Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE
Lutz Schnerstedt (Presenter), Andreas Weber, Michael Ohm, Thorsten Wild Bell Labs Germany, Stuttgart
12.2.2009 (VDE/ITG-Fachgruppe 5.2.4 at ComNets RWTH Aachen)
Agenda
1. Open And Closed Loop Transmission in LTE 2. Physical Layer Results 3. System Level Performance 4. Conclusion
Open And Closed Loop Transmission in LTE
Pilot Feedback: PMI, CQI, Rank SFBC and PARC, TX-Diversity (Closed Loop) and PSRC
3 | Presentation Title | Month 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
Pilot Feedback
eNodeB UE
Uplink feedback: PMI, CQI, Rank Comment Freq. Resolution Subband Available in open loop Available in closed loop
PMI CQI Rank
Prefered precoding matrix indicator Channel quality indicator
Index of best Tx weight
X X
X X X
Supported transport format No. of spatial streams supported
Subband
Full band
4 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
Downlink MIMO Modes
LTE-MIMO
2 x 2 and 4 x 2 (TX x RX)
Open loop
Closed loop
Single stream Rank 1 OL Beamforming
Multi stream Rank 2-4 Single & multi stream
OL Tx Diversity
Codebook-based linear precoding
SFBC Space Frequency Block Coding
CDD Cyclic Delay Diversity
PARC (Per Antenna Rate Control)
Rank 1: CL Tx Diversity Rank 2-4: PSRC (Per Stream Rate Control)
5 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
Comparing Downlink MIMO Modes
Single Stream OL SFBC
Uses diversity by orthogonally transmitting one data stream over two transmit antennas, to reduce dynamic of the received power.
CL Tx Diversity
Tries to maximize the received power at the mobile by applying precoding (based on PMI feedback). Sends correlated symbols on transmit antennas.
Dual Stream OL PARC
Uses diversity to transmit two data streams over two transmit antennas.
CL PSRC
Uses diversity to transmit two data streams over two transmit antennas. Tries to maximize the received signal quality of the data streams at the mobile by applying precoding (based on PMI feedback).
6 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009 All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
Linear Precoding (for PARC, PSRC and CL Tx Diversity)
Complex linear transmit antenna weights Distributes data streams over the antennas 2 Tx with 2 layers example for OFDM:
1 Codebook index Number of layers 1 0 2
1 1 2 1
1 1 2 1 1 1 2 j
1 1 2 j
1 1 0 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
1 1 1 2 j j
-
R8 codebook for 2 Tx
(3GPP TS 36.211)
7 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
Physical Layer Results
Open Loop Single Layer
8 | Presentation Title | Month 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
SFBC 2x1, 2x2 versus Single Antenna 1x1, 1x2
Legend: SFBC, 1RX: SFBC 2x1 SFBC, 2Rx: SFBC 2x2
BLER 10
0
VehA, 120km/h, =0.1, =0.1, QPSK, R=1/3 tx rx
SISO: 1x1 SIMO: 1x2 Gain of SFBC at BLER = 0.1: SFBC 2x2 is 1.1dB better than 1x2. SFBC 2x1 is 1.8dB better than 1x1.
10
-1
SFBC, 2 Rx SFBC, 1 Rx SIS O SIMO, MRC -2
10
-10
-5
0 SNR [dB]
10
9 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
System Level Performance
Open Loop and Closed Loop Single/Dual Layer
10 | Presentation Title | Month 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
Cell border throughput over spectral efficiency 3km/h
Simulation Assumptions:
C ell B order T hroug hput [kbits /s ] 300
210 UEs in 21 sectors ISD 500m 46dBm per Antenna 10MHz bandwidth Round Robin Scheduler Single Antenna 1x2 SFBC 2x2 CL Tx Diversity 2x2
280
260
240
S ing le Antenna 3 km/h S F B C 3 k m/h
220 S F B C _P AR C 3 km/h 200 T x D iv 3 km/h T x D iv _P S R C 3 k m/h 180 0.95
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.15
1.20
1.25
S pec tral E ffic ienc y [bits /s /Hz ]
11 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
Cumulative Probability of SINR
1.0 0.9 0.8 C umulative P robability 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 P er S u bc arrier S INR meas u red at D ec oder In pu t [dB ]
12 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009 All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
S in g le A n ten n a SFBC C L T X D iv
Cell border throughput over spectral efficiency 250km/h
150 C ell B order T hroug hput [k bits /s ] S ing le Antenna 250 km/h S F B C 250 k m/h 145 T x D iv 250 km/h
140
135 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 S pec tral E ffic ienc y [bits /s /Hz ]
13 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009 All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
SFBC versus CL Tx Diversity
220 210 C ell B order T hroug h put [kbits /s ] 200 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 S pec tral E ffic ienc y [bits /s /Hz ]
14 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009 All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
SFBC SFBC SFBC SFBC SFBC T x D iv T x D iv T x D iv T x D iv T x D iv
30 km/h 60 km/h 90 km/h 120 k m/h 250 k m/h 30 k m/h 60 k m/h 90 k m/h 120 k m/h 250 k m/h
Conclusion
15 | Presentation Title | Month 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
Conclusion
SFBC gains from physical layer simulation couldnt be retrieved in system level simulation. Especially at low speed, a transmission technique with higher channel quality variance (with the same mean quality) handles more throughput. This is due to the non linear mapping of channel quality and throughput. Frequency selective schedulers, which can take advantage of situations with high SINR, promise to improve system performance even more. With a round robin scheduler and velocities higher than 30 km/h, SFBC becomes attractive as a fallback mode for closed loop transmit diversity.
16 | Open Loop versus Closed Loop Performance in LTE| February 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
www.alcatel-lucent.com www.alcatel-lucent.com
17 | Presentation Title | Month 2009
All Rights Reserved Alcatel-Lucent 2009, XXXXX
