IEEE ICC 2015 - Workshop on 5G & Beyond - Enabling Technologies and Applications
Radio Access for Ultra-Reliable and Low-Latency
5G Communications
Niklas A. Johansson and Y.-P. Eric Wang
Ericsson Research
San Jose, California, USA
{niklas.a.johansson; eric.yp.wang}@ericsson.com
Abstract—Fifth generation wireless networks are currently
being developed to handle a wide range of new use cases. One
important emerging area is ultra-reliable communication with
guaranteed low latencies well beyond what current wireless
technologies can provide. In this paper, we explore the viability
of using wireless communication for low-latency, high-reliability
communication in an example scenario of factory automation,
and outline important design choices for such a system. We show
that it is possible to achieve very low error rates and latencies
over a radio channel, also when considering fast fading signal
and interference, channel estimation errors, and antenna
correlation. The most important tool to ensure high reliability is
diversity, and low latency is achieved by using short transmission
intervals without retransmissions, which, however, introduces a
natural restriction on coverage area.
Keywords—5G; machine-type communication; machine-to-
machine communication; reliability; diversity; latency
I. INTRODUCTION
Current generation of wireless technologies is being
evolved toward a fifth generation (5G) for better serving end
users and transforming our society [1-3]. In addition to
enhancing now essential services such as voice and mobile
broadband, there has been strong momentum for improving
wireless technologies for machine-type (or machine-to-
machine) communications [1]. A shared vision is that by
providing an Internet of Things (IoT) to connect various types
of machines, devices, or sensors, the productivity and
efficiency in industries, and our society in general, will be
improved.
A range of 5G machine-type communication (MTC) use
cases, such as smart grid power distribution automation,
industrial manufacturing and control, intelligent transportation
systems, remote control of machines, and remote surgery, are
characterized by the need for reliable real-time communication
with high requirements on latency, reliability, and availability.
For example, the very stringent requirements for factory
automation include reliability corresponding to a maximum
block error rate of 10-9 and latency down to a millisecond (ms)
or less [1,4-5].
Traditionally, wireless networks have not been designed
and engineered to achieve such low latency and high reliability
simultaneously. For example, the state-of-the-art LTE network
can achieve a block error rate of approximately 1-10% when
the end-to-end latency is limited to a few milliseconds [6]. For
978-1-4673-6305-1/15/$31.00 ©2015 IEEE 1184
Erik Eriksson and Martin Hessler
Ericsson Research
Linköping, Sweden
{erik.eriksson; martin.hessler}@ericsson.com
relaxed latency requirements, LTE can eventually achieve any
level of reliability through retransmissions at various protocol
layers. However, achieving high reliability in a fading radio
channel under tight latency constraints presents a new
challenge and new radio access designs need to be developed,
which is the focus in this paper.
To explore the viability of using radio technology for
reliable real-time communication and to outline important
design choices of such a solution, we will investigate
communication for automation of manufacturing cells, a
scenario with some of the toughest requirements on latency and
reliability. Factory automation is real-time control of machines
and systems in fast production. Measurements and control
commands need to be applied quickly, and fail-safe transfer of
sensor and actuator signals is important. Small amounts of
data, 10-20 bytes, are communicated with latency as low as
0.5-1 ms and reliability of not higher than 10-9 probability of
failed packet delivery within the latency bound [4].
To enable an end-to-end latency of 1 ms or less, the entire
system needs to be designed for low latency, including
multiple access technique, radio access network, backhaul,
storage, etc. In this work, we assume that the transmission time
needs to be on the order of 100 µs to allow for processing
delays in the transmitter, receiver, scheduler, and other system
components [5]. Therefore we target a 100 µs transmission
time, and this time interval must also include any
retransmissions of the same packet. The reliability requirement
targeted will be 10-9 residual block error rate after potential
retransmissions, ensuring that a 10-9 maximum probability of
packet delivery failure within the latency bound is achieved.
We focus on a packet size of 100 bits, which means that the air
interface must support a bit rate of 1 Mbps, otherwise the
transmission time requirement of 100 µs will not be met. The
air interface is furthermore assumed to be based on OFDM to
avoid inter-symbol interference, provided that the cyclic prefix
of an OFDM symbol is longer than the delay spread of the
channel.
II. RELIABILITY AND DIVERSITY
Diversity, the ability to exploit channel variations in time,
frequency, and space for communication robustness, is the
most powerful tool in the physical layer for achieving high
reliability communications in a fading channel. For wireless
communications, a Rayleigh fading channel represents the
most challenging case in terms of achieving high reliability due
 IEEE ICC 2015 - Workshop on 5G & Beyond - Enabling Technologies and Applications
Fig. 1. CDF of fading gain in Rayleigh fading channels of various diversity
orders.
to large fading dips. The cumulative distribution functions
(CDF) of fading gains in Rayleigh fading channels of various
diversity orders are shown in Fig. 1. It can be seen that without
diversity, fading gains of -90 dB or lower occur with 10-9
probability. To mitigate fading, a 90 dB margin is thus needed
for guaranteeing lower than 10-9 probability of fading-induced
outage, which contributes to packet error events. With diversity
orders 8 and 16, the needed margins reduce significantly to
18 dB and 9 dB, respectively.
Diversity may be achieved via spatial diversity using
multiple transmit and receive antennas, via frequency diversity
using multiple resource blocks of independent fading
coefficients, and via time diversity using time slots of
independent fading coefficients. For the targeted very low
latency requirement, it is however difficult to exploit time
diversity. Note that receive diversity not only achieves a
diversity gain, but also provides a receiver processing gain due
to coherent combining of the desired signal. The receiver
processing gain results in a higher receiver signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) after coherent combining.
In a smart factory setup we assume that it is feasible to
achieve diversity orders beyond 10, for example, by installing a
number of antennas per base station mounted to the factory
ceiling. On the device side it will likely depend on the type of
device if it is feasible to integrate multiple antennas.
Transmit diversity can be achieved with space-frequency
codes like the Alamouti code [7]. The Alamouti code however
is limited to diversity order 2. When using more than
2 transmit antennas, forward error correction (FEC) coding can
be combined with the Alamouti code to ensure that the coded
bits that may affect the decision on a particular information bit
are transmitted from all the transmit antennas. Thus, by
providing the needed diversity for the information bits, the full
transmit diversity gain can be achieved, which is important for
ultra-reliable communication.
To further increase diversity, frequency diversity can be
exploited by mapping the coded bits to multiple resource
blocks that are sufficiently separated in frequency to have
1185
Fig. 2. Required SNR for achieving a packet error rate of 10-9 when
transmitting 100 bits in 100 µs in a Rayleigh fading channel for different
antenna configurations based on maximum ratio combining. To separate the
effect of diversity gain from the receiver processing gain, results are
presented both with and without the receiver processing gain.
independent channel coefficients. According to [8], channel
delay spreads in indoor industrial environments can be up to
300 ns, which implies that a coherence bandwidth of 3 MHz or
more can be expected.
Required signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for achieving packet
error rate of 10-9 in channels of various spatial diversity orders
are shown in Fig. 2, where 100 information bits are transmitted
with a 100 µs transmission time interval with a rate-1/2,
constraint-length 7 convolutional code and QPSK, which
requires 1.5 MHz bandwidth, if 30% of the signal is assumed
to be overhead. In the cases of having more than two transmit
antennas, Alamouti code is used across a pair of transmit
antennas and FEC coding is used across antenna pairs to fully
exploit diversity. This however results in a small SNR penalty
in the rate-1/2 coding case compared to the case where each
coded bit has full diversity. For example, the 4x1 case has a
higher required SNR than the 2x2 case excluding the receiver
processing gain. As illustrated, diversity reduces the required
SNR significantly. A system with 8 base station antennas and
2 device antennas needs an SNR of 11.0 dB and 2.7 dB in the
downlink and uplink, respectively.
III. CODING AND MODULATION
Though many modern communication systems (HSPA,
LTE, 802.11/AC) use Turbo or LDPC codes as FEC for
data [9-10], it is preferred to use convolutional codes in the low
latency and high reliability MTC use case. Convolutional codes
have similar performance as Turbo and LDPC codes for block
lengths that are typical for this use case (e.g., up to a few
hundred bits). In contrast to convolutional codes, Turbo and
LDPC codes may for certain configurations have an error floor
[11-12] that make these codes less efficient when the packet
error rate shall reach very low levels (e.g. 10-9). Considering
latency, convolutional code decoding has a shorter delay than
the iterative decoder typically used for Turbo and LDPC
decoding. This is partly due to lower decoding complexity. But
 IEEE ICC 2015 - Workshop on 5G & Beyond - Enabling Technologies and Applications

another important property of convolutional codes is that the

decoder can process the code block while it is being received,
and obtain decoded bits with a very small delay. This requires
that interleaving is only performed over frequency, not over
time. For control channels that have block lengths lower than
10 bits, block codes are preferred due to better performance
and manageable decoding complexity.
Another important use of coding is to harvest diversity. As
discussed above, diversity is a powerful tool for achieving high
reliability, and to achieve transmit and frequency diversity in
an OFDM system, it is essential to spread the coded bits over
different diversity channels. Ideally, if the correct and
erroneous code words differ in d positions, it is desired that
these d positions are mapped to independent frequency bins or
transmit antennas [13]. If a deployment has M diversity
channels, the code rate needs to be low enough to have free
distance (convolutional codes) or minimum Hamming distance
(block codes) sufficiently larger than M.
Fig. 3. Required S/N0 versus bandwidth for a number of coding and
Code rate selection should also take modulation selection modulation schemes for transmitting 100 bits in 100 µs in a Rayleigh fading
into account. Modulation and coding selection impacts both the channel with 8 transmit antennas and 1 receive antenna. (For the same marker
style, going from right to left, are BPSK, QPSK, 16-QAM, 64-QAM, and
required received signal power and the required bandwidth. In 256-QAM, respectively.)
general, higher modulation order and code rate require
additional signal power, but reduces the needed bandwidth, requirements. Rate 1/3 coding has only somewhat lower
while low modulation order and code rate require more required power, but requires 50% more bandwidth. Increasing
bandwidth but lower received signal power. When it comes to bandwidth further provides very small reductions in required
modulation, there are practical limitations such as transmitter signal power in this case due to that there is only small
and receiver impairments which typically limit the highest difference in coding gains between rates 1/2, and 1/3
modulation order. For example, in LTE the modulation with convolutional codes.
the highest modulation order is 256-QAM [14]. Thus, in our
study, higher order modulations only include modulations up to In Fig. 3 we also see that high modulation order is useful
256-QAM, which together with a highest code rate of 1 sets a for users in good radio conditions, where it may be used to
fundamental limit on the minimum bandwidth needed for low improve spectral efficiency. With 2.6 dB more received power
latency communication, independent of signal power. The it is possible to use half the bandwidth by using 16-QAM and
selection of code rate and modulation should also take into rate-1/2 coding. For the same bandwidth, there are other coding
account the above-mentioned requirements on code rate for and modulation options, but they all require higher received
transmit diversity and frequency diversity gains. power.

Fig. 3 shows the required S/N0 for modulation schemes up to
256-QAM and code rates 1, 1/2, and 1/3, for a setup with one
transmit antenna and eight receive antennas, where a 100 bit
packet is transmitted in 100 µs over a frequency-flat Rayleigh
fading channel, and where 30% of the signal is overhead. Here,
S represents the received signal power and N0 is the one-sided
noise power spectral density. Thus, S/N0 is a ratio between
power and power spectral density, which can be related to the
signal-to-noise power ratio by S/N0 = (S/N)B, where B is the
bandwidth of the desired signal and N is the power of the
noise, N = N0B. Comparison among different coding and
modulation schemes based on S/N0 directly translates to
coverage comparison, as S and N0 are not dependent of the
signal bandwidth. We see that from these combinations, QPSK
and rate-1/2 coding achieves one of the lowest S/N0
IV. HYBRID ARQ
Traditionally, automatic repeat request (ARQ) functionality
has been used to guarantee reliability by retransmitting the
packet until the receiver acknowledges correct reception. In
many systems, Hybrid ARQ (HARQ) has been implemented,
where ARQ is combined with forward error correction (FEC)
coding so that retransmissions provide new redundancy
information which provides an additional coding and
accumulation gain when the receiver jointly combines and
decodes all transmissions of a packet. This is referred to as
Incremental Redundancy (IR) [15]. Since high reliability can
be achieved also without HARQ, HARQ can be seen as a way
to reduce the amount of energy and radio resources that is
needed to reach a given reliability target.

1186
 IEEE ICC 2015 - Workshop on 5G & Beyond - Enabling Technologies and Applications
Fig. 4. Required SNR versus different packet error rate targets for a number
of antenna configuration in a Rayleigh fading channel (QPSK, code rate 1/2).
If there are no strict upper limits on the allowable latency, a
system can target rather high packet error rate for each
individual transmission, for example by using a high initial
code rate, and rely on HARQ to achieve the desired residual
packet error rate after a maximum number of retransmissions.
Since a significant number of packets will not need to use the
maximum allowed number of retransmissions, and often only
the initial transmission may be enough, this opportunistic
technique can provide significant gains in terms of average
transmitted energy due to the large difference in required SNR
for different target error levels. As shown in Fig. 4, the
difference between 10-3 and 10-9 is still more than 6 dB even at
diversity order 16, which means that in 99.9% of the cases the
transmission can be correctly decoded already with 6 dB lower
received energy.
We are interested in relating the saving in average
transmitted energy to the reduction in average channel usage,
i.e. time-frequency resources. From Fig. 3, we see that QPSK
with rate-1/2 coding (represented by the red square) is the most
efficient in terms of channel usage, as it has the lowest required
signal power while consuming the least bandwidth. We will
use this configuration as the baseline. For simplicity, in our
discussion below, assume there is no delay between HARQ
retransmissions, and thus one can divide a latency budget into
K HARQ transmissions with the transmission time interval
(TTI) of each HARQ transmission equal to one Kth of the
latency budget. For example, if each individual transmission is
based on rate-1 coding with QPSK, then with two HARQ
transmissions and IR, one can get the performance according to
the baseline configuration. Also, each HARQ transmission
only consumes 50% of the channel usage compared to the
baseline since the TTI of each transmission is one-half of the
baseline. In cases when the SNR of the first transmission is
good enough, the packet is received correctly, and there is no
need for a second transmission. This means that time-
frequency resources can be saved with HARQ, but the saving
is limited to 50% when QPSK is used in both HARQ
transmissions.
1187
Fig. 5. Impact of channel estimation on link performance for 1x8 antenna
configuration. (QPSK, rate-1/2 coding)
One may argue that a bigger saving in channel usage may
be achieved by using HARQ with a higher order modulation in
each transmission. For example, each transmission may be
based on 16-QAM with rate-1 coding, which requires ¼ of the
TTI compared to the baseline. In the cases when all four
transmissions are needed for correct decoding, the performance
is characterized by 16-QAM and rate-1/4 coding. The
reduction in required signal power of going below rate-1/2 to
lower code rates is small, which we see by comparing the
rate-1/2 and rate-1/3 results for 16-QAM in Fig. 3. This means
that 16-QAM with rate-1/4 would require close to the same
S/N0 and signal power as 16-QAM with rate-1/2. Comparing
that to the S/N0 for QPSK with rate-1/2, we see that even when
utilizing all four transmissions, a higher signal power would be
required with this HARQ setup than the baseline. If this higher
received signal power level cannot be ensured, the reliability
requirement cannot be guaranteed, and this is not a valid
transmission option. On the other hand, if the additional signal
power is available, the baseline case should instead be
16-QAM with rate-1/2 coding, and the potential reduction in
time-frequency resources is again limited to 50%. To
summarize, HARQ can provide a gain in terms of time-
frequency resource utilization, but the gain is more limited than
for use cases without strict latency constraints.
V. PRACTICAL LIMITATIONS
The results presented in previous sections are based on an
ideal transmitter and receiver. In this section, we further study
whether imperfection due to practical limitations may limit the
achievable reliability. Specifically, the effects of channel
estimation, antenna correlation, and interference are
considered. Throughout this section, we use QPSK and rate-1/2
coding in all our evaluations.
Fig. 5 illustrates the impact of channel estimation on link
performance. Here we assume a simple channel estimation
algorithm which estimates the channel coefficient based on
averaging the received signal over a number of resource
elements (RE) [9] carrying pilot symbols which have known
 IEEE ICC 2015 - Workshop on 5G & Beyond - Enabling Technologies and Applications
Fig. 6. Impact of antenna correlation on link performance for the 8x2 and
2x8 antenna configurations with QPSK and rate-1/2 coding.
modulation values, within the coherence bandwidth. More
averaging reduces estimation noise, and thus results in better
receiver performance. It can be seen in Fig. 5 that channel
estimation gives rise to bigger degradation in performance for
lower target packet error rate. However, with sufficient
averaging in channel estimation, the degradation in
performance can be made small (e.g. less than 2.5 dB at 10-9
packet error rate with averaging over 12 REs).
Performance degradation due to antenna correlation is shown
in Fig. 6. Here we illustrate the effect of receive antenna
correlation for an 8x2 antenna configuration as well as the
effect of transmit antenna correlation for a 2x8 antenna
configuration. We see that with antenna correlation of 0.5, the
packet error rate slope is approximately the same as when there
is no antenna correlation, although there is a small SNR
penalty at lower packet error rate. This indicates that the
diversity order is very much preserved. With antenna
correlation as high as 0.7, there is a more noticeable effect on
the packet error rate slope. However even in this case, the SNR
penalty at 10-9 packet error rate is approximately 2 dB.
If the system is operated in presence of time-varying
interference, the variations of the interference has an impact on
the required signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR). As
we see in Table I, if static noise is replaced by frequency-flat
Rayleigh fading interference, the required SINR increases
modestly by around 2.8 dB in the case of 10-9 packet error rate.
If the interference channel instead would have a line-of-sight
TABLE I. ADDITIONAL SINR REQUIRED TO COPE WITH RAYLEIGH
FADING INTERFERENCE INSTEAD OF STATIC NOISE OF THE SAME AVERAGE
POWER. (1X8 ANTENNA CONFIGURATION WITH QPSK AND RATE-1/2 CODING)
Packet Error Rate Additional SINR
-7
10 2.5 dB
-8
10 2.7 dB
10-9 2.8 dB
1188
TABLE II. LINK BUDGET BASED ON QPSK, CODE RATE ½,
8 BASE STATION ANTENNAS, 2 DEVICE ANTENNAS
Downlink Uplink
1 Transmit power (dBm) 30 23
Thermal noise power
2 -174 -174
spectral density (dBm/Hz)
3 Noise figure (dB) 9 5
Reciever noise power
4 spectral density, N0 (dBm/Hz) -165 -169
(2) + (3)
5 Signal bandwidth, B (Hz) 1500000 1500000
Noise power (dBm)
6 -103.2 -107.2
N = N0B
7 Required S/N (dB) 11.0 2.7
8 Margin for channel estimation (dB) 3 3
Supported coupling loss (dB)
9 119.2 124.5
(1) - ((6) + (7) + (8))
component and be more of Rician type, the variations would be
lower, and the required SINR would be closer to the case with
static noise.
Another aspect of interference is that when the interference
is generated by the system itself, such as in inter-cell
interference, there can be an advantage of expanding the
bandwidth beyond what is needed for noise-only operation.
When designing the system, the maximum transmit power
from a node can be assumed to be independent of bandwidth,
and by expanding the bandwidth, for example by using lower
code rates, or repetitions and spreading, the power spectral
density (PSD) of the signal decreases. If this signal is also
generating interference in the system, the PSD of that
interference also decreases. In noise-only operation the gain in
SNR from coherently combining frequency domain repetitions
is offset by the decrease in SNR per repetition that is the result
of distributing a fixed signal power over a wider bandwidth,
since noise has a constant PSD. However, since the
interference PSD decreases with bandwidth expansion, and
since interference can be assumed to be statistically
uncorrelated over frequency, SINR after combining increases
in an interference-limited scenario. The drawback of
bandwidth expansion for handling intra-system interference is
that it requires more bandwidth which can make it an
inefficient solution for handling inter-cell interference.
VI. LATENCY AND RELIABILITY IMPACT ON LINK BUDGET
In this paper, a radio access scheme achieving low-latency
and high-reliability is described. It utilizes margins and
diversity to handle variations and to ensure that the service
requirements are fulfilled. It is interesting to compare this
solution to other current wireless systems, such as an LTE
mobile broadband network.
In Table II we use the data obtained in this study to
calculate the maximum supported coupling loss for a wireless
system with a packet error rate of 10-9 or less, and a
transmission time of 100 µs for 100 bit packets. The data rate is
 IEEE ICC 2015 - Workshop on 5G & Beyond - Enabling Technologies and Applications
1 Mbps, and we see that the requirements can be fulfilled up to
a coupling loss of 119-125 dB.
Compared to LTE (Releases 8-12) which supports a
coupling loss of 140.7 dB with a data rate of around 20
kbps [16], we see that the coverage of this new system will be
lower. While a mobile broadband system can still be
considered functional at data rates of 20 kbps, the latency
requirements of the factory automation scenario necessitates a
minimum air interface bit rate of 1 Mbps, which naturally
reduces the service area.
If a typical LTE system is adapted to the above
assumptions on transmit power, typical data rates for the
coupling loss in Table I are around 3-5 Mbps. We see that the
much higher reliability of the new system is partly achieved by
trading off data rate, but the main contribution comes from the
diversity focused approach, in particular the significantly
higher spatial diversity achieved with an increased number of
base station antennas.
Although we have focused our discussions on the packet
size of 100 information bits, the findings in this paper can be
generalized to large packet sizes. Such generalization might be
interesting as in certain scenarios, the use case itself may
require sending more bits in a given time interval, or the higher
layer (e.g. security layer) may result in more overhead. In
general, the required signal power and bandwidth both scale
with the packet size. For example, when the packet size
increases from 100 bits to 1000 bits, the required SNR
increases by approximately 10 dB and the bandwidth increases
by a factor of 10.
VII. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have shown that it is feasible, with a
rather simple air interface design, to achieve very low error
rates and latencies over a radio channel. We consider OFDM
with transmission time intervals as low as 100 µs. Practical
limitations such as fast fading signal and interference, channel
estimation errors, and antenna correlation have been shown not
to prohibit a wireless solution to meet the very stringent
requirements for factory automation communication.
Guaranteeing low error rates at fixed latencies comes at a
cost. Although the data packets may be rather small, the short
required transmission time results in a rather high required air
interface bit rate. Resource efficiency is also traded off for
reliability. Both these factors limit the coverage area of the
proposed solution compared to standard mobile broadband
services. Furthermore, a sufficiently high number of antennas
are needed, primarily at the base station, to ensure a high level
of spatial diversity.
To fulfill the latency requirement, it is also important to
design the solution to provide frequent enough transmission
opportunities and short transmission time intervals. The signal
1189
structure should maximize the available processing time and
hence allow an early start of the receiver processing. Moreover,
the design should also avoid computationally demanding
receiver algorithms.
A design as described in this paper will enable a next
generation 5G system to address new use cases requiring ultra-
reliable and low-latency communications.
REFERENCES
[1] E. Dahlman, G. Mildh, S. Parkvall, J. Peisa, J. Sachs, Y. Selén, and J.
Sköld, “5G wireless access: requirements and realization,” IEEE
Commun. Mag., vol. 52, No. 12, pp. 42–47, Dec. 2014.
[2] J. Thompson et al., “5G wireless communication systems: prospects and
challenges,” IEEE Commun. Mag., Feb. 2014, pp. 62–64.
[3] R. Baldemair et al., “Evolving wireless communications: addressing the
challenges and expectations of the future,” IEEE Vehic. Tech. Mag.,
vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 24–30, Mar. 2013.
[4] ETSI TR 102 889-2 V1.1.1, “Electromagnetic compatibility and radio
spectrum matters (ERM); system reference document; short range
devices (SRD); part 2: Technical characteristics for SRD equipment for
wireless industrial applications using technologies different from ultra-
wide band (UWB).”
[5] F. Fettweis and S. Alamouti, “5G: personal mobile internet beyond what
cellular did to telephony,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, No. 2, pp.
140–145, Feb. 2014.
[6] S. Parkvall, A. Furuskär, and E. Dahlman, “Evolution of LTE toward
IMT-Advanced,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 49, No. 2, pp. 84–91, Feb.
2011.
[7] S. M. Alamouti, “A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless
communications,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol.16, pp.1451-
1458, Oct. 1998.
[8] Sexton, D.; Mahony, M.; Lapinski, M.; Werb, J., "Radio channel quality
in industrial wireless sensor networks," Sensors for Industry Conference,
2005 , vol., no., pp.88,94, 8-10 Feb. 2005.
[9] E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, J. Sköld, and P. Beming, 3G Evolution: HSPA
and LTE for Mobile Broadband, 2nd ed., Academic Press, Oxford,
2008.
[10] E. Perahia, R. Stacey, Next Generation Wireless LANs, 2nd ed.,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2013.
[11] R. Garello, F. Chiaraluce, P. Pierleoni, M. Scaloni, and S. Benedetto,
“On error floor and free distance of turbo codes,” Proc. IEEE ICC 2001,
Helsinki, Finland, Jun. 2001.
[12] T. Richardson and R. Urbanke, “The renaissance of Gallager’s low-
density parity-check codes,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 41, No. 8, pp.
126–131, Aug. 2003.
[13] E. Malkamaki and H. Leib, “Coded diversity on block-fading channels,”
IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 771-781, Mar. 1999.
[14] T. Nakamura, S. Nagata, A. Benjebbour, Y. Kishiyama, T. Hai, S.
Xiaodong, Y. Ning, and L. Nan, “Trends in small cell enhancements in
LTE Advanced,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 51, No. 2, pp. 98–105, Feb.
2013.
[15] D. M. Mandelbaum, “Adaptive-feedback coding scheme using
incremental redundancy,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-20, no. 3, pp.
388–389, May 1974
[16] 3GPP Technical Report 36.888, “Study on provision of low-cost
machine-type communications (MTC) user equipments (UEs) based on
LTE (release 12),” v.12.0.0, June 2013.