dBm eirp_fue=Ptx_fue+Gue-Lue

Version: 003.01.02
17
Value
Unit Comments
Distance FUE-femtocell
d_fue
FUE-femtocell path loss
50.16
dB
PL_fue
Indoor to indoor path loss model
(d=d_fue, f=fc)
MUE distance from femtocell
21
dBm Ptx_mue
MUE-femtocell separation
10
MUE power at femtocell (see Table 72 for d_mue=10)
-41.59
dBm Prx_mue
Noise level
-103
dBm N0
E-DPDCH Ec/No
-2.57
dB
Table 7-5
d_mue
(Ec / No )fue =
Prx, fue
Prx,mue + N 0
Link budget for HSUPA
The simulation results in Figure 7-3 show the E_DPDCH Ec/No for two cases:
FUE is at 5m from the femtocell

FUE is at 15m from the femtocell.
In both cases, it is expected that the MUE is transmitting at maximum power (21dBm).
Figure 7-3 shows the fixed-reference channel (FRC) #3 (see [TS25.104], Pedestrian A channel model) for
the following requirements for E-DPDCH to be met:
Ec/No of 2.4dB: provides R30% of max information bit rate

Ec/No of 9.4dB: provides R70% of max information bit rate.
Note that DL deadzones are not taken into account. However, the grey area in the figure represents the
maximum extent (11.3m) of the DL deadzone for a femtocell transmitting at +10dBm. This distance would
reduce if the FAP was not loaded in the downlink.
Note also that the indoor to indoor path loss model, ITU-R P.1238, may underestimate the true path loss
outside 15-20m range, as it is likely that other physical features (such as furniture, walls and buildings) will
affect radio propagation (this is particularly true in dense urban areas.). A larger path loss reduces MUE
interference, which, in turn, allows greater FUE throughput (linked to an increase in FUE-DPDCH Ec/No).

Version: 003.01.02
18
Figure 7-3
HSUPA simulation, Scenario B. E-DPDCH Ec/No compared to throughput for RFC3.
The results in Figure 7-3 are mapped to the TS 25.104 throughput model for pedestrian A no receiver
diversity. The results are shown in Figure 7-4. Here, it is noted how interference from the MUE has a strong
affect on throughput; however, it should be noted that the simulation assumes an MUE transmitting at
maximum power (on the edge of the macrocell).

Version: 003.01.02
19
Figure 7-4
7.3
Throughput for HSUPA. 70% max bit rate for all FRCs.
Conclusions
Based on link budget calculations, the affects of uplink interference from one UE on the macrocell and a UE
on the femtocell have been analysed; in this work it is assumed that the same frequency is used by the
Macro and Femto Layer.
In the analysis, it was assumed a femtocell serving an FUE on the physical edge of the cells (assumed to be
15m away) with a 12.2kbps AMR speech call; while a co-channel interference MUE is in the proximity of the
femtocell. The analysis results showed that in order to be able to maintain the uplink connection between
the FUE and femtocell, the transmitted power requirements are within the capability of the UE.
Additionally, the performance of HSUPA on the femto-FUE link has been analysed in the presence of uplink
interference from the Macro UE. By simulation, it has been found that in order to obtain HSUPA throughput
of at least 2.8Mbps with a category 6 UE, the FUE needs to be near to the femtocell (5m) and transmit at a
power level greater than 15dBm if the MUE is within 15m of the femtocell.
However, such analysis must take into account the downlink deadzone created by the femtocell. High power
from the femtocell, in order to maintain the downlink, will interfere with the macrocell signal at the MUE,
and will force the macrocell to handover the call to another WCDMA frequency or RAT; or, if none of these
are possible, the MUE call may be dropped.
7.3.1
Customer (MUE) impact
From the point of view of the MUE, the femtocell is a source of interference to the macrocell. However, the
macro network can already cope with re-directing UEs to other WCDMA frequencies or RAT if a user is
affected by high interference.
Those locations with no coverage from alternative WCDMA frequencies or RATs may be adversely affected
by poor Eb/No levels, leading to dropped calls.

Version: 003.01.02
20
Due to femtocells, the macrocell may also be affected by an increase of uplink interference as femto-UEs
increase power levels in order to achieve required quality levels. This may be limited by capping the
maximum power level transmitted by FUEs, or limiting uplink throughput.
7.3.2
Customer (FUE) Impact
The minimum separation between MUE and femtocell has a strong affect on the capability to offer the
required QoS to the femtocell user. However, the FUE has enough power to sustain a voice call while the
MUE is in the coverage range of the femtocell. The downlink deadzone sets a minimum separation between
MUE and femtocell meaning that the FUE transmit power is always within its capability.
For HSUPA, the user is required to go closer to the femtocell in order to be provided with the best
throughput. Simulation has shown that at 5m from the femtocell, good throughput can be achieved for
MUEs further away than 12m.
7.3.3
Mitigation techniques
Availability of alternative resources (a second carrier, or underlay RAT) for handing off or reselecting macrousers is the best way to provide good service when macro-users are in the proximity of femtocells.

Version: 003.01.02
21
8. Scenario C: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the Macrocell

UE Receiver
8.1
Description
In this scenario, MUE is connected to the macro network at the edge of coverage (RSCP<-95dBm). MUE1 is
located in the same room as a femtocell (to which it is not allowed to access). The femtocell is fully loaded
in the downlink; the femto UE are denoted as FUE. The Victim receiver in this case is the MUE, and the
Aggressor is the femtocell downlink transmitter.
Figure 8-1
Illustration of the interference analysis for Scenario C
Due to propagation loss and shadow fading effect, the macrocell signal strength varies at different location
in the macrocell network coverage area. Femtocells are deployed at different locations in the macrocell
network coverage area. Therefore, the down link interference from macrocell to the femtocell users will be
location dependent. In order for the Femto to maintain its designed coverage, it should be capable of
adjusting its pilot and max transmission power, while not causing undue interference to macrocell users.
Two important parameters need to be calculated or estimated. These are the minimum path loss (PLmin),
when the UE is closest to the antenna, and the maximum path loss (PLmax), when the UE is farthest away
from the antenna. PLmin will restrict the Femto maximum transmit power to avoid saturating the UE
receiver; while PLmax is the maximum acceptable loss where the femto transmit power is sufficient to keep
in-house communication with the UE.
For this purpose, we have assumed a certain house layout as an example with defined structure, and we
have worked the path loss across the entire area of the house.
Figure 8-1 below shows that path loss is dependent on the area within the house.

Version: 003.01.02
22
House Pathloss Map at 850MHz

10
-40
8
6
-50
Distance in meters
4
-60
2
0
-70
-2
-80
-4
-6
-90
-8
-10
-10
Figure 8-2
-100
-5
0
Distance in meters
10
Path loss model
The maximum indoor path loss is shown to be more than 90 dB in some locations. The minimum outdoor
path loss from an indoor Femto can be less than 60 dB. This will be a challenge for operators to balance
good indoor coverage while not causing excessive outdoor interference.
Studied in this section is a macrocell user (MUE) at cell edge, located in an apartment where an active
femtocell is operating with full capacity. Analysis is given for the following case:
For the MUE to detect the macrocell and camp on it, or to maintain a call, the P-CPICH Ec/No must be
sufficient. We assume a -20 dB threshold ie. the received P-CPICH RSCP from the macro must be no more
than 20dB below the Rx P-CPICH RSCP of the femto. It is assumed that cell-edge PCPICH RSCP for the
macro is -103 dBm, and so we can infer that the femto PCPICH RSCP must be lower than -83dBm for the
MUE to camp on the macrocell. (Note that techniques for facilitating cell re-selection, such as the use of
hysteresis, cell re-selection parameters, HCS, HPLMN, etc, are not discussed here, and are beyond the
scope of this paper; the discussion in this paper is on the generic aspect of triggers for cell re-selection
only.)
We have assumed two scenarios for the location of the femto relative to the macrocell: 100 metres and
1,000 metres away from the macro have been used. We have found that when the femto is deployed in an
area in close proximity to the macrocell (ie. 100 metres away), the maximum output power of the femto
should be increased beyond 100 mW in order to ensure operation in high coverage. Therefore, when we
study the 100 metres case, we assume the femto is able to radiate up to 125 mW, while maximum output
power is limited to 20 mW when the femto is deployed further away (ie. 1,000 metres).
Figure 8-3 shows the statistics of the MUE performance when located near the femto in the above
mentioned two cases.
8.2
Femto being 100 metres away from macrocell

Femto being 1,000 metres away from macrocell.
Analysis
Macrocell configuration:
Macrocell site-to-site distance: 100 or 1,000 metres

Antenna height: 25 m
Antenna gain: 18 dBi
Frequency carrier in 850 MHz band
Output power of the macro Node B: 20 Watts
Town size: 500m radius.
Femto location configuration:
House size: 8.3X17.5 (m2)

Version: 003.01.02
23
Houses cover 70% of the area

Wall penetration loss: 12 dB
CPICH power is 10% of max output power.
The following figures show the required power (as a proportion of the total macrocell power) needed to
support a voice call at 12.2 kbps within the house in the two deployment scenarios.
Macro Cell DL 12.2k Voice Power Requirement %
10
55
50
45
4
Distance in meters
40
2
35
30
-2
25
-4
20
15
-6
10
-8
5
-10
-10
-5
0
Distance in meters
10
MacroPercentage12k
10
55
50
45
4
Distance in meters
40
2
35
30
-2
25
-4
20
15
-6
10
-8
5
-10
-10
-5
Figure 8-3
0
Distance in meters
10
TX power needed for 12.2 kbps for MUE (1000 metres away and 100 metres away
respectively).
It is evident that the required power for a well-sustained call at 12.2 kbps is higher in the following two
cases:
When the MUE is at the edge of the macrocell (ie. 1,000 metres away) and is behind the building
where the femto is deployed. In this case the MUE requires the macrocell to transmit the radio
link at a higher power to compensate for the high path loss affecting the macro signal and the
interference from the femtocell.
When the MUE is in close proximity to the femtocell and the MUE is located inside the house. In
this case the wall loss is adding additional attenuation to the macro signal.
The following figures show the macro HSDPA throughput within the house in the two deployment scenarios
(based on how far the femto is from the macro).

Version: 003.01.02
24
Macro HSDPA User Throughput kbps for 1UE/Cell
Macro HSDPA User Throughput kbps for 1UE/Cell
10
4000
10
4000
3500
3500
3000
3000
4
2500
2
0
2000
-2
1500
Distance in meters
Distance in meters
2500
2
0
2000
-2
1500
-4
-4
1000
1000
-6
-6
500
-8
-10
-10
-5
Figure 8-4
8.3
0
Distance in meters
10
500
-8
-10
-10
-5
0
Distance in meters
10
MUE throughput with HSDPA for locations at 1,000 and 100 metres respectively.
Scenario analysis and conclusions
In the scenario presented in this section, the performance of MUE attached to the macrocell is shown to be
affected by the femtocell in some locations. This can be mitigated by the use of adaptive power control on
femto. Results show that in some cases the MUE might experience deadzone when in close proximity to
the femto. One firm conclusion from this analysis is that adaptive power control is necessary for the
femtocells. Femtocells will require higher output power when the femtocell is deployed in locations near the
centre of the macrocell.
Adaptive power control on the femtocell mitigates interference by offering just the required transmit power
on the femto, based on the level of interference from macro. However, it is shown that a macrocell UE
(MUE) might not receive an adequate signal level from the macro to compensate for the femto interference.
This is evident in all places in close proximity to the femto when the macro and femtocells share the same
carrier.
It is also concluded that there is no apparent and fundamental performance change whether 850 MHz or
2100 MHz is used for the carrier.
In general, if a macro network is designed to provide fixed coverage in terms of cells radius, then the
macrocell requires lower output power when operating at 850 MHz. Therefore, the interference level seen by
a femto is the same, regardless of the carrier frequency.
It is shown that the femto is an effective vehicle for delivering a good carrier re-use. Furthermore,
femtocells are an efficient technique for delivering the high-speed data offered by HSPA to femto users. This
can be compared with the macrocell case, where cell radius is larger, resulting in the distribution of the
potential bandwidth of the HSDPA to a larger number of users. It is also well known that HSPA throughput is
affected by the location of the UE; the closer the UE to the centre of the cell, the higher the throughput.
This leads us to conclude that small cells like femtocells are an optimum complementary technique for
macrocells for addressing high-data usage.

Version: 003.01.02
25
9. Scenario D: Femtocell Uplink Interference to the Macrocell

NodeB Receiver
9.1
Introduction
This document provides an analysis of Femtocell Uplink Interference from femtocell mobiles (FUEs) to a
Macrocell NodeB Receiver.
The scenario being investigated is as follows: An FUE is located next to the apartment window that is in
sight of a rooftop macrocell (approximately 1,000 m in distance), as shown in Figure 10-1. At the same
time, the FUE is connected to the femtocell at the edge of its range, and is transmitting at full power.
Figure 9-1
Interference Scenario D
In this analysis the impact to the macro Node B is measured by the sensitivity degradation, also referred to
as noise rise (or relative increase in uplink Received Total Wide Band Power (RTWP)), experienced by the
macro Node B, due to the femto UE. The impact is considered relative to the impact a macro UE will have on
a macro Node B from the same location as the femto UE. The rest of this document is structured as follows:
9.2
In Section 9.2, analysis of Scenario D described in [Law08] is presented, including the

assumptions used. The analysis shows that the femto UEs impact on the macro Node B is no
worse that the impact a macro UE from the same location would cause.
In Section 9.4, a mitigation technique is suggested that would always ensure there is minimal
impact to macro Node Bs due to femtocell UEs.
Analysis of Scenario D - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA
An analysis of this scenario is presented, based on link budget calculations. The analysis looks at the noise
rise at the Macro Node B antenna connector due to the femtocell UE in the described scenario.
9.2.1
Assumptions
A macro Node B with a noise floor based on the assumption that the sensitivity of the Wide macro Node B
for 12k2 voice service at the time is equal to -121 dBm (i.e. the 3GPP reference sensitivity level for a 12k2
voice service on a Wide Area Node B at the antenna connector [TS25.104]). This sensitivity captures both
the loading and noise figure of the macro Node B. The noise floor calculation is shown in Table 9-1.

Version: 003.01.02
26
Value
Unit
s
Comment
Sensitivity @ antenna
connector
-121
dBm
Pue_r
ec
UE Service Rate
12.20
kbps
Chip rate
3.84
MHz
UE Processing Gain
24.98
dB
PG
Required EbNo
8.30
dB
EbNo
noise floor
104.3
2
dB
nf_ant
Table 9-1
3GPP reference sensitivity level for Wide

Area Node B
= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without rx diversity (see
[FF09])
= Pue_rec +PG -EbNo
Macro Node B noise floor
Next, the factors that could lead the femto UE to transmit at a power higher than expected are considered.
This will occur if the femto UE is at the femtos cell edge, and if the femtocell experiences a noise rise, or its
receiver is experiencing a blocking effect, caused by one of the following:
A co-channel macro UE.

An adjacent channel macro UE.
Another femto UE located very close (~1m Free Space Loss) to the femtocell eg. a laptop with
a 3G data card doing a data upload on the same desk as the femtocell.
Subsequently, for the purposes of this scenario, the following assumptions are made:
The femto is operating under extreme conditions, experiencing a total noise rise equivalent to
70% loading in the uplink.
A 21 dBm class femto1 is used in the scenario that can provide a coverage path loss of up to 120
dBs (path loss estimate based on minimum RSCP sensitivity of UE of -111 dBm and an 11 dBm
CPICH transmit power and assumption of negligible downlink interference from surrounding Node
Bs).
Based on these assumptions, the link budget in Table 9-2 estimates the likely femto UE uplink transmission
power at the femtocell edge of coverage for a 12K2 voice service and a 2Mbps HSUPA service.
Value
12K2
Voice
2Mbps
HSUPA
Units
Frequency
850.00
850.00
MHz
Bandwidth
3.84
3.84
MHz
Thermal Noise Density
-174.00
174.00
dBm/Hz
tnd
Receiver Noise Figure
8.00
8.00
dB
NF
Receiver Noise Density
-166.00
-166.00
dBm/Hz
rnd
Receiver Noise Power
-100.16
-100.16
dBm
rnp
Loading
70.00
70.00
Noise Rise due to

Loading
5.23
5.23
dB
IM
= -10*log(1L/100)
Femto Receiver Noise

Floor
-94.93
-94.93
dBm
trnp
=rnp +IM
Femto UE Service Rate
12.2
kbps
Chip rate
3.84
MHz
Comments
= tnd +NF
=rnd
+10*log(B*1e6)
1
Under the same RF conditions a 21 dBm class femto cell will provide larger downlink coverage than a 15dBm class or a 10dBm class
femto

Version: 003.01.02
27
Value
12K2
Voice
Femto UE Processing
Gain
Required EbNo
2Mbps
HSUPA
24.98
Units
dB
8.30
dB
Comments
PG
EbNo
-16.68
dB
Minimum Required
Signal Level for Femto
UE
-111.61
-94.93
dB
Pfmin
Femto UE Path loss to

Femto
120
120
dB
DLcov
8.39
21
dBm
Table 9-2
Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B
9.2.2
Macro Node B Noise Rise
DCH performance
without rx
diversity [FF09]
EbNo PG for
12K2
Typical EcNo to
achieve HSUPA
rates of ~ 2Mbps
[Hol06]
Required EcNo
Femto UE Tx Power
= 10*log(W/R)
Pfue
= trnp +EcNo
= min(21, max
((Pfmin + DLcov),
-50)
The noise rise caused to the macro by a femto UE transmitting at 8.39dBm for a 12K2 voice service and
21dBm for a 2Mbps HSUPA service was calculated, using the link budget in Table 10-3, as 1.44 dB and 9.12
dB respectively. Assuming that a macro UE is at the same location as the femto UE by the window (path
loss of 130.77dB from the macro, see Ltot in Table 9-3), Table 10-4 shows that a macro UE operating from
the same location as the femto UE will be transmitting at 9.94 dBm, and 21dBm if on a 12k2 voice service
and 2Mbps HSUPA data service respectively and, hence, will lead to the same amount of noise rise as the
femto UE.
Value
12K2
Voice
HSUPA
Units
Node B Antenna Gain
17
17
dBi
Gant
Feeder/Connector Loss
dB
Lf
Noise Floor at antenna

connector
-104.32
-104.32
dBm
nf_ant
Femto UE Tx Power
8.39
21
dBm
Pfue
UE Antenna Gain
dBi
Gmant
Femto UE Tx EIRP
8.39
21
dBm
Pfue_e
irp
Window/Wall Loss
dB
Lw
Path loss to Macro

Node B
130.77
130.77
Femto UE Interference
@ macro antenna
connector
-108.38
-95.77

Version: 003.01.02
Comments
dB
Ltot
dB
Pfue_r
ec
[FF09]
Table 10-1
=Pue Gmant +m
=1000m
OkumuraHata(Node B
at30m and mobile
at 1.5m) +Lw
= Pfue_eirp
Ltot + Gant Lf
28
Value
12K2
Voice
HSUPA
Units
Rise above noise floor
-4.06
8.55
dB
Pfue_rec- nf_ant
Noise rise
1.44
9.12
dB
NR
=10*log( 1+
100.1*R))
Table 9-3
Comments
Noise rise calculation for Scenario D (femto UE is transmitting at 8.39dBm and

21dBm 1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service and 2Mbps HSUPA
service)
Value
Value
12K2
HSUPA
Units
Comments
Frequency
850
850
MHz
Bandwidth
3.84
3.84
MHz
Thermal Noise
Density
-174.00
-174.00
dBm/Hz
tnd
Receiver Noise
Figure
5.00
5.00
dB
NF
Receiver Noise
Density
-169.00
-169.00
dBm/Hz
rnd
Receiver Noise
Power
-103.16
-103.16
dBm
rnp
Loading
50.00
50.00
Noise Rise due to

Loading
3.01
3.01
dB
IM
=-10*log(1L/100)
Macro Receiver
Noise Floor
-100.15
-100.15
dBm
trnp
= rnp +IM
= EbNo - PG for
12k2 (see EbNo in
Table 10.2)
Typical EcNo to
achieve HSUPA
rates of ~ 2Mbps
[Hol06]
-16.68
Required EcNo
0.00
dB
EcNo
Fade Margin
10
10
dB
Antenna gain
17
17
dBi
Gant
Feeder/Connector
Loss
3
3
dB
Lf
Minimum Required
Signal Level
-120.83
-104.15
dB
Pfmin
130.77
Macro UE Path loss
to macro
130.77
dB
DLcov
21
dBm
Pfue
9.94
Macro UE Tx Power
Table 9-4
9.3
= tnd + NF
=rnd
+10*log(B*1e6)
= Trnp Gant +Lf

+EcNo + m
=1000m
OkumuraHata(Node B at
30m and mobile at
1.5m) +Lw
= min(21, max
((Pfmin + DLcov),
-50)
Macro UE Tx power 1,000m away from macro Node B receiver by window on a

12K2 voice and 2Mbps HSUPA data service.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn:

Version: 003.01.02
29
It is unlikely that a femto UE will be transmitting at maximum power, due to the relatively smaller coverage
of the femto compared to the macro.
When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a 12k2 voice service has
shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will be transmitting in the region of 8.39 dBm and will
cause a noise rise of approximately 1.44 dB. Further, a macro UE on a 12k2 voice service at the same
location as the femto UE will transmit at 9.94 dBm and, hence, will lead to a similar amount of noise rise.
When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a femto UE with 2Mbps
HSUPA data service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will cause a noise rise amounting
to approximately 8.55 dB; however, it should also be noted that a macro UE operating at the same position
and on the same service (with the same service requirement) is expected to cause the same amount of
noise rise.
9.4
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made. They will help ensure harmonious coexistence of femtocells and
macro Node Bs:
It is desirable to limit the allowed maximum transmission power of a femto UE, to avoid a noise
rise to the Macro Layer.
Assuming the femtocell has certain capabilities, then:
The maximum allowed femto UE transmission power can be limited appropriately, such that the
noise rise caused by a femto UE when transmitting at its maximum allowed power is limited
based on the femtocells proximity to the surrounding Macro Layer Node Bs. This is important,
especially when one considers the cumulative effect of multiple femto UEs spread across a
network. A similar approach is suggested in [R4-071578].
The femtocell could also handover a femto UE to a macrocell if an in-service femto UE is at the
verge of the femtocell; thereafter, uplink interference to a macrocell from this UE is avoided.

Version: 003.01.02
30
10. Scenario E: Femtocell Downlink Interference to nearby

Femtocell UE Receiver.
10.1
Description
In this section, performance effect on a femto user denoted UE1 is analysed when another UE (UE2),
belonging to another femtocell, operates in close proximity.
Two residential housing units are considered:
Two apartments are separated by a wall, with a femtocell being deployed within each apartment.
The two femtocells being considered are denoted AP1 and AP2. Each femtocell supports a
corresponding UE namely, UE1 and UE2 respectively. The assumption is that UE2 is not located
in its own apartment, but rather in the apartment where AP1 is operating. Therefore, UE2 is at
the edge of coverage of his own femtocell, but very close (<3m) to AP1 (ie. a foreign femtocell).
The scenario assumes UE1 to be the Victim, while UE2 has an active call supported by AP2.
Two houses are detached with a femtocell being deployed within each house. The two femtocells
being considered are denoted AP1 and AP2. Each femtocell supports a corresponding UE
namely, UE1 and UE2 respectively. The assumption is that UE2 is not located in its own house,
but rather in the house where AP1 is operating. Therefore, UE2 is at the edge of coverage of its
own femtocell, but very close (<3m) to AP1 (ie. a foreign femtocell). The scenario assumes UE1
to be the Victim, while UE2 has an active call supported by AP2.
AP1
AP2
UE1
UE2
Apartment 1
Figure 10-1
Apartment 2
Scenario E. Adjacent femto with UEs connected to each AP.
We also assume two cases for macrocells: that the femtocells are and are not deployed in the corresponding
residential premises where macrocell coverage is present.
Interference and performance degradation to the home user (i.e. UE1) from the presence of UE2 and the
macrocell is analysed in this section.
10.2
Capacity Analysis
The effect on average throughput for the femto users can be analysed through the use of a Monte-Carlo
simulation.
The simulation layout for this scenario is for case 1 and case 2, as shown in Figure 10-2 and Figure 10-3.

Version: 003.01.02
31
15
10
-5
-10
-15
-15
-10
Figure 10-2
-5
10
15
Apartments Plan Flats layout
In the second scenario contained in this section, the effect of neighbouring femtocell interference on the
central house (located at coordinates 0,0) is investigated. In cases where a macrocell is present, it is
located at coordinates -500m, -500m.
Village Plan
80
60
Y Coordinate in Meter
40
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
-80
Figure 10-3
-60
-40
-20
0
20
X Coordinate in Meter
40
60
80
Macrocell location relative to the house where the femtos are located
Simulation Configuration for apartment case:
Max Femto power = 13dBm (but actual output power is based on auto-configuration)
Pilot power = 10% of femto output power
External Wall Loss = 15dB
Internal Wall Loss = 10dB
Door Loss = 5dB
Macrocell location = -500, -500
Macrocell antenna height = 25m.
Apartment layout:
Two-story building, height = 7m.
Femto acess point is located on the ceiling
UE height = 1.5m
Penetration loss:
External wall = 15 dB
Window = 1 dB
Doors = 3 dB
Outer door = 30 dB.
Simulation assumption for case 2 when houses are considered is found in the section
describing Scenario C, but is not repeated here.

Version: 003.01.02
32
The first simulation result obtained when the femtos use a dedicated carrier shown in Figure 10-4 below.
The graph provides the cumulative distribution of HSDPA throughput for the UEs when located in the various
locations (ie. flat or house). The results show the CDF for HSDPA throughput for UE1 in two cases:
when the AP1 is operating in isolation (ie. AP2 is not there, and nor is UE2)
when AP2 is operating in the adjacent location, and AP2 is connected to AP1 in active call.
It is evident that the neighbouring femtocells (AP2) and the presence of UE2 do result in throughput
degradation to UE1.
It is shown that the performance degradation sustained by UE1 is greater in the case of apartment. In the
case of users in apartments, the statistics for UE1 getting full throughput drops from more than 90%, to
just over 40%.
1
Flat no Neighbour
Flat with Neighbour
House no Neighbour
House with Neighbour
0.9
Cumulative Distribution Function
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Figure 10-4
500
1000
1500
2000
Throughput in kbps
2500
3000
3500
Dedicated carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput
The performance is further evaluated when macro network coverage is also provided, and the macro and
femtocells share the same frequency. This is shown in Figure 10-5.
0.9
Cumulative Distribution Function
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Flat at (500 500)
Flat at (100 0)
House at (500 500)
House at (100 0)
0.1
Figure 10-5
500
1000
1500
2000
Throughput in kbps
2500
3000
3500
Shared carrier: CDF of HSDPA throughput

Version: 003.01.02
33
10.3
Conclusions
In Scenario E, the downlink throughput of the UE connected to Femtocell is shown to be affected by the
downlink of neighbouring femtocells. The case shows that driving femtocells to provide coverage for
adjacent locations deemed to be covered by other femtocells yields performance degradation.
The closer the femtocells are, the higher the mutual interference and performance degradation.
It is, therefore, strongly recommended that femtocells use effective power control to confine coverage to
their premises. Where the UE cannot get service from the femto, this UE should be supported by the macro
network. There is a need to make sure that the pilot and transmit power of the femto is carefully adjusted
to provide coverage to UEs within the intended area.
It can be concluded that the femto coverage should aim to be restricted to a single apartment/house only in
order to limit any undue interference between femtos. Adaptive power control is one method to help this.
This leaves the issue of supporting visiting UEs being under the control of the macrocell.

Version: 003.01.02
34
11. Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby

Femtocell Receivers
11.1
Description
In this scenario, there are two neighbouring Femtos: a Femto UE (UE2) is camping on femto 2 (AP2) while
close to femto 1 (AP1) see Figure 11-1 below.
Figure 11-1
Illustration of the Interference Scenario F
The analysis on this scenario mainly focuses on how the uplink receiver (UL Rx) of AP1 would be interfered
with or impacted by UE2, especially when service is ongoing in UE2. In this situation the interference or
impact is measure by sensitivity degradation, also referred to as noise rise (or relative increase in uplink
Received Total Wide Band Power (RTWP)), experienced by AP1 due to UE2.
11.2
Analysis
Analytical analysis is carried out for the above scenario based on link-budget calculations and transceiver
performance requirements taken from [FF09].
11.2.1
Assumptions
For the purposes of analysis the following assumptions are also made:
AP1 and AP2 have equal Maximum DL powers, and CPICH channel power ratio is 10%;
both AP1 and AP2 have only one 12.2K voice service ongoing; DL load factors are at about 50%;
and
AP2 has 50% loading in the uplink.

Version: 003.01.02
35
11.2.2
Analysis of Noise Rise received at the Victim AP

value
Unit
comment
Femtocell Noise Figure (NF)
dB
Performance requirements taken from

[2]
UE Processing Gain (G)
25
dB
=10*log(3.84MHz/12.2kbps)
Required Eb/No (EbNo)
dB
Sensitivity (S)
-118
dBm
UL load factor of AP2 (LoadUL)
50
Noise rise due to UL loading (NRload)
dB
DL load factor of AP1
50 ( )
DL load factor of AP2
50( )
RSCPAP1 RSCPAP2
10.6
dB
According to formula(2)
The interference at AP1 (Rx)
-104.4
dBm
=S+NRload+ RSCPAP1 RSCPAP 2
Noise floor at AP1 (PN)
-100
dBm
=No+NF
Noise rise due to interference

(NRinterfer)
1.3
dB
Table 11-1
=-108+EbNo-G+NF
=-10*log(1-LoadUL)
= 10 * log(10
PN
10
Rx
10
+ 10 ) PN
Femtocell Sensitivity and Noise Rise at AP1
The sensitivity of a femtocell is based on the assumption that the noise figure is 8dB [FF09]. The sensitivity
calculation is shown in Figure 11-1.
When UE2 get near enough to AP1, UE2 will drop call from AP2. At this point, the interference received at
AP1 from UE2 is at the maximum. The assumed Ec/Io (interference margin) required to maintain a voice
call is assumed -18dB.
Ec / Io = 10 * log
10^ ( RSCPAP 2 / 10)

= 18dB
%
%
RSCPAP 1 / 10
RSCPAP 2 / 10
* 10
+
* 10
10%
10%
1.8
RSCPAP1 RSCPAP 2 = 10 * log 10 0.10*.1* (dB )
(1)
(2)
In order to maintain a voice call, the transmit power of UE2 connected to AP2 can be calculated as follows:
TxpowerUE 2 = S AP 2 + NRload + PathLossUE 2 _ AP 2
(3)
The interference from UE2 to AP1 (InterfUE2_AP1) can be calculated as follows:
Interf UE 2 _ AP1= TxpowerUE 2 PathLossUE 2 _ AP1

Then the interference from UE2 to AP1 can be derived as follows:
Inter UE 2 _ AP1 = S AP 2 + NRload + PathLoss UE 2 _ AP 2 PathLoss UE 2 _ AP1

= S AP 2 + NRload + ( Pcpich , AP 2 RSCPUE 2, AP 2 ) ( Pcpich , AP1 RSCPUE 2, AP1 )
(4)
= S AP 2 + NRload + ( Pcpich , AP 2 Pcpich , AP1 ) + ( RSCPUE 2, AP1 RSCPUE 2, AP 2 ) dB

The link budget in Table 11-1 estimates the maximum uplink interference to AP1 from UE2 at the cell edge
of coverage of AP2 for a 12.2K voice service from formula (4).

Version: 003.01.02
36
Both radio paths, from AP1 and AP2 to UE2, with the same model (ITU P.1238), are assumed to undergo
the same signal decay loss with the increasing of distance.
The maximum interference at AP1 from UE2 depends on the difference of the pilot signal strength (RSCP)
received at UE2, from AP1 and from AP2.
And in this condition, the maximum interference from UE2 to AP1 will result in 1.3dB noise rise at AP1.
According to ITU P.1238 Model, there is a relationship between the distance from UE2 to AP1 and to AP2, as
can be seen in the figure below.
distance between UE2 and AP1(m)
Distance between AP1 and UE2 with the maximum interference

7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
11.3
10
15
20
25
distance between AP cells(m)
30
35
Conclusions
The closer UE2 to AP1, the greater interference from UE2 to AP1.
The interference reaches its maximum at the point when UE2 is disconnecting from AP2 (call is
dropping). However, the analysis is based on the extreme scenarios. Usually, UE2 will handover
to a macrocell before call drop, which will avoid the interference to AP1.

Version: 003.01.02
37
11.4
Recommendations
The following recommendations are made; they will help ensure the harmonious coexistence of co-channel
femtocells:
It is desirable to limit the allowed maximum transmission power of UE2 to avoid a noise rise to
the nearby AP1 when UE2 is at the verge of AP2.
The AP2 could also handover a UE2 to a macrocell (macrocell on another frequency channel
preferred) if in-service UE2 is in the vicinity of the AP1; thereafter, uplink interference to AP1
from this UE2 is avoided.

Version: 003.01.02
38
12. Scenario G: Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacentchannel Femtocell UE Receiver

12.1
Description
In this scenario, there are two NodeBs, a macro NodeB and a Femto one (AP1); UE (UE1) is camping on the
femtocell see Figure 13-1 below.
Figure 12-1
Illustration of the Interference Scenario G
The analysis on this scenario mainly focuses on how the downlink receiver (DL Rx) of UE1 would be
interfered or impacted by the macro downlink transmission, especially when service is ongoing in UE1. Here,
we assume that the distance between the femto UE and macro NodeB is approximately 1,000m. In this
context, Ec/Io received by the UE1 at a different place within AP1 coverage is used as the metric to evaluate
the impact from macro downlink.
12.2
Analysis
Analytical analysis is carried out for the above scenario based on link-budget calculations and transceiver
performance requirements taken from [FF09].
12.2.1
Assumptions
The macrocell is 50% loaded.
Okumura-Hata model + window loss and ITU P.1238 are used, respectively, for macrocell path
loss to UE1.
ITU P.1238 is used for indoor modelling (for femtocell path loss to UE1).
The macrocell is assumed to have a maximum transmit power of 43dBm, running at 50%
utilisation; femtocell 10dBm of maximum transmit power and 50% utilisation.
AP is1,020m away from macrocell.

Version: 003.01.02
39
12.2.2
Simulation Analysis
(a) with no interference from macrocell (left)

(b) with downlink interference from adjacent-channel
macrocell (right)
Figure 12-2
CPICH Ec/Io for Femto
Okumura-Hata model + window loss used for macrocell path loss to UE (approximately 1km distance).
The simulation showed that an adjacent macrocell causes little downlink interference to a femtocell.
12.2.3
Theoretical Analysis
value
unit
Maximum Macro Node B Transmit Power
43
dBm
Macro Node B Loading
50
Macro NodeB output power

(TxPowerMacroNodeB)
40
dBm
Macro Node B Antenna Gain

(GtMacroNodeB)
17
dBi
Distance from UE to Macro NodeB
km
Window loss
dB
Path loss from UE to Macro NodeB (PL1)
131
dB
Adjacent channel selectivity of the UE

receiver (ACS)
33
dB
UE Antenna Gain (AntG_UE)
dBi
Noise level at UE receiver from Macro

NodeB
-110
dBm
Table 12-1
=Okumura-Hata propagation
loss +window loss
=TxPowerMacroNodeB +
GtMacroNodeB - PL - ACS-BLAntG_UE
Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE in this

worst-case scenario

Version: 003.01.02
40
From the above table, the downlink interference level from an adjacent channel macrocell at the UE receiver
is -110dBm, which is less than thermal noise when the UE is located 1km away from the macrocell.
Therefore, adjacent channel macrocell causes no downlink interference to Femto UE receiver.
12.3
Conclusions
Both theoretical analysis and simulation results show that Femtocell UE experiences little adjacent channel
interference from an outdoor macrocell in most cases.

Version: 003.01.02
41
13. Scenario H: Macrocell UE Uplink Interference to the adjacent

channel Femtocell Receiver
The aim of this interference scenario is to evaluate impact of uplink interference experienced by a femtocell
supporting closed access from a UE that is connected to a macro Node B (as it is not in the femto white list),
when the UE and femtocell are located in close proximity. A weak signal is received from the macro Node B
within the apartment where the femtocell is located. Further, it is assumed that the macro and femto
cellular layers are deployed on adjacent frequencies. The impact of interference is evaluated using two
services, AMR 12.2 kbps voice, and HSUPA. 3GPP transceiver specifications will be used in the analysis. It
will be determined whether any enhancement to specifications is required.
13.1
Description
A femtocell is located on a table within the apartment. Weak coverage of the macro network is obtained
throughout the apartment. A user (that does not have access to the femtocell) is located next to the
femtocell and has a call established at full power from the UE1 device. Another device UE2 has an ongoing
call at the edge of femtocell coverage [Law08]. Figure 14-1 illustrates the interference Scenario H.
Figure 13-1
13.2
Illustration of the interference Scenario H
Analysis
Analytical evaluation is carried out for the interference scenario based on link-budget calculations and
transceiver performance requirements, as specified by 3GPP. The uplink frequency is assumed to be 850
MHz (Band V), and the antenna gains of the Femtocell and UEs are equal to unity. The frequency separation
between Femtocell UE (FUE) and Macrocell UE (MUE) is 5 MHz. The assumptions used in the analysis are
given below.

Version: 003.01.02
42
13.2.1
Parameter settings
The parameter settings that are used in the analysis are given below:
Services
AMR 12.2 kbps voice,

5.76 Mbps HSUPA.
MUE parameters
MUE max transmit power, a = 21 dBm (Power Class 4) [TS25.101]

Minimum Coupling Loss (MCL) between MUE and Femtocell, b = 45 dB [TS25.141]
Antenna gain = 1dBi.
MNB parameters
Receiver sensitivity, RxSens = -121 dBm [TS25.104]

Required Eb/N0 for 12.2 kbps voice, Eb_N0 = 8.3 dB (without Rx diversity [TS25.104])
Noise floor = -104.32 dBm (RxSens + 10*log10(3.84e6/12.2e3) - Eb_N0).
FUE parameters
FUE max transmit power, c = 21 dBm (Power Class 4) [TS25.101]

HSUPA terminal category = 6 (5.76 Mbps) [TS25.104].
Femtocell parameters
Adjacent Channel Selectivity (ACS) of the femtocell receiver is equal to d = 63 dB. The
specification states that femtocell should be able to decode AMR speech when the received signal
strength on adjacent channel is equal to -28 dBm, while wanted signal level is at -91 dBm
[TS25.104].
Maximum allowed path loss between FUE and femtocell is calculated as the difference between
the maximum UE transmit power and minimum received signal level of the wanted signal, f =
112 dB (ie. 21 - -91 [dB]).
Antenna gain
= 1 (single-antenna reception)
Noise figure
= 12dB [FF09]
Maximum transmit power
= 20dBm [TR25.967].
Indoor-indoor path loss model

ITU P.1238, N = 28 (2.8 x 10), n = 1, floor penetration loss factor = 4dB, residential deployment, shadow
fading has log-normal distribution with standard deviation of 8 dB [FF09].
13.2.2
Impact of MUE interference on AMR
AMR voice service is used in the following analysis. Assuming that the MUE is transmitting at maximum
power, the minimum allowed path loss between femtocell and MUE is calculated as the difference between
the MUE transmit power (21 dBm) and the received signal level of the unwanted signal (-28 dBm). It is
equal to 49 dB. This corresponds to a minimum separation of around 3.2m between femtocell and MUE,
based on the ITU P.1238 indoor path loss model [FF09]. Clearly, this separation cannot be guaranteed in a
residential deployment. Figure 14-2 illustrates the variation in minimum separation between femtocell and
MUE for a given MUE transmit power level.
One of the mechanisms available to improve robustness against adjacent channel interference is AGC.
Under this technique the receiver will dynamically reduce gain of RF front end when it is subject to a
blocking signal. The drawback of this technique is that it will result in a receiver sensitivity loss. The next
step is to determine whether the reduction in receiver sensitivity makes a significant difference to uplink
coverage of a femtocell.
The uplink link-budget of AMR 12.2 kbps voice service is given in Table 13-1. It shows that the UE is only
required to transmit at -25 dBm to achieve a typical coverage range of 25 m in uplink. Thus, there is
sufficient head room available for ramping-up the UE power in response to uplink interference.

Version: 003.01.02
43
Ref
Description
Value
Units
Formula
Input, power allocation
Transmitter (UE)
Transmit power
0.003
mW
As above in dBm
-25.00
dBm
Antenna gain
0.00
dBi
Input, omni-directional antenna pattern.
Body loss
-3.00
dB
Input
Cable loss
0.00
dB
Input
Transmitter EIRP
-28.00
dBm
a+b+c+d
Thermal noise
density
174.0
0
dBm/H
z
Input
Receiver noise
figure
12.00
dB
Input
Receiver noise
density
162.0
0
dBm/H
z
f+g
Receiver noise
power
-96.16
dBm
h + 10*log(3840000)
-3.00
dB
Input, corresponding to 50% load [FF09].
Interference
margin
Required Eb/N0
8.30
dB
Input [TS25.104].
Required Ec/I0
-16.68
dB
Includes the SF gain.
109.8
4
dBm
i + l - j, minimum requirement is -107 dBm

[TS25.104].
Receiver
(Femtocell)
Receiver
sensitivity
Receiver antenna
gain
0.00
dBi
Input
Cable loss
0.00
dB
Input
Slow fading
margin
-8.00
dB
Input
Soft handover
gain
0.00
dB
Input, SHO is disabled in the Femto AP.
Fast fading
margin
0.00
dB
Input
Allowed
propagation loss
for cell range
73.84
dB
e-m-n+o+p+q+r+s
Cell range
25.22
According to ITU P.1238 indoor loss model

[FF09].
Table 13-1
Uplink radio link-budget for AMR 12.2 kbps RAB
Under this interference scenario, the femtocell receiver can utilise AGC and reduce the gain of RF front end.
As a result, uplink fast power control will command the FUE to increase its transmit power. Thus, the
femtocell receiver will be able to tolerate a higher input level of unwanted signal. Figure 13-2 illustrates
performance trends with and without AGC, assuming that the front end gain is reduced by 10 dB. Now, the
minimum separation between the femtocell and MUE is equal to 1.5 m. A much smaller separation can be
supported if the MUE is transmitting at lower power levels.

Version: 003.01.02
44
If the FUE transmit power is increased in response to AGC there will also be an increase in interference to
neighbouring femtocells, as well as to the macro Node Bs. Next, the impact on noise rise at the Macro Node
B is evaluated. The noise floor at the macro Node B is calculated to be -104.32 dBm, as shown in Section
14.2. Assuming that the HUE is transmitting at -15 dBm and the total loss of signal strength up to the
macro Node B is 110 dB (cell edge scenario), the received signal level will be -125 dBm. Adding ACS
rejection of 63dB the received in-band signal strength will be equal to -188 dBm. Thus, noise rise at the
macro Node B due to FUE will be insignificant. However, noise rise at neighbouring femtocells could become
important as they will normally operate on the same frequency and may not be separated from each other
by large distances. Thus, it is important to ensure that femtocell receiver de-sensitisation occurs only when
it is necessary. Further, in order to reduce the risk of a significant noise rise in the Macro Layer due to
femtocells, it is recommended to limit the maximum FUE transmit power e.g. as suggested in [R4071578].
Impact of adjacent channel interference on the Home Node B

3.5
Minimum Home Node B-MUE separation [m]
Interfering signal level = -28 dBm

Interfering signal level = -18 dBm
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
4
10
12
14
16
MUE transmit power level [dBm]
18
20
22
Figure 13-2
Minimum separation between Femtocell and MUE to avoid blocking, for a given
MUE transmit power level
13.2.3
Impact of MUE interference on HSUPA
The fixed-reference channel (FRC) no. 3 is used in the following analysis, as it corresponds to the maximum
uplink bit rate that is likely to be supported by femtocells in initial deployments. According to [TS25.104],
the femtocell receiver should provide R 30% of max information bit rate at reference value of Ec/No of
2.4 dB and R 70% of max information bit rate at Ec/No of 9.1 dB. R denotes minimum HSUPA
throughput. These values are based on the Pedestrian A channel model. The maximum information bit rate
with FRC3 is equal to 4059 kbps.
Assuming that MUE to FAP separation is fixed at 2 m, and the received MUE signal level at the femto
receiver being less than or equal to -28 dBm (from ACS spec.), Figure 14-3 illustrates the variation in EDPDCH Ec/No measured at the femto receiver for a given MUE transmit power level. It is assumed that the
FUE to FAP path loss is fixed at 90 dB (coverage edge scenario). Results show that in order to achieve 70%
of max information rate, the average transmit power of FUE should be at least -3 dBm. Additionally, MUE
transmit power should be kept to below 2.2 dBm. Maximum allowed FUE transmit power level can be
signalled by the femtocell (eg. in RRC signalling), while MUE transmit power level cannot be controlled by
the femtocell. As the likelihood of MUE transmitting at high power increases at the macrocell edge, HSUPA
throughput at the femtocell is likely to deteriorate under this interference scenario.

Version: 003.01.02
45
Femto - MUE separation = 2 m

12
FUE Tx. Power = 5 dBm
10
FUE E-DPDCH Ec/No [dB]
2.8 Mbps (=70% of 4.095 Mbps)
6
4
2
0
1.2 Mbps (=30% of 4.095 Mbps)

FUE Tx. Power = -3 dBm
-2
-4
-10
Figure 13-3
-5
0
5
10
15
E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level
Figure 13-4 illustrates the increase in average transmit power level of the FUE required to meet HSUPA
throughput requirements, as a function of MUE transmit power level. The curves show that there is
sufficient headroom available in uplink under this interference scenario.
Figure 13-5 illustrates the variation in E-DPDCH Ec/No as a function of MUE transmit power level, when the
FAP to MUE separation is fixed at 5 m. In this case, although the FUE transmit power should be at least 3 dBm, MUE transmit power can increase to 13 dBm to achieve R 30% of max information bit rate.

Version: 003.01.02
46
Required average FUE transmit power level [dBm]
10
R = 1.2 Mbps
R = 2.8 Mbps
-2
-4
-10
Figure 13-4
-5
0
5
10
15
Required average FUE transmit power level to meet HSUPA throughput

requirements.

Version: 003.01.02
47

12
FUE E-DPDCH Ec/No [dB]
10
2.8 Mbps (=70% of 4.095 Mbps)
6
1.2 Mbps (=30% of 4.095 Mbps)
0
-10
Figure 13-5
13.3
FUE Tx. Power = -3 dBm
-5
0
5
10
15
20
E-DPDCH Ec/No variation as a function of MUE transmit power level
Conclusions
This section has considered a simple analysis of the interference Scenario H based on link-budget
calculations and 3GPP specifications. Analysis considers impact of interference on two services AMR 12.2
kbps voice, and 5 Mbps HSUPA.
The relationship between minimum FAP to MUE separation and MUE transmit power level has been derived.
It was found that if the MUE is transmitting at the maximum power of 21 dBm it needs to be separated from
the femtocell by around 3.2 m. This separation can be reduced further by employing Automatic Gain Control
(AGC) at the femtocell receiver. It has been shown that the minimum MUE to FAP separation can be
reduced to 1.5 m if a reduction in gain of 10 dB is applied by AGC. The resulting loss in receiver sensitivity
will not deteriorate femtocell coverage of voice, as there is sufficient power headroom available at the UE.
The performance of HSUPA has been analysed in the presence of uplink interference from the macro UE,
which is operating on the adjacent frequency. The femtocell MUE separation is fixed at 2 m and 5 m. The
FUE femtocell path loss is fixed at 90 dB, representing the coverage edge scenario. It was seen that in
order to obtain 70% of nominal HSUPA bit rate with a category 6 UE, the MUE transmit power should be
below 7.5 dBm and 18.5 dBm, respectively. In both cases minimum transmit power required for HSUPA
transmission is equal to -3 dBm. As the likelihood of MUE transmitting at high power increases at the
macrocell edge, HSUPA throughput at femtocell is expected to deteriorate in this interference scenario.
13.4
Femto System Impact
If the minimum separation between the MUE and femtocell is not maintained the femtocell receiver may not
be able to decode the wanted speech signal at the required QoS level. Similarly, the HSUPA performance
will deteriorate gradually as the MUE transmit power is increased for a given separation between the MUE
and femtocell receiver.

Version: 003.01.02
48
13.5
The ACS specification for the Home Node B has been enhanced recently to accommodate higher levels of
blocking signals [TS25.104]. Additional robustness against uplink interference can be provided with AGC.
Since reduction in RF front end gain will cause receiver desensitisation, AGC should be activated only when
required. It has been shown that there is sufficient power headroom available at the UE to meet typical
femtocell coverage requirements for both voice and data services. Further, to maintain overall system
stability in uplink, restriction of the maximum FUE transmit power level could be considered [R4-071578].
Some of the factors governing selection of maximum transmit power of FUE are femtocell coverage, service
requirements, frequency deployment, distance to nearest macrocell receiver, uplink noise rise margin, etc.

Version: 003.01.02
49
14. Scenario I: Femtocell Downlink Interference to the adjacent

channel macrocell UE Receiver
The aim of this interference scenario is to evaluate the impact of downlink interference experienced by a UE
that is connected to the macro Node B from a femtocell, while being located in close proximity to a
femtocell. The MUE is not allowed to access the femtocell (ie. closed subscriber group). A weak signal is
received from the macro Node B within the apartment where the femtocell is located. Further, it is assumed
that the macro- and femto-cellular layers are deployed on adjacent frequencies. Impact of interference is
evaluated using two services, AMR 12.2 kbps voice, and HSDPA. 3GPP transceiver specifications will be used
in the analysis. It will be determined whether any enhancement to specifications is required.
14.1
Description
Two users (UE1 and UE2) are within an apartment. UE1 (FUE) is connected to a femtocell and at the edge of
coverage. UE2 (MUE) is connected to the macrocell at the edge of coverage, and located next to the
femtocell transmitting at full power [Law08]. Figure 14-1 illustrates the interference Scenario I.

Figure 14-1
14.2
Illustration of the Interference Scenario I
Analysis
Analytical evaluation is carried out for the interference scenario based on link-budget calculations and
transceiver performance requirements as specified by 3GPP. The downlink frequency is assumed to be
850 MHz, and the antenna gains of the Femtocell and UEs are equal to unity.

Version: 003.01.02
50
14.2.1
Parameter settings
The parameter settings that are used in the analysis are given below [FF09]:
ServicesAMR 12.2 kbps voice

14.4 Mbps HSDPA.
Femtocell parametersStatic maximum total transmit power, including control and traffic
channels, Pmax = 10, 15, 20 [dBm]
Downlink frequency = 850 MHz.
Macrocell parametersMax transmit power on DCH = 33 dBm
Total transmit power = 43 dBm
HSDPA power allocation = 42 dBm (80% of total power)
Antenna gain = 17 dBi
Feeder/cable loss = 3 dB.
MUE receiver parameters
Reference sensitivity level (DPCH_Ec_<REFSENS>) = -115 dBm (Band II), [TS25.101]

REFIor = -104.7 dBm (Band II), [TS25.101]
Max transmit power = 21 dBm (Power Class 4), [TS25.101]
Maximum input power level = -25 dBm, [TS25.101]
ACS = 33 dB, [TS25.101]
HSDPA terminal category = 10 (14.4 Mbps).
The ACS specification is valid as long as the Femtocell Downlink signal is in the range [-25,-52] (dBm)
[TS25.101]. Additionally, the DPCH_Ec from the Macro Node B should be in the range [-74, -101] (dBm)
[TS25.101]. Figure 14-2 illustrates the region of operation, which meets conditions specified above.
Outdoor-indoor path loss model, [FF09]
Okomura Hata + Wall/Window loss

External wall loss = 10 dB.
Indoor-indoor path loss model, [FF09]
ITU P.1238, N = 28, n = 0 (MUE is in close proximity of the femtocell).

Version: 003.01.02
51
Max. Femtocell Downlink interference at MUE (Ioac) [dBm]
Region of normal operation, AMR speech

-25
-30
Region of operation
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-100
-95
-90
-85
-80
Min. Macro NB Downlink signal strength (Ior) [dBm]
-75
Figure 14-2
Macro Node B signal strength relative to the interfering femtocell signal strength
measured at the MUE, required for successful decoding of AMR
14.2.2
Impact of Femtocell interference on AMR service
The region of operation, shown in Figure 14-2, gives the maximum strength of the downlink interfering
signal versus the minimum strength of wanted signal. Each point in the region of operation translates into
distance of separation between femtocell to MUE, versus distance between macro NodeB and MUE. The ITU
P.1238 model will be used to calculate path loss between the femtocell and MUE, while the Okumura-Hata
model will be used on the link between the macrocell and MUE.
Figure 14-3 illustrates impact of downlink interference as a function of femtocell transmit power. The curves
are obtained by converting maximum allowed path loss into distance according to specified path loss
models. It is assumed that femtocell is transmitting at full power. The general trend is that as the MNB to
MUE separation is increased, the distance between femtocell and MUE also needs to be increased, in order
to avoid blocking at the MUE. It is clear from Figure 14-3 that downlink interference will not pose any
problem to the MUE when it is located close to the macrocell. However, if the MUE is located close to the
macrocell edge femtocell, interference could block the downlink signal. Figure 14-3 also illustrates the
merits of adaptive control of maximum femto transmit power level, as for a fixed minimum femtocell MUE
separation the appropriate femtocell transmit power level depends on the femtocell macrocell path loss.
Table 14-1 gives the maximum MNB MUE separation that can be supported for different femtocell transmit
power levels, when the femtocell MUE separation is fixed at 5 m. Results are obtained by converting
maximum allowed path loss into distance using appropriate path loss model. A recent 3GPP contribution on
the same topic suggests that maximum transmit power of a femtocell should be limited to 10 dBm for the
adjacent channel deployment scenario [R4-090940].

Version: 003.01.02
52
Interference Scenario I.1, AMR speech
Maximum Macro NB - MUE separation [km]
2.4
2.2
2
1.8
1.6
1.4
Pmax = 10 dBm
Pmax = 15 dBm
Pmax = 20 dBm
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0
Figure 14-3
10
15
20
25
Minimum Femtocell - MUE separation [m]
30
35
Maximum MNB - MUE separation as a function of femtocell MUE separation,

assuming AMR voice service.
Femtocell transmit power (dBm)
Max. Macro NB - MUE separation (km)
10
1.0
15
0.7
20
0.5
Table 14-1
Maximum Macro NB MUE separation for a given maximum Femtocell transmit

power level, when the Femtocell MUE separation is fixed at 5 m.
14.2.3
Impact of Femtocell interference on HSDPA
Next, performance of HSDPA under this interference scenario is analysed using link-budget type
calculations. Fixed Reference Channel definition H-Set 6 is selected for analysis purposes [TS25.101]. A
Category 10 UE is chosen, as it supports the maximum achievable HSDPA data rate (equal to 14.4 Mbps).
The nominal average information bit rate for this FRC is 3219 kbps with QPSK, and 4689 kbps with 16QAM.
The UE specification states that the receiver should meet or exceed the information bit throughput R
requirements given in Table 14-2.
Parameter
Value
Channel model
PA3 (Pedestrian A)
Ioc [dBm]
-60
Ec / I or [dB] [TS25.133]
-6, -3
Ior / I oc [dB]
10
R, QPSK [kbps]
1407, 2090
R, 16QAM [kbps]
887, 1664
Table 14-2
UE receiver performance requirement (HSDPA), [TS25.101]

Version: 003.01.02
53
Based on link budget calculations, the minimum femtocell to MUE separation is found to be 1.7 m, 2.6 m
and 3.9 m (to maintain given Ioc), depending on whether Pmax is equal to 10 dBm, 15 dBm or 20 dBm (ITU
p.1238 model). Figure 14-4 illustrates the impact of interference in terms of maximum macrocell to MUE
separation for a given femtocell to MUE separation. At each point in the curve, femtocell interference is fixed
at -60 dBm, while the macrocell G-factor ( Ior / I oc ) is maintained at 10 dB. Further, it is assumed that
macrocell has allocated 80% of total power to HSDPA, resulting in HS-PDSCH Ec/Ior of approx. -1 dB.
Interference Scenario I.1, HSDPA

650
Pmax = 10 dBm
Pmax = 15 dBm
Pmax = 20 dBm
Max. Macrocell-MUE separation [m]
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
Figure 14-4
4
5
6
7
Femtocell-MUE separation [m]
10
Maximum macrocell-MUE separation as a function of femtocell-MUE separation,

for reception of HSDPA
If the femtocell MUE separation is fixed at 5 m, the macrocell MUE separation should not be more than
185 m - 360 m in order to decode the HS-PDSCH at the specified rate. It is well known that a macrocell
allocates highest HSDPA data rates only when UEs are located close to the cell site. Thus, it is not apparent
whether interference from the femtocell will significantly deteriorate HSDPA performance at the MUE.
14.3
Conclusions
A simple analysis of the interference Scenario I has been carried out based on link-budget type calculations
and 3GPP specifications. Adjacent channel deployment for the macro- and femto-layers has been assumed.
The analysis considers impact of interference on two services AMR 12.2kbps voice, and 14.4Mbps HSDPA.
In terms of AMR service, a minimum separation of 5 m between the femtocell and MUE can be achieved if
the macrocell site is within 1.0 km, and the femtocell is not transmitting above 10dBm. It is recommended
to implement adaptive control of maximum transmit power level at the femtocell and restrict maximum
transmit power to 10 dBm, in order to achieve a good trade-off between femtocell coverage and adjacent
channel deadzone.
We have also analysed HSDPA performance under this interference scenario using link-budget type
calculations and UE specifications. At the minimum supported femtocell MUE separation of 5 m, it was
found that the macrocell MUE separation should not be more than 185 m - 360 m in order to decode the
HS-PDSCH at the specified rate. Analysis was performed for a fully loaded femtocell transmitting at 10 dBm,
15 dBm and 20 dBm. It is well known that a macrocell allocates highest HSDPA data rates only when UEs

Version: 003.01.02
54
are located close to the cell site. Thus, it is not apparent whether downlink interference from femtocell will
significantly deteriorate HSDPA performance at the MUE.
14.4
Customer (MUE) Impact
In terms of AMR service, it was found that femtocell downlink interference can block macrocell signal if the
MUE is located close to the macrocell edge, and the femtocell transmit power is above 10 dBm. In terms of
HSDPA performance, it is not clear that femtocell interference will significantly deteriorate HSDPA
performance at the MUE.
14.5
Assuming dedicated spectrum deployment for the macro and femto cellular layers, the adjacent channel
deadzone created by the femtocell can be adjusted by performing adaptive control of maximum femtocell
transmit power. For example, femtocell should reduce the maximum transmit power level when it detects a
weak macrocell signal, and vice versa.

Version: 003.01.02
55
15. Scenario J: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to the adjacent

channel Macrocell NodeB Receiver
15.1
Introduction
This document provides an analysis of Femtocell Uplink Interference from femtocell mobiles (FUEs) to a
Macrocell NodeB Receiver on the adjacent channel.
The scenario being investigated is as follows: An FUE is located next to the apartment window that is in the
sight of an adjacent channel rooftop macrocell (approx 1,000m distance), as shown in Figure 16-1. At the
same time the FUE is connected to the femtocell at the edge of its range, and is transmitting at full power.
Figure 15-1
Interference Scenario J.
In this analysis the impact to the macro Node B is measured by the sensitivity degradation also referred to
as noise rise (or relative increase in uplink Received Total Wide Band Power (RTWP)), experienced by the
macro Node B due to the femto UE. In Section 15.2 analysis of Scenario J described in [Law08] is
presented, including the assumptions used. The analysis shows that the femto UEs impact on the macro
Node B is negligible.
15.2
Analysis of Scenario J - 12k2 Voice and HSUPA
An analysis of this scenario is presented based on link budget calculations. The analysis looks at the noise
rise at the Macro Node B antenna connector due to the femtocell UE in the described scenario.
15.2.1
Assumptions
A macro Node B with a noise floor based on the assumption that the sensitivity of the Wide macro Node B
for 12k2 voice service at the time is equal to -121 dBm (ie. the 3GPP reference sensitivity level for a 12k2
voice service on a Wide Area Node B at the antenna connector [TS25.104]). This sensitivity captures both
the loading and noise figure of the micro Node B. The noise floor calculation is shown in Table 15-1.
Sensitivity @ antenna
connector
Value
Units
-121
dBm
Comment
Pue_rec

Version: 003.01.02
3GPP reference sensitivity level for

Wide Area Node B
56
Value
Units
UE Service Rate
12.20
kbps
Chip rate
3.84
MHz
UE Processing Gain
24.98
dB
PG
Required EbNo
8.30
dB
EbNo
Noise floor
104.32
dB
nf_ant
Table 15-1
Comment
= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without rx diversity
(see [FF09])
= Pue_rec +PG -EbNo
Macro Node B noise floor
Next, the factors that could lead the femto UE to transmit at a power higher than expected are considered.
This will occur if the femto UE is at the femtos cell edge, and the femtocell experiences a noise rise or its
receiver is experiencing a blocking effect, caused by one of the following:
An adjacent channel macro UE.

Another femto UE located very close (~1m Free Space Loss) to the femtocell eg. a laptop with
a 3G data card doing a data upload on the same desk as the femtocell.
Subsequently, for the purposes of this scenario, the following assumptions are made:
The femto is operating under extreme conditions, experiencing a total noise rise equivalent to
70% loading in the uplink.
A 21 dBm class femto2 is used in the scenario that can provide a coverage path loss of up to
120dBs (path loss estimate based on minimum RSCP sensitivity of UE of -111 dBm and a 11
dBm CPICH transmit power and assumption of negligible downlink interference from surrounding
Node Bs).
Based on these assumptions, the link budget in Table 15-2 estimates the likely femto UE uplink
transmission power at the femtocell edge of coverage for a 12K2 voice service and a 2Mbps HSUPA service.
Value
Frequency
12K2
Voice
850.00
2Mbps
HSUPA
850.00
Unit
s
MHz
Bandwidth
3.84
3.84
MHz
Thermal Noise Density
174.00
174.00
dBm/
Hz
tnd
Receiver Noise Figure
8.00
8.00
dB
NF
-166.00
dBm/
Hz
rnd
= tnd +NF
-100.16
dBm
rnp
=rnd +10*log(B*1e6)
Comments
Receiver Noise Power
166.00
100.16
Loading
70.00
70.00
Noise Rise due to Loading
5.23
5.23
dB
IM
dBm
trn
p
Receiver Noise Density
Femto Receiver Noise Floor
-94.93
-94.93
Femto UE Service Rate
12.2
kbps
Chip rate
3.84
MHz
Femto UE Processing Gain
24.98
dB
PG
Required EbNo
8.30
dB
Eb
No
= -10*log(1-L/100)
=rnp +IM
= 10*log(W/R)
DCH performance without rx
diversity [FF09]
2
Under the same RF conditions, a 21 dBm class femtocell will provide larger downlink coverage than a 15dBm class or a 10dBm class
femto.

Version: 003.01.02
57
Value
12K2
Voice
2Mbps
HSUPA
Unit
s
Comments
EbNo PG for 12K2
Typical EcNo to achieve
HSUPA rates of ~ 2Mbps
[Hol06]
Required EcNo
-16.68
dB
Minimum Required Signal

Level for Femto UE
111.61
-94.93
dB
Femto UE Path loss to femto
120
120
dB
Pfm
in
DLc
ov
Femto UE Tx Power
8.39
21
dBm
Pfu
e
Table 15-2
Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B
15.2.2
Macro Node B Noise Rise
= trnp +EcNo
= min(21, max ((Pfmin +

DLcov), -50)
The noise rise caused to the adjacent channel macro by a femto UE transmitting at 8.39dBm for a 12K2
voice service and 21dBm for a 2Mbps HSUPA service was calculated, using the link budget in Table 15-3 as
8.610-4 dB and .02 dB, respectively.
Value
12K2
Voice
2Mbps
HSUPA
Unit
s
Node B Antenna Gain
17
17
dBi
Ga
nt
Feeder/Connector Loss
dB
Lf
Noise Floor at antenna

connector
104.32
-104.32
dBm
nf_
ant
Pfu
e
Femto UE Tx Power
8.39
21
dBm
UE Antenna Gain
dBi
Femto UE Tx EIRP
8.39
21
dBm
Window/Wall Loss
dB
dB
Path loss to Macro Node B
130.77
130.77
Adjacent Channel Selectivity
33
33
dB
Femto UE Interference @
macro antenna connector
141.38
-128.77
Rise above noise floor
-37.06
Noise rise
8.6
10-4
Table 15-3
Comments
Gm
ant
Pfu
e_e
irp
Lw
Lto
t
[FF09]
Table 16-1
=Pue Gmant +m
=1000m OkumuraHata(Node B at30m and
mobile at 1.5m) +Lw
Adjacent Channel selectivity
(+/-5MHz)
dB
AC
S
Pfu
e_r
ec
-24.45
dB
=Pfue_rec- nf_ant
.02
dB
NR
=10*log( 1+ 100.1*R))
= Pfue_eirp Ltot + Gant Lf

- ACS
Noise rise calculation for Scenario D1 (femto UE is transmitting at 8.39dBm and

21dBm 1000m from a macro Node B for a 12K2 service and 2Mbps HSUPA
service)

Version: 003.01.02
58
15.3
Conclusions
It is unlikely that a femto UE will be transmitting at maximum power due to the relatively smaller
coverage of the femto compared to the macro.
When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a 12k2 voice
service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will be transmitting in the region of
8.39 dBm, and will cause a negligible noise rise of approximately 8.6 10-4dB.
When the femto is operating under extreme loading conditions, the analysis for a femto UE with
2Mbps HSUPA data service has shown that a femto UE in the described scenario will cause a
negligible noise rise amounting to approximately .02 dB.
The general conclusion is that a femto UE operating on the adjacent channel to a macro Node B
will not cause an impact to such an adjacent channel macro Node B.

Version: 003.01.02
59
16. Downlink and Uplink Scenarios Modelling Power Control

Techniques for Interference Mitigation
In [FF08], system level simulations were presented for the downlink and uplink under deployment of
femtocells for 2 GHz carrier frequency. In this section, HNB deployment in 850 MHz is discussed vis a vis a
deployment in the 2 GHz band carried out in Section 17 of [FF08] and system level simulations are
provided. It is shown that simple modification to the parameters setting for power calibration can be used
in 850MHz to achieve nearly the same performance (Coverage and Throughput statistics) as 2GHz
deployment. It is also shown with simulations that the uplink interference mitigation technique of adaptive
attenuation continues to work well in 850MHz as well. All results presented in this section are under the
same set-up and simulation conditions as Section 17 of [FF08], except the propagation model. We restrict
our attention to the femtocell deployment in the dense urban settings.
16.1
Modelling of Propagation loss
The propagation loss models specified in [FF09] (from [ITU1238]) identify the frequency dependent term for
propagation in indoor environment and for small distances as 20*log10(f) , where f is the carrier frequency
and the path loss is expressed in dB. This term suggests that the typical path loss between two points will
be 20*(log10(2000/850)) ~= 7.4 dB higher in 2GHz than in 850 MHz. This is the major component of
difference in the propagation loss seen in the two bands.
We apply this frequency dependent path loss offset of -7.4 dB to the path losses from 2 GHz system
simulations using the simulation framework described in Section 17 of [FF08]. Specifically, all the path loss
values from 2 GHz modelling (outdoor to outdoor, outdoor to indoor, indoor to indoor in same or different
apartment) are reduced by the path loss offset to model 850 MHz propagation. Other components, such as
outdoor to indoor wall penetration loss, are observed to be not as sensitive to this frequency difference3,
and are left unchanged.
16.2
HNB transmit power calibration for 850 MHz
As identified in [FF08], the coverage of a femtocell for a given transmit power differs based on its location
within a macrocell, and hence it is crucial to calibrate the transmit power of the femtocell. A reference power
calibration algorithm that attempts to strike a balance between increasing the femtocell coverage and
reducing the interference to the macro network was specified in [FF08, Section 17.1.2.4, and TR25.820].
This power calibration algorithm uses the downlink receiver at the femtocell to obtain the RF conditions
(total signal strength and pilot signal strength from other Node Bs). It selects maximum femtocell transmit
power to satisfy certain criterion at a desired coverage edge of the HNB. This edge of HNB coverage is
described by a target path loss. For example, the results in Section 17 of [FF08] for 2 GHz are obtained by
assuming a target path loss of 80 dB. This target path loss corresponds to a geographical boundary of
coverage.
The same geographical boundary of coverage is reached for 850 MHz at a path loss nearly 7.4 dB lower
ie. at nearly 72.6 dB. Hence, the version of HNB power calibration algorithm for 850 MHz can be specified as
follows.
1.
2.
3.
To maintain an Ecp/Io of -18dB for a MUE located 72.6 dB away from HNB (ie. to protect the
macro user).
To ensure that HNB is not causing unnecessary interference to others by enforcing an SIR cap of
-5dB for HUE at 72.6 dB away from HNB.
To maintain an Ecp/Io of -18dB for a MUE on the adjacent channel, located 39.6 dB away from
the HNB (ie. to protect the adjacent channel macro use).
This simple change in the parameter for HNB power calibration ensures that the algorithm works well in 850
MHz as well.
Various studies over the years have produced inconclusive and sometimes contradictory trends in the
behaviour of outdoor to indoor penetration loss with change in frequency (e.g. see [Kob92, Stav03,
Dav97]).
Version: 003.01.02
60
16.3
Simulation results for Dense Urban Deployment
In this section we show illustrative results and compare with 2 GHz deployment to show that outage and
throughput performance in 850 MHz band does not significantly differ from that in 2 GHz band, provided the
power calibration of femtocells takes into account the impact of the frequency band. We show the results for
dense urban model depicted in Section 17 of [FF08]. Similar to Section 17 of [FF08], we assume 2000
apartments per cell with 4.8% HNB penetration giving 96 HNBs per cell. Out of these, 24 HNBs are
simultaneously active (have HUEs in connected mode). If an HNB is active it transmits at full calibrated
power, else it transmits only the pilot and overhead channels.
16.3.1
Idle Cell Reselection Parameters
Similar to Section 17 of [FF08], we assume co-channel deployment where HUEs and MUEs share the same
carrier. Closed subscriber group is assumed throughout. We say a UE is unable to acquire the pilot if the
CPICH Ec/No is below Tacq. We use Tacq=-20dB for our analysis. For this analysis, the MNBs are assumed to
transmit at 50% of the full power (ie. 40dBm). The CPICH Ec/Ior for MNBs and HNBs are set to -10dB (ie.
33dBm). In addition, we take into account idle cell reselection procedure to determine whether a HUE is
camped on its HNB or on a MNB, or whether it is moved to another carrier. A HUE will be moved to another
carrier if it is not able to acquire the pilots of the HNB and macro on the shared carrier, or if the HUE
attempts to perform an idle cell reselection to a neighbour HNB. Similarly, a MUE will be moved to another
carrier if it is not able to acquire the macro pilot or if it attempts to perform an idle cell reselection to a HNB.
Table 16-1 summarises representative co-channel idle cell reselection parameters used in our analysis.
These parameters are set such that priority is given to HNBs over MNBs when a UE is performing idle cell
reselection. However, a minimum CPICH Ec/No of -12dB is enforced for HNBs, so that idle cell reselection to
an HNB happens only when the HNB signal quality is good.
Table 16-1 Parameters for the co-channel idle cell reselection procedure.
SIB/Parameter
SIB3
Macro
HNB
Qqualmin
-18 dB
-18dB
Sintrasearch
10 dB
4dB
Sintersearch
NA
NA
Qhyst+Qoffset
HNB cells: -50 dB

Macro cells: 3dB
HNB cells: 3dB

Macro cells: 5dB
Qqualmin
HNB cells: -12 dB

Macro cells: not needed
Not needed
SIB11
Table 16-2
Coverage Statistics at 850 MHz for Calibrated HNB Transmit Power
In this section we analyse the coverage statistics of UEs with calibrated HNB transmit power algorithm
described in previous sections. Table 16-3 and Table 16-4 show the pilot acquisition and outage statistics for
dense-urban model, with calibrated HNB transmit power. We compare three cases:
1.
2.
3.
Calibrated HNB transmit power with Pmin=-20dBm and Pmax=20dBm

Calibrated HNB transmit power with Pmin=-10dBm and Pmax=20dBm
Calibrated HNB transmit power with Pmin=0dBm and Pmax=20dBm.
The results show the expected trade off between good HNB coverage and interference to Macro UEs as a
function of the HNB transmit power.
Results corresponding to Pmin=-10 dBm and Pmin=0 dBm were presented in [FF08] for 2 GHz. Additionally,
this section presents results for Pmin=-20 dBm. It can be readily seen that the statistics corresponding to
Pmin=-10dBm and Pmin=0 dBm in Table 16-3 and Table 16-4 closely matche those in Table 17.7 of [FF08].
Each point on the cell sees a lower path loss in 850 MHz from both macro and femtocells and, consequently,
switching to 850 MHz makes the system slightly more interference limited compared to 2 GHz. As the
reduced path loss is taken into account to set the target cell edge coverage for femtocells, the calibrated
power for the femtocell remains nearly unchanged in 850 MHz compared to 2 GHz. This is evident in the

Version: 003.01.02
61
comparison of CDFs of calibrated power in 2 GHz and 850 MHz, as shown in Figure 16-1 where the CDF
corresponding to both bands coincide4.
This also suggests that HNB with a given power will have similar coverage radius in both bands, irrespective
of the location.
It is also seen that in dense urban environment a significant number of HNBs reach their minimum power
limit.
Pmin=-20dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
Pmin=-10dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
Pmin=0dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
HUEs unable to
acquire HNB pilot
3.9%
1.9%
0.5%
HUEs unable to
acquire HNB or macro
pilot
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
MUEs unable to
acquire macro pilot
2.7%
5.2%
12.0%
Table 16-3
Pilot acquisition statistics at 850 MHz for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs
and calibrated HNB transmit power
Pmin=-20dBm,
Pmax=10dBm
Pmin=-10dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
Pmin=0dBm,
Pmax=20dBm
MUEs moved to
another carrier
9.7%
13.5%
25.5%
HUEs unable to camp

on own HNB
9.6%
4.9%
2.4%
HUEs switched to
macro on shared
carrier
7.7%
3.6%
1.1%
HUEs moved to
another carrier
1.9%
1.3%
1.3%
Table 16-4
Coverage statistics for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and calibrated
HNB transmit power
4
In these simulations the possible calibrated transmit powers for HNBs are assumed to take a continuous
range of values. In practice, these values will be quantised with a given granularity.

Version: 003.01.02
62
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
HNB Tx Power: 2 GHz,PL Edge 80 dB, PMin 0 dBm
0.4
HNB Tx Power: 2 GHz,PL Edge 80 dB, PMin -10 dBm

0.3
HNB Tx Power: 850MHz ,PL Edge 72.6 dB, PMin 0 dBm

HNB Tx Power: 850 MHz ,PL Edge 72.6 dB, PMin -10 dBm
0.2
0.1
0
-10
-5
0
5
10
HNB Calibrated Tx Power, dBm
15
Figure 16-1
In variance of HNB calibrated Tx Power in the two frequencies.
16.3.2
Downlink Throughput Simulations
20
In this section we study the performance of HSPA+ DL on 850 MHz under HNB deployment by system level
simulations. The assumptions for the simulation are the same as those in Section 17 of [FF08]. In the
dense-urban model, blocks of apartments are dropped into the three centre cells of a macrocell layout with
ISD of 1 km. We drop 2,000 apartment units in each macrocell that corresponds to 6,928 households per
square kilometre. This represents a dense-urban area. Taking into account various factors such as wireless
penetration (80%), operator penetration (30%) and HNB penetration (20%), we assume a 4.8% HNB
penetration, which means 96 of the 2,000 apartments in each cell have a HNB installed from the same
operator. Out of these, 24 HNBs are simultaneously active (have a HUE in connected mode). We assume cochannel performance for all HUEs and MUEs. All UEs have one receive antenna. We assume that the power
transmitted for the overhead channels, including CPICH pilot is 25% and the transmit power for the pilot, is
10%. The transmit power of HNBs is calibrated using the algorithm specified in Section 16.2. We assume a
Rician channel with Rician factor K=10 and 1.5 Hz Doppler frequency. Macrocells are loaded with HNBs,
HUEs and MUEs. There are 10 MUEs per cell, and 96 HNBs, of which 24 are active. Each active HNB has one
HUE. We assume a full-buffer traffic model and all active cells are transmitting at full power. HNBs that are
not active are only transmitting the overhead. The maximum number of HARQ transmissions is 4. The
maximum modulation is 64 QAM. A proportional fair scheduler is implemented for the macro users. Only
UEs that are not in outage on the shared channel are included in the simulations. However, those users in
outage are included in the following CDFs as zero throughput users. If the operator has another frequency
for macro operation, many of the MUEs, now considered in outage, will be switched to the other frequency
and will not be in outage. Figure 16-2 shows the throughput CDF of all user throughputs.

Version: 003.01.02
63
User Throughput Distributions, 10 MUEs, 24 HUEs

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
All UEs: No HNB present
All UEs: HNB Present, Pmin = -10 dBm
0.2
0.1
0
0.2
Figure 16-2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
UEs: Average Throughput (bps)
1.6
1.8
2
7
x 10
DL user throughput distribution under different minimum powers
User Throughput Distributions, 10 MUEs, 24 HUEs

1
0.8
0.6
CDF
All UEs: No HNB present

0.4
0.2
Figure 16-3
2
3
4
5
UEs: Average Throughput (bps)
6
5
x 10
Magnified version of Figure 1-2 showing outage statistics
It is seen that deployment of HNBs helps all users. The users served by HNBs see very good RF conditions
and dedicated Node B and, hence, see very high throughputs. The users on macrocells see a reduced load
on the network and, hence, experience better throughputs. Even when the lower limit on the transmit power
to HNBs is reduced to -20 dBm, the HUEs continue to experience high user throughputs. Figure 16-3 shows
a magnified version of the lower range of throughputs to identify the impact of Pmin on outage.
16.3.3
Conclusions
To summarise, HNB deployment continues to provide the benefits identified in Section 17 of [FF08] in 850
MHz. The small change in parameters of power calibration enables the same algorithm to be used in 850
MHz, and results in nearly the same transmit power distribution on HNBs as that in 2 GHz.

Version: 003.01.02
64
16.3.4
Uplink throughput simulations with adaptive attenuation
In this section we study the HNB and macro uplink throughput performance in a co-channel deployment of
HNBs for 850 MHz. In [FF08] the benefits of uplink adaptive attenuation at an HNB were identified. This
section carries out the uplink throughput analysis and comparison of HNB deployment with and without
adaptive attenuation in 850 MHz in a dense urban scenario. The layout and deployment scenario is the
same as those in [FF08] and Section 16.2.
We assume a Rician channel with K factor of 10 dB and 1.5 Hz Doppler fading. The MUEs and HUEs are
assumed to transmit full-buffer traffic using 2ms TTI HSUPA. The maximum number of transmissions is set
to 4. Power control is enabled for both MUEs and HUEs. The maximum transmit power for the UEs is set to
24dBm and the minimum transmit power is set to -50dBm.
Single-frequency co-channel deployment is considered. For the uplink simulations, we only keep those UEs
that are not in outage on the downlink.
An NF of 5dB and Noise Rise Threshold (NRT) of 5dB are assumed for MNBs. For HNBs, three cases are
considered:
1.
2.
3.
Baseline 1: HNB NF=5dB and HNB NRT=5dB

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

Version: 003.01.02
65
10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Enhanced
0.2
0.1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
HUE Throughput [kbps]
3000
3500
4000
Figure 16-4 HUE uplink throughput distribution

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Enhanced
0.1
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
MUE Throughput [kbps]
400
450
500
Figure 16-5 MUE uplink throughput distribution

Version: 003.01.02
66

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Enhanced
0.2
0.1
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
HUE Tx Power [dBm]
10
20
30
20
30
Figure 16-6 Transmit power distribution

1
0.9
Baseline 1
Baseline 2
Enhanced
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
MUE Tx Power [dBm]
10
Figure 16-7 Transmit power distribution.

Figure 16-8 shows the throughput CDFs for two cases. The first case is when HNBs are deployed; there are
24 active HNBs, each with one HUE per macrocell, and there are 10 MUEs per macrocell. The second case is
when there are no HNBs deployed and the 24 UEs served earlier by HNBs are served by the MNB instead;

Version: 003.01.02
67
thus, there are a total of 34 (10+24) MUEs. When there are HNBs, adaptive attenuation is used at the
HNBs. The UEs that are in outage are included in these CDFs and are assigned zero throughputs. The results
are similar to those found in the 2GHz study. As seen in the figure below, deploying HNBs continues to
result in a significant improvement in the overall system throughput. Firstly, the UEs that use HNBs achieve
much higher uplink throughputs compared to before. Secondly, the uplink throughputs of the MUEs also
improve, since some of the users are offloaded to HNBs.
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
CDF
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
10 MUEs + 24 HUEs per macro cell with adaptive uplink attenuation
0.1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
UE Throughput [kbps]
2500
3000
Figure 16-8
UE uplink throughput distributions in 850 MHz. There are, in total, 34 UEs per
macrocell, of which 24 UEs migrate to MNB in the No HNBs case. HNB
deployment increases the system capacity significantly
16.3.5
Conclusions
Simple adjustment of Power Calibration settings, namely changing the HNB target coverage path loss, is
sufficient to make HNB deployments nearly equivalent in different frequency bands. Similar DL throughput
performance is seen in Dense Urban deployment of HNBs in 850 MHz and 2 GHz. UL throughputs are higher
in Dense Urban deployments of HNBs in 850 MHz, compared to 2GHz. The UE transmit powers are seen to
be smaller for 850 MHz compared to 2 GHz.
In summary, HNB deployment continues to provide expected benefits in 850 MHz band as well.

Version: 003.01.02
68
17. Summary of Findings

Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
A - Macrocell
Downlink
Interference to
the Femtocell
UE Receiver
When a strong macro signal is

present, customers already obtain
excellent service; adding a cochannel femtocell offers little
additional coverage gain. Assuming
standard models and parameters, it
is shown that even at 10 dBm
transmit power, the femtocell is able
to comfortably provide voice to the
UE when the femtocell is located as
far as 100 m away and maximum
HSDPA throughput can be expected
up to 25 m away.
Low, but a way of identifying

customers who are unlikely to
benefit from femto because of
already high macro coverage
would be desirable.
If the macro is dominant, the
consequence for the customer is
that they will be provided service
by the macro carrier so the
impact of this scenario is mainly
on zonal-based propositions.

Version: 003.01.02
69
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
B - Macrocell UE
Uplink
Interference to
the Femtocell
Receiver
The analysis results showed that in

order to be able to maintain the
uplink connection between the FUE
and femtocell, the transmitted power
requirements are within the
capability of the UE.
Additionally, the performance of
HSUPA on the femto FUE link has
been analysed in the presence of
uplink interference from the Macro
UE. By simulation, it has been found
that in order to obtain HSUPA
throughput of at least 2.8Mbps with
a category 6 UE, the FUE needs to
be near to the femtocell (5m) and
transmit at a power level greater
than 15dBm, if the MUE is within
15m of the femtocell.
However, such analysis must take
into account the downlink deadzone
created by the femtocell. High power
from the femtocell in order to
maintain the downlink will interfere
with the macrocell signal at the MUE,
and will force the macrocell to
handover the call to another WCDMA
frequency or RAT; or, if none of
these are possible, the MUE call may
be dropped.
From the point of view of the

MUE, the femtocell is a source of
interference to the macrocell.
However, the macro network can
already cope with re-directing UEs
to other WCDMA frequencies, or
RAT, if a user is affected by high
interference.
Those locations with no coverage
from alternative WCDMA
frequencies, or RATs, may be
adversely affected by poor Eb/No
levels, leading to dropped calls.
Due to femtocells, the macrocell
may also be affected by an
increase of uplink interference, as
femto-UEs increase power levels
in order to achieve required
quality levels. This may be limited
by capping the maximum power
level transmitted by FUEs, or by
limiting uplink throughput.
The minimum separation between
MUE and femtocell has a strong
effect on the capability to offer
the required QoS to the femtocell
user. However, the FUE has
enough power to sustain a voice
call while the MUE is in the
coverage range of the femtocell.
The downlink deadzone sets a
minimum separation between
MUE and femtocell, meaning that
the FUE transmit power is always
within its capability.
For HSUPA, the user is required to
go closer to the femtocell in order
to be provided with the best
throughput. Simulation has shown
that at 5m from the femtocell,
good throughput can be achieved
for MUEs further away than 12m.
Availability of alternative
resources (a second carrier, or
underlay RAT) for handing off or
reselecting macro-users is the
best way to provide good service
when macro-users are in the
proximity of femtocells.

Version: 003.01.02
70
Scenario
C - Femtocell
Downlink
Interference to
the Macrocell UE
Receiver
Conclusions
In the scenario presented in this

section, the performance of MUE
attached to the macrocell is shown
to be affected by the femtocell in
some locations. This can be
mitigated by the use of adaptive
power control on the femto. Results
show that in some cases the MUE
might experience deadzone when
in close proximity to the femto. One
firm conclusion from this analysis is
that adaptive power control is
necessary for the femtocells; another
is that femtocells will require higher
output power when the femtocell is
deployed in locations near the centre
of the macrocell.
Adaptive power control on the
femtocell mitigates interference by
offering just the required transmit
power on the femto based on level of
interference from macro. However, it
is shown that a macrocell UE (MUE)
might not receive adequate signal
level from the macro to compensate
for the femto interference. This is
evident in all places in close
proximity to the femto when the
macro and femtocells share the
same carrier.
It is also concluded that there is no
apparent and fundamental
performance change between the
case when 850 MHz or 2100 MHz is
used for the carrier.
In general, if a macro network is
designed to provide fixed coverage
in terms of cells radius, then the
macrocell requires lower output
power when operating at 850 MHz.
Therefore, the interference level
seen by a femto is the same,
regardless of the carrier frequency.
It is shown that the femto is an
effective vehicle for delivering a good
carrier re-use. Furthermore,
femtocells are an efficient technique
for delivering high-speed data
offered by HSPA to the femto users.
This should be compared to the
macrocell case where cell radius is
larger resulting in the effect of
distributing the potential bandwidth
of the HSDPA to a larger number of
users. It is also a well known that
HSPA throughput is affected by the
location of the UE, the closer the UE
to the centre of the cell the higher
the throughput. This lead us to
conclude that small cells like femto
Version: 003.01.02
cells are an optimum complimentary
technique to macro cells for
addressing high data usage.
Impacts
For operators without a dedicated

carrier on which to deploy femto,
adaptive power control is essential
for the success of the network
Even though the intrinsic
coverage of the macro network is
reduced by the deployment of
femto, other studies have shown
(eg. Section 17) that the total
capacity of the network (macro +
femto) may increase a
hundredfold.
71
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
D - Femtocell
Uplink
Interference to
the Macrocell
NodeB Receiver
It is unlikely that a femto UE will be

transmitting at maximum power, due
to the relatively smaller coverage of
the femto compared to the macro.
The analysis for a 12k2 voice service
has shown that a femto UE in the
described scenario will be
transmitting in the region of 8.39
dBm, and will cause a noise rise of
approximately 0.07dB. Further, a
macro UE at the same location as
the femto UE will cause a 0.09dB
noise for the same 12k2 voice
service.
The analysis for a femto UE with
2Mbps HSUPA data service has
shown that a femto UE in the
described scenario will cause a noise
rise amounting to approximately
1.09dB; however, it should be noted
that a macro UE operating at the
same position and on the same
service (with the same service
requirement) is expected to cause
the same amount of noise rise.
The maximum allowed femto UE

transmission power can be limited
appropriately, such that the noise
rise caused by a femto UE when
transmitting at its maximum
allowed power is limited based on
the femtocells proximity to the
surrounding Macro Layer Node Bs.
This is important, especially when
one considers the cumulative
affect of multiple femto UEs
spread across a network. A similar
approach is suggested in [R4071578].
The femtocell could also handover
a femto UE to a macrocell if an inservice femto UE is at the verge of
the femtocell; thereafter, uplink
interference to a macrocell from
this UE is avoided.

Version: 003.01.02
72
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
E - Femtocell
Downlink
Interference to
Nearby
Femtocell UE
Receivers
The downlink throughput of the UE

connected to the femtocell is shown
to be affected by downlink of
neighbouring femtocells. This case
shows that driving femtocells to
provide coverage to adjacent
location deemed to be covered by
other femtocells yields performance
degradation.
The closer the femtocells are, the
higher the mutual interference and
performance degradation.
It is therefore strongly recommended
that femtocells use effective power
control to confined coverage to their
premises, and where the UE can not
get service from the its femto, this
UE should be supported by the
macro network. There is a need to
make sure that the pilot and
transmit power of the femto is
carefully adjusted to provide
coverage to UEs within the intended
area.
It can be concluded that the femto
coverage should aim to be restricted
to a single apartment/ house only in
order to limit any undue interference
between femtos. Adaptive power
control is one method to help this.
This leaves the issue of supporting
visiting UEs to be under the control
of the macrocell.
If the femto coverage is controlled

through mechanisms such as
adaptive power control, then this
scenario will generally result in
the visiting UE being handled by a
Macro Layer.
These impacts exist when a UE
femtocell experiences interference
levels in the order of -50dBm.
Consequently, there is a risk that
for adjacent apartment
deployments coverage may not be
assured from the femtocell under
all circumstances.

Version: 003.01.02
73
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
F - Femtocell UE
Uplink
Interference to
Nearby
Femtocell
Receivers
The following conclusions can be

drawn:
The closer UE2 to AP1, the greater
interference from UE2 to AP1.
The interference reaches maximum
at the point when UE2 is
disconnecting from AP2 (call is
dropping). However, the analysis is
based on the extreme scenarios.
Usually, UE2 will handover to a
macrocell before call drop, which will
avoid the interference to AP1.
The following recommendations are
made, which will help ensure
harmonious coexistence of cochannel femtocells:
It is desirable to limit the allowed
maximum transmission power of UE2
to avoid a noise rise to the nearby
AP1, when UE2 is at the verge of
AP2.
The AP2 could also handover a UE2
to a macrocell (macrocell on another
frequency channel preferred) if inservice UE2 is in the vicinity of the
AP1; thereafter, uplink interference
to AP1 from this UE2 is avoided.
In typical cases, both wanted and

Aggressor femtocells should have
dynamically optimised coverage to
their respective UE; hence, this
co-channel scenario is unlikely to
occur.
If this femtocell power
optimisation does not occur, the
co-channel interference can
indeed occur, and range reduction
is the consequence. This range
reduction can be mitigated to an
extent by the normal dynamic
power control of the wanted UE.
Consequently, this is manageable
as long as minimum performance
requirements for adaptive power
control are agreed.
G - Macrocell
Downlink
Interference to
the adjacent
channel
Femtocell UE
Receiver
Both theoretical analysis and

simulation results show that
femtocell UE experiences little
adjacent channel interference from
an outdoor macrocell in most cases.
There is no impact.

Version: 003.01.02
74
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
H - Macrocell UE
Uplink
Interference to
the adjacent
channel
Femtocell
Receiver
It was found that if the MUE is

transmitting at the maximum power
of 21 dBm, it needs to be separated
from the femtocell by around 3.2 m.
This separation can be reduced
further by employing Automatic Gain
Control (AGC) at the femtocell
receiver. It has been shown that the
minimum MUE to FAP separation can
be reduced to 1.5 m if a reduction in
gain of 10 dB is applied by AGC. The
resulting loss in receiver sensitivity
will not deteriorate femtocell
coverage of voice, as there is
sufficient power headroom available
at the UE.
The performance of HSUPA has been
analysed in the presence of uplink
interference from the macro UE,
which is operating on the adjacent
frequency. The femtocell MUE
separation is fixed at 2 m and 5 m.
The FUE femtocell path loss is fixed
at 90 dB, representing the coverage
edge scenario. It was seen that in
order to obtain 70% of nominal
HSUPA bit rate with a category 6 UE,
the MUE transmit power should be
below 7.5 dBm and 18.5 dBm,
respectively. In both cases minimum
transmit power required for HSUPA
transmission is equal to -3 dBm. As
the likelihood of MUE transmitting at
high power increases at the
macrocell edge, HSUPA throughput
at femtocell is expected to
deteriorate in this interference
scenario.
If the minimum separation

between the MUE and femtocell is
not maintained, the femtocell
receiver may not be able to
decode the wanted speech signal
at the required QoS level.
Similarly, the HSUPA performance
will deteriorate gradually as the
MUE transmit power is increased
for a given separation between
the MUE and femtocell receiver.

Version: 003.01.02
75
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
I - Femtocell
Downlink
Interference to
the adjacent
channel
Macrocell UE
Receiver
In terms of AMR service, a minimum

separation of 5 m between the
femtocell and MUE can be achieved if
the macrocell site is within 1.0 km,
and the femtocell is not transmitting
above 10dBm. It is recommended to
implement adaptive control of
maximum transmit power level at
the femtocell and restrict maximum
transmit power to 10 dBm, in order
to achieve a good trade-off between
femtocell coverage and adjacent
channel deadzone.
We have also analysed HSDPA
performance under this interference
scenario using link-budget type
calculations and UE specifications. At
the minimum supported femtocell
MUE separation of 5 m, it was found
that the macrocell MUE separation
should not be more than 185 m 360 m, in order to decode the HSPDSCH at the specified rate. Analysis
was performed for a fully loaded
femtocell transmitting at 10 dBm, 15
dBm and 20 dBm. It is well known
that a macrocell allocates highest
HSDPA data rates only when UEs are
located close to the cell site. Thus, it
is not apparent whether downlink
interference from femtocell will
significantly deteriorate HSDPA
In terms of AMR service, it was

found that femtocell downlink
interference can block macrocell
signal if the MUE is located close
to the macrocell edge and the
femtocell transmit power is above
10 dBm. In terms of HSDPA
performance, it is not clear that
femtocell interference will
significantly deteriorate HSDPA
Assuming dedicated spectrum
deployment for the macro and
femto cellular layers, the adjacent
channel deadzone created by the
femtocell can be adjusted by
performing adaptive control of
maximum femtocell transmit
power.
J - Femtocell UE
Uplink
Interference to
the adjacent
channel
Macrocell NodeB
Receiver
It is unlikely that a femto UE will be

transmitting at maximum power, due
to the relatively smaller coverage of
the femto compared to the macro.
The analysis for a 12k2 voice service
has shown that a femto UE in the
described scenario will be
transmitting in the region of 8.39
dBm and will cause a negligible noise
rise of approximately 3.4 10-5dB.
The analysis for a femto UE with
2Mbps HSUPA data service has
shown that a femto UE in the
described scenario will cause a
negligible noise rise amounting to
approximately 6.2 10-4dB.
The general conclusion is that a
Femto UE operating on the adjacent
channel to a macro Node B will not
cause an impact to such an adjacent
channel macro Node B.
The uplink noise rise experienced

by the macro nodeB from the
adjacent channel femto UE is
likely to be significantly less than
the noise rise experienced by the
macro Nodes Bs own UE
transmitting from the same
location.
Consequently, there is negligible
impact to the adjacent channel
macro.

Version: 003.01.02
76
Scenario
Conclusions
Impacts
Section 16
System
Simulations
A simple adjustment of Power

Calibration settings namely,
changing the HNB target coverage
path loss is sufficient to make HNB
deployments nearly equivalent in
different frequency bands. Similar DL
throughput performance is seen in
Dense Urban deployment of HNBs in
850 MHz and 2 GHz. UL throughputs
are higher in Dense Urban
deployments of HNBs in 850 MHz
compared to 2GHz. The UE transmit
powers are seen to be smaller for
850 MHz compared to 2 GHz.
In summary, HNB deployment
continues to provide expected
benefits in 850 MHz band.
The conclusions depend on the

operation of important techniques,
such as adaptive CPICH power
setting, adaptive attenuation
(AGC) in the femto receiver, and
UE transmit power capping. With
these techniques in play, the
impact on the performance of the
networks is total available data
capacity gain of two orders of
magnitude for the simulated
conditions.

Version: 003.01.02
77
18. Overall Conclusions

By examining a series of scenarios, building on the work of 3GPP RAN4 as well as the previous Small Cell
Forum work at 2 GHz, we have reached and confirmed the following conclusions:
Femtocell performance at 850 MHz is very much similar to that at 2 GHz.

Power management of the UE is important to manage the noise rise in the macro network.
In normal operation, the noise rise contribution from the UE is small (a decibel or less).
Power capping of the UE when operating in the femto environment ensures that, even in
difficult radio conditions, the UE hands-off to the macro network before its transmit power
increases to the point where macro noise rise is a problem.
Dynamic receiver gain management in the femto (AGC or adaptive attenuation) ensures
that femtos can offer good service to both near and far UEs, without unnecessarily
increasing the UE transmit power, and, therefore, keeping the noise rise contribution to a
minimum.
An increase in the dynamic range specifications is required to accommodate femto

operation in both near and far cases.
Downlink power management is equally key in managing the tradeoff between service range (in
the closed user group cases), and deadzone.
By measuring its environment, the femto can set its transmit power appropriately for both
dense urban and suburban deployment, even in shared carrier situations.
Given a reasonable distribution of indoor and outdoor users, the link budget indoors with
femto is so good in comparison with the corresponding macro link budget that the total air
interface capacity can be a hundred times greater with femto than without it.
With these power management techniques in place, femto operation in the co-channel
deployment with macro is possible. A second carrier is preferred, to give macro users service
even within the deadzones of the femtocells.
Some of these factors (adaptive attenuation, power capping, and downlink power management) are
becoming widely available in the industry. Others (increased receiver dynamic range) are already approved
in standards. All of them will deliver the performance and capacity gains required for next-generation
cellular networks.

Version: 003.01.02
78
19. Further Reading

19.1
Scenario A
Title: Macrocell Downlink Co-Channel Interference to the Femtocell UE Receiver

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071941] R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home
NodeB downlink co-existence considering the impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson,
3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080149]
R4-080149, Ericsson, "Simulation assumptions for the block of
flats scenario, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080150]
19.2
Scenario B
Title: Macrocell Uplink Co-Channel Interference to the Femtocell Receiver

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070825] [R4-070969]
R4-070969, Home B output power,
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, R4-070969, June
2007.
[R4-070970 [R4-071619] [R4-071941]
R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home
[R4-072004] [R4-080097] [R4-080409] [R4-080153]
19.3
Scenario C
Title: Femtocell Downlink Co-Channel Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071231] [R4-071253] [R4-071263] [R4-071540] [R4-071554] [R4071578] [R4-071660] [R4-071661]R4-071661, "Impact of HNB with controlled output
power on macro HSDPA capacity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #44bis, October 2007.
[R4-072004]
R4-072004, Huawei, "Performance Evaluation about HNB coexistence with Macro
networks", 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-071941]
R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence
considering the impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4
(Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080151]
19.4
Scenario D
Title: Femtocell Uplink Co-Channel Interference to the Macrocell NodeB Receiver

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070969] R4-070969, Home B output power, Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, R4-070969, June 2007.
[R4-070970 [R4-071231] [R4-071578] [R4-071619] [R4-071941] R4-071941, "Simulation results for
Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence considering the impact of HNB HS
utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November
2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080154]
19.5
Scenario E
Title: Femtocell Downlink Interference to Nearby Femtocell UE Receivers

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071617] R4-071617, HNB and HNB-Macro Propagation Models,
Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October
2007.
[R4-071618] [R4-080409] [R4-080151] [R4-080149]
R4-080149, Ericsson, "Simulation
assumptions for the block of flats scenario, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080150] R4-081344

Version: 003.01.02
79
19.6
Scenario F
Title: Femtocell Uplink Interference to Nearby Femtocell Receivers

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070971] [R4-071185] [R4-071617] R4-071617, HNB and HNB-Macro
Propagation Models, Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
[R4-071618] [R4-080409] [R4-080152] [R4-080153]
19.7
Scenario G
Title: Macrocell Downlink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Femtocell UE Receiver

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071941] R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080149]
R4-080149, Ericsson, "Simulation assumptions for the block of
flats scenario, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
[R4-080150]
19.8
Scenario H
Title: Macrocell Uplink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Femtocell Receiver

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070825] [R4-070971] [R4-071185] [R4-071941]
R4-071941,
"Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink co-existence considering the
impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080097] [R4-080409]
19.9
Scenario I
Title: Femtocell Downlink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Macrocell UE Receiver

3GPP Analysis References: [R4-071211] [R4-071231] [R4-071263] [R4-071540] [R4-071554] [R4071660] [R4-071661]
R4-071661, "Impact of HNB with controlled output power on
macro HSDPA capacity", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#44bis, October 2007.
[R4-072004]
[R4-071941]
[R4-072004] [R4-072025] [R4-080409] [R4-080151]
19.10 Scenario J
Title: Femtocell Uplink Adjacent Channel Interference to the Macrocell NodeB Receiver
3GPP Analysis References: [R4-070971] [R4-071185] [R4-071231] [R4-071619] [R4-071941]
R4-071941, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Home NodeB downlink coexistence considering the impact of HNB HS utilization", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working
Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
[R4-072004] [R4-080409] [R4-080152]
19.11 Scenarios Section 16

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

Version: 003.01.02
80
20. Simulation Parameters and Path Loss Models

This section provides a set of recommended values and path loss models for the interference studies at 850
MHz.
20.1
Simulation parameters
Table 20-1 lists the simulation parameter values that were used in this paper unless otherwise stated in the
text.
Parameter
Value
External Wall Loss
10dB [COST231]
Window Loss
5dB
Maximum Macro Node B Tx Power
43dBm
Maximum Micro Node B Tx Power
38dBm
Macro Node B Antenna Gain
17dBi
Macro Node B Feeder/Cable Losses
3dB
Micro Node B Antenna Gain
2dBi
Micro Antenna Feeder Loss
1dB
Node B sensitivity
Based on reference sensitivity in 3GPP Spec [TS25.104]
Femtocell Noise Figure
8dB (and 12dB)
Macro Node B Loading
50%
Femto Loading
50%
Downlink/Uplink Channel
performance (ie. EbNos & EcNos for
various services)
UE transmission power range
Minimum performance requirements based on 3GPP specs

[TS25.101][TS25.104]
Femtocell Maximum DL powers
Up to 21dBm. Analysis to cover 10dBm, 15dBm & 21dBm

power levels
Maximum co-channel DL deadzone

created by femto for non-femto UEs
[R4-070969]
60dB for 10dBm Femto DL Tx Power

Corresponding co channel deadzone less 33dB ACS loss
Maximum adjacent DL deadzone

created by femto for non-femto UEs
Based on 3GPP spec [TS25.101]
Height of mobile
1.5 m
Height of femto
1m
Height of macro basestation
30 m
Frequency
850 MHz
Building dimensions (width by

length)
Apartment 10m by 10m

House 15 by 15m
Indoor to indoor path loss

modelling
ITU P.1238 [ITU1238]
Indoor to outdoor path loss

modelling
Okumura-Hata [COST231] + Wall/Window loss (d > 1

km)
Outdoor to outdoor path loss

modelling
Outdoor to indoor path loss
modelling
Okumura-Hata [COST231] (d > 1 km)
Table 20-1
Okumura-Hata [COST231] + Wall/Window loss (d > 1

km)
Recommended simulation parameters

Version: 003.01.02
81
20.2
Path Loss Models
Several path loss models are used within the study to calculate the signal attenuation as it propagates
within different environments. These have been chosen from the range of models in the public domain that
are widely accepted within the industry. They are, therefore, not tuned to a specific environment or set of
measurements. The models should, however, be indicative of the realistic range of path loss values that are
likely to be encountered in a realistic deployment. The path loss models are described in this section.
20.2.1
Okumura-Hata
Although the Okumura-Hata (OH) model is a fully empirical model, entirely derived from the best fit of
measurement data without real physical basis, the model remains widely used and is well-accepted by the
mobile cellular community. It is the most widely implemented model and is available as the main model in
most radio planning tools.
The expression of OH for built-up urban areas is as follows:
L = 69.55 + 26.16 log( f ) 13.82 log(hB ) + (44.9 6.55 log(hB )) log(d ) F (hM )
(1.1 log( f ) 0.7) hM (1.56 log( f ) 0.8) medium to small cities
F (hM ) =
2
for large cities
3.2 (log(11.75 h M )) 4.97
The parameters in the above expressions stand for:
f : frequency [MHz]
hB : base station height above ground level [m]
hM : mobile station height above ground [m]
d:
distance from basestation [km]
The range of validity of OH is as follows:
150MHz < f < 1000 MHz

30 m hB 200m
1m hM 10 m
d > 1km
20.2.2
ITU-R P.1238
This model predicts path loss between two indoor terminals assuming an aggregate loss through furniture,
internal walls and doors represented by a power loss exponent N that depends on the type of building
(residential, office, commercial, etc.). Unlike other site-specific models (such as Keenan and Motley 0), this
method does not require the knowledge of the number of walls between the two terminals, and therefore
offers a simpler implementation.
The expression for the path loss is provided below:
where:

Version: 003.01.02
82
In the frequency range 900 MHz, P.1238 suggests using the following power loss coefficients N:
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
--33
20
And the following values for the floor penetration loss factor Lf:
Residential:
Office:
Commercial:
--9 (1 floor), 19 (2 floors), 24 (3 floors)

---
P.1238 doesnt provide power loss coefficient or floor penetration loss for residential buildings at 900 Mhz,
but does say that for the power loss coefficient it is acceptable to use the value given for office buildings.
After some discussion among the members of the simulation team it was decided to use a value of 28,
which is slightly less than that for office buildings but consistent with measured data. It was also decided by
the members of the simulation team that a floor penetration loss factor of 4 dB per floor penetrated would
be used, since that is consistent with measured data. For fading, a log-normal distribution is assumed with a
standard deviation of 8 dB.
20.2.3
System Simulation (Section 16) Path Loss Models
In Section 17 the following simplified path loss models were used:

The free-space component for the micro-urban model is given by
PL fs ,micro (dB ) = 28 + 40 log10 d

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

Version: 003.01.02
83
References
[FF08]
[FF09]
[COST231]
[ITU1238]
[ITU1411]
[Hol06]
[Kob92]
[Stav03]
[Dav97]
[Kee90]
[Lai02]
[Oku68]
[Sha88]
[Law08]
[TR25.814]
[TR25.820]
[TR25.848]
[TR25.942]
[TR101.112]
[TS25.101]
[TS25.104]
[R4-070825]
[R4-070969]
[R4-070970]
[R4-070971]
[R4-071185]
[R4-071211]
[R4-071231]
Small Cell Forum, Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells, December 2008.

Small Cell Forum Working Group 2, Recommended Simulation Parameters 850 MHz,
April 2009.
Commission of the European Communities, Digital Mobile Radio: COST 231 View on the
Evolution Towards 3rd Generation Systems, L-2920, Luxembourg, 1989.
International Telecommunication Union, ITU-R Recommendations P.1238: Propagation
data and prediction models for the planning of indoor radiocommunications systems and
radio local area networks in the frequency range 900MHz to 100GHz, Geneva, 1997.
International Telecommunication Union, ITU-R Recommendations P.1411-3: Propagation
data and prediction methods for the planning of short range outdoor radiocommunication
systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz,
Geneva, 2005.
H. Holma and A. Toskala, HSDPA/HSUPA for UMTS: High Speed Radio Access for Mobile
Communications, J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2006.
H. Kobayashi, G. Patrick, Preliminary Building Attenuation Model, NTIA Technical
Memorandum 92-155, 1992.
Stavrou, S. Saunders, S.R., Factors influencing outdoor to indoor radio wave
propagation, Intl Conference on Antennas and Propagation (ICAP), 2003.
Davidson, A. and Hill C., Measurement of Building Penetration into Medium Buildings at
900 and 1500 MHz, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, February 1997.
J. M. Keenan, A. J. Motley, Radio coverage in buildings, British Telecom Technology
Journal, vol. 8, no. 1, Jan. 1990, pp19-24.
J. Laiho, A. Wacker and T. Novosad, Radio Network Planning and Optimization for UMTS,
J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2002.
Y. Okumura, E. Ohmori, T. Kawano and K. Fukuda, Field strength and its variability in
VHF and UHF land mobile radio service, Rev. Electr. Commun. Lab., Vol. No 16, pp82573, 1968.
K. S. Shanmugan and A. M. Breipohl, Random Signals: Detection, Estimation and Data
Analysis, J. Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1988.
A. Law, Interference Management Evaluation Scenarios, April 2008.
3GPP, Physical layer aspects for evolved Universal Terrestial Radio Access (UTRA). 3rd
Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks,
TR25.814, v7.1.0, 10-2006.
3G Home NodeB Study Item Technical Report, 3rd Generation Partnership Project,
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks, TR25.820 v8.0.0, 03-2008.
3GPP, Physical layer aspects of UTRA High Speed Downlink Packet Access, 3rd
Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks ,
TR25.848 v4.0.0, 03-2001.
3GPP, Radio Frequency (RF) system scenarios, 3rd Generation Partnership Project,
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks, TR25.942, v.7.0.0, 03-2007.
3GPP, Selection procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies of the
UMTS, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access
Networks, TR101.112, v3.2.0, 04-1998.
3GPP, User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception (FDD), 3rd Generation
Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks, TS25.101,
v7.12.0, 05-2008.
3GPP, Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception (FDD), 3rd Generation
Partnership Project, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Networks, TR 25.104,
v7.9.0, 01-2008.
R4-070825, "Home BTS consideration and deployment scenarios for UMTS", Orange, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43, May 2007.
R4-070969, Home B output power, Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #43bis, R4-070969, June 2007.
R4-070970, "Initial simulation results for Home Node B receiver sensitivity", Ericsson,
3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, June 2007.
R4-070971, "Initial simulation results for Home Node B receiver blocking", Ericsson, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #43bis, June 2007.
R4-071185, "The analysis for Home NodeB receiver blocking requirements", Huawei, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44, August 2007.
R4-071211, "Recommendations on transmit power of Home NodeB", Alcatel-Lucent, 3GPP
TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44, August 2007.
R4-071231, "Open and Closed Access for Home NodeBs", "Nortel, Vodafone", , 3GPP TSGRAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44, August 2007.

Version: 003.01.02
84
[R4-071253]
[R4-071263]
[R4-071540]
[R4-071554]
[R4-071578]
[R4-071617]
[R4-071618]
[R4-071619]
[R4-071660]
[R4-071661]
[R4-072004]
[R4-071941]
[R4-072004]
[R4-072025]
[R4-080097]
[R4-080409]
[R4-080151]
[R4-080152]
[R4-080153]
[R4-080154]
[R4-080149]
[R4-080150]
[R4-080154]
[R4-080939]
[R4-080940]
[R4-081344]
[R4-081345]
[R4-081346]
[R4-081597]
R4-071253, "Minutes of Home NodeB/ ENodeB Telephone Conference #3. Aug 7, 2007",
Motorola, , 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44, August 2007.
R4-071263, "System simulation results for Home NodeB interference scenario #2",
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44, August 2007.
R4-071540, "LTE Home Node B downlink simulation results with flexible Home Node B
power", Nokia Siemens Networks, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
R4-071554, "The analysis for low limit for Home NodeB transmit power requirement",
Huawei, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-071578, "Simulation results of macro-cell and co-channel Home NodeB with power
configuration and open access", Alcatel-Lucent, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
R4-071617, HNB and HNB-Macro Propagation Models, Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSGRAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-071618, "Home Node B HSDPA Performance Analysis", Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSGRAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-071619, "Analysis of Uplink Performance under Co-channel Home NodeB-Macro
Deployment", Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
R4-071660, "Impact of HNB with fixed output power on macro HSDPA capacity", Ericsson,
3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-071661, "Impact of HNB with controlled output power on macro HSDPA capacity",
Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #44bis, October 2007.
R4-072004, "Performance Evaluation about HNB coexistence with Macro networks",
Huawei, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
R4-072025, "Proposed HNB Output Power Range", Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN
Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #45, November 2007.
R4-080097, "Minutes of Home NodeB/ ENodeB" Telephone Conference #7, Jan 31, 2008.
R4-080409, "Simple Models for Home NodeB Interference Analysis", Qualcomm Europe,
3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
R4-080151, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to macro UE downlink co-existence within
the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting
#46, February 2008.
R4-080152, "Simulation results for Home NodeB uplink performance in case of adjacent
channel deployment within the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working
Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
R4-080153, "Simulation results for Home NodeB uplink performance in case of co-channel
deployment within the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4
(Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
R4-080154, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Macro NodeB uplink interference
within the block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
R4-080149, Ericsson, "Simulation assumptions for the block of flats scenario, 3GPP TSGRAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46, February 2008.
R4-080150, "Simulation results for the Home NodeB downlink performance within the
block of flats scenario", Ericsson, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #46,
February 2008.
R4-080154, Ericsson, "Simulation results for Home NodeB to Macro NodeB uplink
interference within the block of flats scenario", 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
R4-080939, Ericsson, Downlink co-existence between macro cells and adjacent channel
Home NodeBs, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47, May 2008.
R4-080940, Ericsson, Downlink co-existence between a realistic macro cell network and
adjacent channel Home NodeBs, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47,
May 2008.
R4-081344, HNB and Macro Downlink performance with Calibrated HNB Transmit Power,
Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.
R4-081345, HNB and Macro Uplink Performance with Adaptive Attenuation at HNB,
Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.
R4-081346, Interference Management Methods for HNBs, Qualcomm Europe, 3GPP TSGRAN Working Group 4 (Radio) meeting #47bis, June 2008.
R4-081597, Airvana, Vodafone, ipAccess, Impact of uplink co-channel interference from
an un-coordinated UE on the Home Node B, 3GPP TSG-RAN Working Group 4 (Radio)
meeting #47bis, June 2008.

Version: 003.01.02
85

003-Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells High-Band

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

003-Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells High-Band

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SMALL CELL FORUM

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Small Cell

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Scenario F: Femtocell UE Uplink Interference to Nearby

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Table Title ..................................................................................... 5

Femtocell Deployments in Shared Spectrum ...................................... 6

Femtocell Deployments in non-Shared Spectrum ................................ 7

Macro Node B assumptions and transmit EIRP calculation .................. 11

EIRP for the femtocell ................................................................... 12

Required Ec/No for voice connection ............................................... 13

Assumptions for Scenario B ........................................................... 15

MUE link budget at the femtocell receiver. ....................................... 16

FUE transmitter power requirements in order to hold a voice call ........ 16

Maximum co-channel DL deadzone created by the femtocell for MUEs,

Link budget for HSUPA .................................................................. 18

Macro Node B noise floor ............................................................... 27

Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B .............................. 28

Noise rise calculation for Scenario D (femto UE is transmitting at

Macro UE Tx power 1,000m away from macro Node B receiver by

Femtocell Sensitivity and Noise Rise at AP1 ..................................... 36

Macrocell Downlink Interference to an adjacent channel Femtocell UE

Uplink radio link-budget for AMR 12.2 kbps RAB ............................... 44

Maximum Macro NB MUE separation for a given maximum

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

UE receiver performance requirement (HSDPA), [TS25.101] .............. 53

Macro Node B noise floor ............................................................... 57

Femto UE TX power 1000 m from macro Node B .............................. 58

Noise rise calculation for Scenario D1 (femto UE is transmitting at

Pilot acquisition statistics at 850 MHz for dense-urban model with 24

Coverage statistics for dense-urban model with 24 active HNBs and

Recommended simulation parameters ............................................. 81

Typical femtocell deployment scenario. ............................................. 1

Received signal strengths at UE, from macrocell and femtocell. .......... 12

HSDPA throughput vs. UE to femtocell distance for various femtocell

Interference Scenario B, voice call .................................................. 17

HSUPA simulation, Scenario B. E-DPDCH Ec/No compared to

Illustration of the interference analysis for Scenario C ....................... 22

Path loss model ........................................................................... 23

Interference Scenario D ................................................................ 26

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

1. Femtocells, Femtocell Access Points and the Small Cell Forum

What are Femtocell Access Points?

Typical femtocell deployment scenario.

What do Femtocells offer?

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

What is the Small Cell Forum?

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

2. Objectives and methods of this paper

The principal objectives of this study are:

To develop an industry position on the interference risks from femtocell deployments.

Report title: Interference Management in UMTS Femtocells

Summary of RAN4 conclusions

Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as

The femtocell receiver must reach a compromise between

Downlink interference from a closed-access femtocell will result in

Noise rise on the Macro Layer will significantly reduce macro

This scenario has received less coverage than the macro

It is difficult to avoid co-channel interference between CSG

Macrocell DL interference can generally be overcome, as long as