Efficient Femtocell Deployment Under Macrocell Coverage in LTE-Advanced System

Ibrahim Shgluof, Mahamod Ismail, and Rosdiadee Nordin

Department of Electrical, Electronic and System Engineering Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 43600 UKM Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia Email: shellmani@ieee.org, mahamod@eng.ukm.my, adee@eng.ukm.my

Abstract Due to the increasing demand for higher data rates by mobile users, the deployment of femtocells under macro coverage has been adopted by 3GPP LTE-Advanced systems as one of the main proposals to enhance the network performance in the respects of coverage and capacity improvement especially for indoor users. However the random deployment of femtocells raise the issue of interference between macrocell and femtocells and its impact on coverage and capacity of the network which becomes a critical challenge for LTE-Advanced system designers. In this paper we study and analyze the efficiency of different deployment locations of femtocells. Simulations show that by deploying femtocells at an appropriate location, the coverage almost doubled while the data rate received by the end user enhanced by 28% on average as compared to random deployment. Keywords-3GPP, capacity, coverage, femtocell, interference, LTE, macrocell.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Due to the increasing demand for higher data rates and for the quality of service by home users, it became a necessity for wireless communication operators today to develop suitable design criteria to meet the rising expectation by users from current and future network operators. The coverage and data rates provided by existing wireless communication systems have been pushed to the limit especially for indoor users; and are not appropriate to meet the rising demand for multimedia services. As the distance between the transmitter and receiver of a wireless system gets closer; this results in an enhancement in the capacity of a wireless link and establishes a higher quality links in terms of data rates and more spatial reuse [1]. The notion of femtocell deployment was presented to Long Term Evolution (LTE) and currently is under review by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) to improve indoor coverage and to enhance system capacity [2]. The deployment of femtocells or home evolved NodeB (HeNBs) as known in LTE-Advanced under macrocell; also known as evolved NodeB (eNB) coverage area is a challenging criterion for the designing and dimensioning of LTE-Advanced networks. HeNBs have small coverage areas (10-15m) with small transmit power in the range of (1-100mW) and connect to the

cellular core network via an IP-based backhaul, such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) or cable connection. There are many challenges that operators must resolve before a successful deployment of a HeNBs network; like interference between HeNB networks and macrocell (eNB), also interference between HeNBs themselves. This interference could draw back the benefits of HeNBs deployment and this could cause some impairment to the overall performance of the LTE-Advanced system. The deployment of large numbers of HeNBs indoors under eNB coverage and the randomness of the distribution of their locations make the network optimization a hard task for designers in terms of interference and handover processes between eNBs and HeNBs. Hence, many studies have been carried out analyzing the effect of HeNBs interference on eNBs and also many efforts have been made trying to develop the best algorithm for inbound/outbound handovers. For multiple deployments of HeNBs under eNB coverage, the main goal is to reduce the coverage overlaps of adjacent HeNBs and also gaps between them, as well as balancing the workload amongst HeNBs. When user equipment (UE), such as a mobile device, enters the edge of HeNBs network, it initiates and performs an inbound handover (eNB to HeNB). This will result in traffic offloading from eNB and core network. However, if UE is located between HeNBs there may be a coverage gap where UE is not covered by any HeNB, and hence an outbound handover (HeNB to eNB) takes place which in turn increases frequent and unnecessary handovers. On the other hand UE may be covered by more than one HeNB (coverage overlaps), which causes an increase in interference. Thus in designing femtocell networks; both coverage gaps and overlaps between HeNBs must also be given an important consideration [3]. In this paper we focus on analyzing the efficiency of different locations for HeNBs when they are deployed under eNB cell coverage; the efficient locations in terms of their distance from eNB. The efficient location that can meet the best design criteria in terms of the minimum allowable signal power received by User Equipment (UE), throughput and the required coverage for the home user. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section II presents an overview of

978-1-4673-2088-7/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE

related work. Section III describes LTE femtocell system architecture. Section IV describes and discusses the simulation scenarios. Section V presents discussions and simulation results. And finally our conclusion is summarized in section VI. II.
RELATED WORK

Prior research on the performance of HeNBs when they are deployed under eNB coverage area has been carried out by many authors. Their work has mainly focused on analyzing interference and its impact on capacity, coverage and inbound/outbound handover. Oh et al. [4] studied the effect of interference on inbound handover at a certain deployment location of a cluster of HeNBs. This work showed that an inbound handover cannot occur when HeNB1 is located at 225 m from eNB as the UE cannot decode the MIB/SIB1 system information of that HeNB at this distance. Namgeol et al. [5] investigates system performance of femtocells based on different environmental factors like number of walls and their structure which determines the appropriate distance between an eNB and a HeNB to guarantee the minimum requirement of spectral efficiency. The author concluded that the required separation distance from eNB is 50~200m. Jang et al. [6] proposed a self-optimization algorithm for a single HeNB coverage deployed under eNB. His proposal was based on handover requests from UEs. When an outdoor UE requests Handover to HeNB; the transmit power of HeNB is reduced and vice versa when an indoor UE requests handover to eNB. Thus minimizing the number of unnecessary handovers and optimizing camp on the area. Jo et al. [7] proposed a coverage coordination scheme for two tier femtocell networks. In this scheme the femtocell adjust their transmit powers based on their measure of down link signal and interference powers. This proposal showed that it can provide adequate femtocell indoor coverage and prevents leakage of indoor coverage to outdoor macocell. Claussen et al. [8] proposed a femtocell coverage algorithm that can control the transmitted power based on mobility events for indoor and passing by outdoor users. It was shown that this algorithm can reduce unnecessary mobility events and also improve indoor coverage. However none of those authors addressed or investigated the efficient location of a cluster of HeNBs when deployed under eNB coverage. The efficient location that defines the distance between a cluster of HeNBs and eNB. This separation distance can translate how severe is the interference between eNB and HeNBs which in turn can determine the optimized coverage and capacity of the system. III. LTE FEMTOCELL SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE For the E-UTRAN HeNB architecture, the discussions for the LTE femtocell standards are still undergoing in 3GPP, in NGMN Alliance and in the Femto Forum. Up to date the final architecture has not been agreed on yet; but there is a unanimous decision to keep it in the flattest manner due to the adoption of all-IP networks in the LTE standards. Another debate is still in discussion regarding the need for signaling interfacing elements or should femtocells be supported

Fig. 1. Overall E-UTRAN architecture with deployed HeNB GW. [10]

directly by the evolved packet core (EPC) [9]. Fig. 1 shows the overall E-UTRAN architecture with deployed HeNB GW. It can be seen that there is a set of S1 interfaces between HeNBs and EPC. The presence of Home eNB Gateway (HeNB GW); is for expanding the S1 interface between HeNBs and core network, to scale up the deployments of a large number of HeNBs. It is assumed that HeNB GW worked at (C-Plane), especially the concentrator of the S1-MME. And The S1-U interface can be terminated at HeNB GW or by a direct logical connection between the HeNB and the S-GW via the logical (U-Plane). Fig. 2 shows the E-UTRAN HeNB Logical architecture. To enhance the integration between HeNBs and LTE macrocell networks; the MME should interface with HeNB GW as an eNB, thus the HeNB GW will appear to the HeNB as an MME between the HeNB and the EPC. Due to the expected deployment of thousands of femtocells in an LTE macrocell, interfacing between HeNB GW and operators O&M system may be required for configuration and control [10] [11]. The S1 interface between HeNBs and the core network should be the same whether the HeNB is connected to the EPC directly or via a HeNB GW. Either option can be chosen for LTE femtocell system architecture whether based on deployment of HeNB GW or not. The HeNB GW shall serve

Fig. 2. E-UTRAN HeNB logical architecture [10]

in a manner that mobility to other cells would not necessarily require inter-MME handovers. HeNB GW can also provide accumulation function for the S1-MME. The S1-U interface can be a direct tunnel or can be aggregated by the HeNB GW. On the other hand, the HeNB GW may provide support for multiplexing of (U-Plane); to enhance the system in limited bandwidth links. HeNBs should support the same functions as those supported by an eNB; also procedures should be the same when they run between HeNBs and the EPC or between an eNB and the EPC [10]. As it can be seen from the E-UTRAN HeNB architecture, and HeNB logical architecture; Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, the related discussion was focusing on the deployment of HeNB GW and the need for a set of S1 interfaces between HeNBs and EPC. The debate was on whether HeNBs should be directly supported by EPC, or should they be aggregated by HeNB GW via S1 interfaces to utilize the limited bandwidth links. However The E-UTRAN HeNB architecture and the relevant discussion did not highlight the deployment location of HeNBs nor their possible numbers when integrated into the system. The location of HeNBs and their distance from eNB can dictate the impact of high interference from eNB signal on HeNBs, and this interference in turn can define the overall coverage and capacity of the LTE-Advanced system. IV.
SIMULATION SCENARIOS

TABLE I eNB and HeNB System Parameters Parameter eNB Typical value 500 m 2000 MHz 10 MHz 15.3+37.6log10R 14 dBi 46 dBm 9 dB 1024 Kbps Typical value 10 m 2000 MHz 10 MHz 38.46 + 20log10R 3 dBi 20 dBm 10 dB

Cell Radius Carrier Frequency Carrier bandwidth Distance-dependent path loss Antenna Gain after cable loss eNB Tx power UE Noise Figure User Data Rate Cell Radius Carrier Frequency Carrier bandwidth Distance-dependent path loss Antenna Gain after cable loss HeNB Tx power Penetration Loss Parameter

HeNB

E N value and the data rate have been calculated using the
b o

The ratio of energy per bit to the spectral noise density

following formulas respectively:

In this paper, we assumed that the same carrier frequency and the same carrier bandwidth are used for both macro eNB and HeNBs. The rest of our simulation parameters are shown in Table I for eNB and HeNB [12]. The relationship between those parameters is as follows: (1) GTX = Gant L penet + L path (dB)

where:

Eb N o = (W Ru ) (PRX I o ) Rb = (W PRX ) (Eb N o ) I o

(3) (4)

W is the bandwidth of the system and

Where:

or HeNB to UE. Gant is the antenna gain of eNB or HeNB.

GTX is the gain of the transmitted power from eNB

I o is the sum of the interference powers in Watts of eNB and all HeNBs (excluding own signal) and is computed as follows: 5 (5) I P = +N
o (UE ( eNB ))

data rate. Rb is the bit rate received by UE.

Ru is the user

i =1

RX ( HeNB ( i ) )

I o (UE ( HeNB (i ))) = PRX ((eNB )) + PRX ( HeNB ( K ) ) + N o

( K i )

(6)

L penet is the wall penetration loss and is equal to

external wall which has a typical value of 10dB.This applies only to HeNBs. L path is the path loss from eNB or HeNB to UE. Where:

K =1

0.7 R + Lwall , and Lwall is the penetration loss of an

PRX = PTX + GTX (dB)

UE.

(2)

system is included. (6) indicates the interference from eNB and the interference from all other HeNBs except for the HeNB that UE are served by, where i = 1 to 5. The noise power ( N o ) is also included here. The percentage of coverage area provided by each HeNB for different simulation scenarios is calculated as follows:

Equation (5) defines all interferences from all HeNBs when UE is attached to eNB and the noise power ( N o ) of the

PRX is the received power from eNB or HeNB by

The measure of the signal quality of the user data in LTEAdvanced is determined by the ratio of energy per bit to the spectral noise density ( E b N o ). In our simulation using Matlab we assumed a minimum E b N o value of 9 dB; which is a reasonable value for voice calls (speech) which can be considered to represent the packet, also an UE speed of 1 m/s was also assumed to simulate the typical pedestrian movement

PTX is the transmitted power of eNB or HeNB.

C = (C sen H dim )100%

where:

(7)

dimension which in our scenario is equal to10 m. Fig. 3 shows the simulation environment applied in this paper which follows the work carried out by Oh et al. [4]. The environment is a typical suburban road. A cluster consisting of

C sen is the actual coverage that can be provided by HeNBs for assumed scenario and; H dim is the house

Direction of UE Movement Fig. 3. Simulation Environment

5 HeNBs and horizontally were located at different distances away from the macro eNB starting at 250 m to 330 m for HeNB1 in steps of 20 m for each move. Every house in the environment has a 10 m 10 m in dimensions with every HeNB deployed at the center of each house. HeNBs were located every 20 m and the user is moving horizontally away from eNB and passing by at a constant distance of 1 m in front of every house. In our first scenario HeNB1 was located at 250 m away from eNB and as the distance between every two adjacent HeNBs is 20m, hence HeNB5 is located at 330 m away from eNB in the first scenario. As HeNB1 is moved away from eNB in an increment of 20 m; we investigate the signal power received by UE from eNB and HeNBs for each scenario. We analyze the size of coverage area provided by each HeNB and the average value of E b N o which determines the data rates for UE. It should also be noted that in our first scenario we deployed a reference HeNB (HeNBref) on the left hand side of HeNB1 by a distance of 20m, to show the effect of the high signal power of eNB compared to low powers of HeNBs when they are deployed too close to eNB. In our simulations; a great deal of observation was given to HeNB1 and HeNB5 as the first one suffers the greatest deal of interference from eNB of all other HeNBs as it is the closest to eNB location, and the later one is the closest to eNB cell edge where there can be some coverage gaps around it due to the weak signal of eNB near its cell edge. V.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TABLE II Scenario
(distance from eNB)

1 (250m) 30%
o

2 (270m) 60% 10.83 1.23 80% 11.56 1.11 100% 12.16 1.05 100% 12.63 1.03 100% 13.19 0.903

3 (290m) 80% 11.62 1.26 100% 12.16 1.20 100% 12.63 1.18 100% 12.97 1.22 100% 13.75 0.81

4 (310m) 100% 12.25 1.34 100% 12.63 1.33 100% 12.97 1.37 100% 13.50 1.11 100% 14.31 0.94

5 (330m) 100% 12.75 1.45 100% 12.97 1.51 100% 13.51 1.22 100% 13.94 1.42 100% 14.46 1.05

HeNB1

E N
b

9.96 1.15 60%

Rb

(Mbps)

C
HeNB2

Rb
HeNB3

E N
b

10.80 1.00 80% 11.56 0.94 100% 12.17 0.89 100% 12.79 0.79

(Mbps)

Rb (Mbps) C Rb (Mbps) Rb (Mbps)

E N
b

E N
b

HeNB4

E N
b

HeNB5

Table II presents data obtained from our simulation scenarios. According to this data and as shown in Fig. 4, it is obvious that HeNB1 at 250 m is too close to eNB in scenario1 and therefore does not provide a significant coverage for UE (about 3m only); that is from 248 m to 251 m, which is only 30% of the presumed coverage of 10 m. And that is due to the high transmit power of eNB compared to HeNB1. Although the average value of E b N o for HeNB1 received by UE in scenario1 is about 9.96 dB which is above our assumption value of 9 dB; but this only exists at the middle of the house where the femtocell is placed. As UE moves away from the centre, the received E b N o is well below the threshold value. Also HeNB2 and HeNB3 can only provide 60% and 80% of

full coverage respectively. Only HeNB4 and HeNB5 can provide 100% coverage in this scenario. Also by looking at Fig. 4, we can see that the signal power from eNB is much greater than the signal power of HeNBref which is located on the left hand side of HeNB1 at 230m. This indicates that the UE cannot decode the signal from HeNBref at this location; and hence no inbound handover procedure can be executed in this area. Therefore any displacement of the HeNB cluster to the left hand side towards eNB location from this point will severely degrades their performance in terms of capacity, coverage and handovers. As the distance between eNB and HeNB1 is increased to 270 m, the coverage of the HeNB1 has improved to 6 m (from 267 m to 273 m) which is out of presumed coverage area of 10 m, and the average value of E b N o is at 10.83 dB. Therefore the location of HeNB1 is still too close to eNB to make any useful coverage. As 40% of the area of the house still has no

The improvement of coverage area of HeNB1 and the enhancement of data rate obtained by UE is due to the fact that the interference experienced by HeNBs; especially the closest one from eNB is decreasing as the separation distance increased between eNB and HeNBs. If HeNB1 is moved further away from the eNB location to be set at 330m; while HeNB5 is located at 410 m; Fig. 6 and data in Table II shows that the coverage area of HeNB1, data rate obtained and average E b N o value have all improved. But we can also observe that the E b N o value received by UE from eNB in the area between HeNB4 and HeNB5 which is the distance from 398 m to 402 m is below the minimum required value of 9 dB. The user is supposed to be handed over to eNB as he/she leaves the coverage area of HeNB4. The value of E b N o received from eNB by UE in this area is greater than either of the values received from HeNB4 and HeNB5. But on the other hand the value of received E b N o from simulation results was
Fig. 4. HeNB1at 250 m from eNB location

coverage from HeNB1; thereby this may result in frequent and unnecessary handovers. Also it can be noticed that the coverage of HeNB2 and HeNB3 has improved to 80% and 100% respectively as shown in Table II. When HeNB1 was moved away from eNB even further to 290m and then to 310 m, the data obtained showed that the size of the HeNB1 coverage area has improved to 8 m (from 286 to 294 m) and to 10 m (from 305 m to 315 m) respectively; which means that HeNB1 can provide 100% coverage or in other words full coverage for the house dimension at this location as shown in Fig. 5. Also an improvement was observed in the average E b N o value to approximately 12.25 dB which is more than enough for voice calls. Also we can mention that the average data rate that can be received by UE from HeNB1 coverage area is estimated to be around 1.34 Mbps as shown in Table II.

found to be 8.69 dB which is less than the assumed threshold value of 9 dB as shown in Fig 6. This is due to the fact that the eNB signal near the cell edge is weaker and is under the impact of HeNBs interference. Hence in this case the UE will not be able to decode the system information from the received signal. Therefore as a result we will have a gap in the coverage of the system between HeNB4 and HeNB5 and the call will be dropped as the UE reaches 398 m away from eNB location. We must also mention that HeNB1 can be located at 320 m away from eNB and still provide full coverage with high data rate but again simulation results showed that the value of E b N o received by UE from eNB between HeNB4 and HeNB5 (388m to 392m) is just above the threshold value with a small margin at 9.10 dB. Hence any variation in the signal in this area will result in a dropped call. We can also notice in Fig. 4, Fig. 5 and Fig 6 that the eNB signal rises up after the location of HeNB5, and this is due to the disappearing of the

Fig. 5. HeNB1at 310 m from eNB location Fig. 4. HeNB1at 250 m from eNB location Fig. 5. HeNB1at 310 m from eNB location Fig. 6. HeNB1at 330 m from eNB location

impact of HeNBs interference on eNB signal as UE moves away from HeNBs locations. Table II shows data obtained for each HeNB of the assumed cluster of 5 HeNBs for each simulation scenario. VI. CONCLUSION Deploying femtocells under eNB coverage area can solve the problem of limited coverage indoors; thus enhancing the data rates for end users. However, interference between femtocells and macrocell arises when femtocells are deployed randomly and this can in turn degrade the overall performance of the LTE-Advanced system. It is shown that by deploying femtocells at appropriate locations, this can mitigate femtocell/macrocell interference, hence enhancing the system capacity. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This research was supported by Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia under Grant UKM-OUP-2012-182. REFERENCES
Vikram Chandrasekhar and Jeffrey G. Andrews, Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.46, no.9, pp.59-67, September 2008. [2] 3GPP TS 36.300, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (EUTRAN) Overall description; Stage 2, Rel. 9, v9.2.0, Dec. 2009. [3] T. Ma, P, Pietzuch, Femtocell Coverage Optimisation Using Statistical Verification. NETWORKING 2011 - 10th International IFIP TC 6 Networking Conference, Valencia, Spain, May 9-13, 2011. [4] S. Oh, H. Kim, B. Ryu, and N. Park, "Inbound Mobility Management on LTE-Advanced Femtocell Topology Using X2 Interface," Computer Communications and Networks (ICCCN), 2011 Proceedings of 20th International Conference on , vol., no., pp.1-5, July 31 2011-Aug. 4 2011. [5] O. Namgeol, S. Han, and H. Kim, "System Capacity and Coverage Analysis of Femtocell Networks," Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2010 IEEE , vol., no., pp.1-5, 18-21 April 2010. [6] S. Jang, Y. Lee, J. Lim, D. Hong, "Self-optimization of single femto-cell coverage using handover events in LTE systems," Communications (APCC), 2011 17th Asia-Pacific Conference on , vol., no., pp.28-32, 2-5 Oct. 2011. [7] H. Jo, C. Mun, J. Moon, J.Yook, "Self-Optimized Coverage Coordination in Femtocell Networks," Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on , vol.9, no.10, pp.2977-2982, October 2010. [8] H. Claussen, L.T.W. Ho, L.G. Samuel, "Self-optimization of coverage for femtocell deployments," Wireless Telecommunications Symposium, 2008. WTS 2008 , vol., no., pp.278-285, 24-26 April 2008. [9] S. Saunders, S. Carlaw, A. Giustina, R. Bhat, V. Rao and R. Siegberg J. Holtzman, A. Sampath, Femtocells, Opportunities and Challenges for Business and Technology, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2009 , pp. 6873. [10] 3GPP TS 36.300, E-UTRA and E-UTRAN Overall Description. [11] L. Wang, Y. Zhang, and Z. Wei, "Mobility Management Schemes at Radio Network Layer for LTE Femtocells," Vehicular Technology Conference, 2009. VTC Spring 2009. IEEE 69th , vol., no., pp.1-5, 26-29 April 2009. [12] 3GPP TSG RAN. R4-092042, Simulation assumptions and parameters for FDD HeNB RF requirements, May 2009. [1]