5G Field Experimental Trials on URLLC

Using New Frame Structure

Masashi Iwabuchi† Anass Benjebbour† Yoshihisa Kishiyama† Guangmei Ren†† Chen Tang††
Tingjian Tian†† Liang Gu†† Terufumi Takada †††
Tsuyoshi Kashima†††
†
NTT DOCOMO, INC., Yokosuka, Kanagawa, Japan
††
Huawei Technologies Co., LTD, †††Huawei Technologies Japan K. K.
masashi.iwabuchi.cx@nttdocomo.com

Abstract — The fifth generation mobile communications
(5G) system will need to support ultra-reliable and low-
latency communications (URLLC) to enable future
mission-critical applications, e.g., self-driving cars and
remote control. With the aim to verify the feasibility of
URLLC related 5G requirements under real environments,
field experimental trials of URLLC using new frame
structure were conducted in Yokohama, Japan. In this
paper, we present the trial results and investigate the
impact of 5G new frame structure and retransmission
method on URLLC performance. To reduce the user-plane
latency and improve the packet success probability, a 60-
kHz subcarrier spacing, self-contained frame structure
and acknowledgement/negative acknowledgement-less
(ACK/NACK-less) retransmission are adopted. We test
these techniques in real field using our prototype test-bed.
The field trial results show that the URLLC related
requirements defined by 3GPP are achieved even for a low
signal-to-noise ratio or non-line-of-sight locations.
Keywords — 5G, URLLC, 60-kHz subcarrier spacing, Self-
contained, ACK/NACK-less retransmission, Field experiment
I. INTRODUCTION
The fifth generation mobile communications (5G) system is
a key component to our future networked society. To
accommodate diverse applications, 5G is expected to realize
enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB) for higher data rate
communications, massive Machine-Type Communications
(mMTC) for Internet-of-Things (IoT), and ultra-reliable and
low-latency Communications (URLLC) for mission critical
services [1]. In particular, URLLC is expected to enable new
mobile applications, e.g. self-driving cars, automatic industrial
systems, and virtual reality systems. The requirements for
URLLC have been discussed by several organizations [2-4]. In
3GPP, 99.999% reliability, i.e., 1-10-5 packet success
probability, with the user-plane latency of less than 1 ms is
required [4]. The estimated user plane latency in LTE-
Advanced is longer than 4 ms, so it is difficult to satisfy the
latency requirement using LTE-Advanced framework. The
user-plane latency is a sum of transmitter processing delay
including frame alignment and possible queuing delay,
transmission delay and receiver processing delay [5]. Thus, a
new frame structure has been discussed to reduce the
transmission delay. A mini slot based LTE-Advanced frame
structure [6, 7] and a wider subcarrier spacing [8, 9] have been
proposed for frame designs of URLLC. The mini slot approach
uses a shorter slot length than that for LTE-Advanced. It was
shown that mini slot with one Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing (OFDM) symbol per slot can reduce the user
plane latency [6]. On the other hand, a wider subcarrier spacing
can also be used to reduce user plane latency. In [8], the
authors proposed to reduce the latency using the subcarrier
spacing of 312.5 kHz in an ultra-dense small cell network. In
[9], using the subcarrier spacing of 60 kHz at a base station
(BS) and a set of user equipment (UE), the user-plane latency
was estimated. On the other hand, the retransmission method is
also important to improve the packet success probability. The
conventional method is acknowledgement/negative
acknowledgement (ACK/NACK)-based (A/N-based)
retransmission. The transmitter decides whether or not to send
the same signal again based on ACK or NACK feedback from
the receiver. However, this method is not suitable for URLLC
because it causes longer delay if the channel conditions are
poor and retransmissions are needed. To address this problem,
ACK/NACK-less (A/N-less) retransmission was proposed in
[10, 11]. Since this method always sends the same signal
multiple times even before ACK or NACK signal is received, it
is possible to increase the decoding rate and to suppress the
delay. However, the above-mentioned studies are concept-level
proposals or estimations based on computer simulations. In this
paper, we present results of field experimental trials on
URLLC using new frame structure. In our trial, we adopted a
wider subcarrier spacing for low latency and A/N-less
retransmission for high packet success probability, and
evaluate the performance over a wide range of locations and
conditions.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
we describe the definition and the requirement for URLLC.
Section III introduces the frame structure and estimates the
latency. A/N-less retransmission is also described in this
section. The trial environment is shown in the section IV. The
results of the field trial are presented in Section V. In this
section, we show the reliability, the packet success probability
and the latency measured at several measurement locations.
Finally, we conclude the paper in Section VI.

978-1-5386-3920-7/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE

 II. DEFINITION AND REQUIREMENT FOR URLLC
In this section, we describe the corresponding definitions
and requirements discussed in 3GPP.
A. Definition
User plane latency means a one-way transmission delay
between transmitter and receiver. In 3GPP, it is defined as the
time it takes to successfully deliver an application layer
packet/message from the radio protocol layer 2/3 service data
unit (SDU) ingress point to the radio protocol layer 2/3 SDU
egress point via the radio interface in both uplink and downlink
directions, where neither device nor Base Station reception is
restricted by discontinuous reception (DRX) [4]. 3GPP defines
reliability as the success probability of transmitting X bytes
within a certain delay, which is the time it takes to deliver a
small data packet from the radio protocol layer 2/3 SDU
ingress point to the radio protocol layer 2/3 SDU egress point
of the radio interface, at a certain channel quality. The packet
success probability is defined as the ratio of the number of
correctly received packets and total number of transmitted
packets.
B. Requirement
Given that there will be a variety of URLLC services in the
future with different requirements, in 3GPP as a general target,
the target reliability is set to achieving a success probability of
1-10-5 (= 99.999%) for a packet size of 32 bytes within a user
plane latency of 1ms [4].
III. FRAME STRUCTURE AND RETRANSMISSION METHOD
FOR URLLC
In this section, we first review the frame structure of LTE-
Advanced. Then, we introduce a new frame structure used in
our test-bed for URLLC, and estimate the latency of using the
new frame structure. The new frame structure introduced is
expected to achieve shorter user-plane latency and faster
retransmission.
A. TDD LTE-Advanced Frame Structure
In 3GPP LTE-Advanced specifications [12], OFDM is used
as the downlink (DL) modulation scheme. The subcarrier
spacing is 15 kHz, and the OFDM symbol duration is 66.67 μs.
The LTE frame structure for TDD is shown in Fig. 1. The LTE
frame duration is 10 ms. The LTE frame is divided into 10
subframes, each of which is further divided into two slots. The
subframe and slot duration are 1 ms and 0.5 ms, respectively.
Each slot includes 6 or 7 OFDM symbols depending on the
length of cyclic prefix. In resource allocation, a certain number
of physical resource blocks (PRBs) are allocated to a UE. Since
the time unit for the PRB is the slot, the DL transmission time
is longer than 0.5 ms. Considering the BS and UE processing
time, it is difficult to achieve the user-plane latency of 1ms.
Furthermore, we should consider retransmission delay in this
frame structure. As an indicator of retransmission delay, the
hybrid automatic request (HARQ) round trip time (RTT) timer
specifies the minimum number of subframes, which is
expected by the UE, before a DL HARQ retransmission can
take place [13]. In LTE-Advanced, since it is assumed that the
BS and UE require 3 ms as processing time and they are based
on A/N-based retransmission, the HARQ RTT timer is set to k
+ 4 subframes (k = 6 or 7) for the time division duplex (TDD)
mode. Therefore, with one retransmission, the user-plane
latency becomes longer than 10 ms in the case of the TDD
LTE-Advanced frame structure.
TTI #0 (Normal) TTI #1 (Normal)
DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL
0.5 ms Subframe
DL SP UL UL
10 ms
DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL DL GP GP UL UL
TTI #2 (Special) TTI #3 (Special)
Fig. 1. TDD LTE-Advanced frame structure.
B. 5G Frame Structure for URLLC
As mentioned in the previous subsection, the user-plane
latency becomes longer than 1 ms and retransmission causes
longer latency with the TDD LTE-Advanced frame structure.
To satisfy the latency requirement for URLLC, we investigate
a new frame structure. The new frame structure is shown in Fig.
2. We adopt a wider subcarrier spacing to reduce the
transmission time. The subcarrier spacing is 60 kHz, and the
OFDM symbol duration is 16.67 μs. The frame length is 10 ms
and the frame is divided into 40 slots. The slot duration is 0.25
ms. The first two slots of each frame are combined in order to
transmit additional control signals, e.g. a synchronization
signal. The duration of this specially designed slot is 0.5 ms.
Furthermore, the frame structure adopts a self-contained
structure and A/N-less retransmission method to reduce the
latency with retransmission. The self-contained structure
includes all radio-related transmissions, which are the uplink
(UL) and DL control, data and receiver feedback signals,
within each single slot [14]. Since the structure can feedback an
ACK or NACK signal using the next slot, it is possible to
shorten the delay until retransmission and next transmission.
Therefore, each slot of the new frame structure is divided into
the DL and UL part. The HARQ RTT becomes 0.75 ms with
normal slot. If special slot is transmitted when the transmitter
prepares retransmission, the HARQ RTT becomes 1 ms. Thus,
the new frame structure can shorten the HARQ RTT to less
than 1ms using the self-contained structure.
On the other hand, A/N-less retransmission can improve
reliability. In this method, the transmitter is pre-configured to
always send the transmit signal multiple times irrespective of
the ACK or NACK feedback reception from the receiver [11].
Although the A/N-less retransmission reduces the resource
utilization efficiency since the same signal is redundantly
transmitted, it improves the packet error rate while achieving
lower latency compared to A/N-based retransmission. In many
URLLC applications, since priority is given to reliability over
data rate, A/N-less retransmission can be one attractive
approach to improve reliability for URLLC.
 A/N-less
Initial retrans.
A/N-less
Initial retrans.
TBs or A/N-based retransmission occurs, the URLLC
Control Control requirement is not satisfied.
Normal GP
TABLE II. LATENCY ESTIMATION IN DL AND UL
DL UL
Latency Typical value Note
0.5 ms 0.25 ms
DL user-plane latency 525 μs =a+t+b
・・・ ・・・
UL user-plane latency 610 μs =c+t+d
10 ms
=c+t+d+a+t+
IP round trip time 1.3 ms
b + IP layer delay
Control Control

Special GP TABLE III. LATENCY ESTIMATION WITH MULTIPLE TBS

AND ACK/NACK-BASED RETRANSMISSION
DL UL
Num. Num. DL user-plane UL user-plane
Fig. 2. Frame structure for URLLC. retrans. TBs latency latency
0 1 525 μs 610 μs
TABLE I. ESTIMATION VALUES FOR PROCESSING AND TRANSMISSION 0 2 775 μs 860 μs
TIME
0 3 1025μs 1110 μs
Delay type Typical value 1 1 1275 μs 1360 μs
a BS DL processing time 175 μs 1 2 1525 μs 1610 μs
b UE DL processing time 240 μs 1 3 1775 μs 1860 μs
c UE UL processing time 195 μs
IV. FIELD EXPERIMENTAL TRIAL
d BS UL processing time 305 μs
t Transmission time 110 μs The trial configuration is described in this section. The field
experimental trial was conducted in an urban area in
Yokohama, Japan.
In Table I, we show the processing time and transmission
time estimated based on our experiment hardware introduced in A. Trial Environment
the next section. Since these processing times include frame Figure 3 is a picture of the trial environment. The picture
alignment time, these values actually fluctuate with time. In was taken from the point where the BS was installed. We
addition, there is a difference between the DL and UL measured the performance at measurement points A, B and C.
processing times because the processing time increases At point A, the distance between the BS and UE (BS-UE
depending on the number of receiver antennas. The distance) is approximately 330 m and the signal-to-noise ratio
transmission time is the sum of the symbol duration and the (SNR) of DL and UL, which was measured using a
propagation delay. The user-plane latency of the frame demodulation reference signal (DMRS), are approximately 26
structure is estimated in Table II assuming no A/N-based dB and 20 dB, respectively. At point B, the BS-UE distance is
retransmission. The user-plane latency in the DL and UL are approximately 880 m and the DL and UL SNR are
525 μs and 610 μs, respectively, so the frame structure can approximately 11 dB and -2 dB, respectively. Only point C is
satisfy the latency requirement for URLLC. In addition, the IP non-line-of-sight (NLOS). The BS-UE distance is
layer RTT is estimated to be 1.3 ms, and the delay in the IP approximately 330 m and the DL and UL SNR are
layer is also kept short by using the new frame structure. approximately 24 dB and 11 dB, respectively.
Table II gives the latency with one transport block (TB). If
a packet exceeds the TB size depending on the selected
modulation and coding scheme (MCS), the packet is divided
into several TBs. Then, several slots are used to send the packet
because one TB is transmitted using one slot. As a result, the
latency increases compared to the estimated values in Table II.
The user-plane latency in the DL and UL is estimated in Table
III for the case of multiple TBs used to transmit a packet. Here,
a normal slot is assumed for transmission. Since the normal
slot length is 0.25 ms, the user-plane latency increases by 250
μs for each additional TB. Furthermore, A/N-based
retransmission also incurs latency longer than that shown in
Table II. When A/N-based retransmission occurs, then the
HARQ RTT, which is 750 μs in the normal slot, is added to the
user-plane latency. From Table III, we find that up to two TBs
without A/N-based retransmission can still satisfy the URLLC
requirement. When a packet is divided into more than three Fig. 3. Trial environment.
 spacing is 60 kHz. Throughout this trial, adaptive modulation
and coding (AMC) is applied and the signal is transmitted
using the spatial frequency block coding (SFBC). The number
of antennas in BS and UE are 8 and 2 antennas, respectively.
V. RESULTS
The trial results are presented in this section and we
evaluate the retransmission performance and the reliability with
the new frame structure. In this trial, we evaluate the decoding
rate or packet success probability by using 1 million TBs or
packets.
A. Retransmission Performance
To confirm the performance of A/N-less retransmission, we
evaluate the performance without HARQ, with A/N-less
Fig. 4. Experiment hardware. retransmission, named as retransmission type I, and with the
combination of A/N-less and A/N-based retransmission, named
TABLE IV. EXPERIMENT PARAMETERS as retransmission type II. The total number of redundant
signals is two and four in the type I and type II, respectively. In
Parameter Value
this test, we calculate decoding rate based on number of
Carrier frequency 4.66 GHz successfully decoded number of TBs. Table V and VI give the
Carrier bandwidth 20 MHz (1 sub-band) measured performance of DL and UL, respectively. Focusing
Subcarrier spacing 60 kHz on retransmission type II, the decoding rate is 100% in the DL
Slot length 0.25 ms and UL for all measured locations. The retransmission type I
OFDM symbols per slot DL: 6 / UL: 6 also improves the decoding rate compared to without
Guard period 31.25 μs retransmission. However, the improvement is small, and the
CP length 1.56 μs decoding rate with retransmission type I is less than 99.999%
Waveform f-OFDM at points B and C. Thus, A/N-less retransmission achieves low
FFT length 512 latency, however, the decoding rate cannot be improved
Number of subcarriers 330 sufficiently. Since the redundancy signal is transmitted
Channel coding Polar code
continuously and the OFDM symbol is short in the new frame
List size of Polar code 8
structure, it is possible that the benefit of time diversity due to
MCS AMC
sending the same signal is small. Therefore, we find that the
MIMO mode SFBC
transmission timing of the redundancy signal for A/N-less
Number of layers 1
retransmission is important to improve the decoding rate.
Traffic Periodic packet arrivals
BS antennas 8Tx/Rx TABLE V. DL DECODING RATE OF EACH RETRANSMISSION METHOD
UE antennas 2Tx/Rx AT POINTS A, B AND C
BS sector direction North 0 deg.
BS antenna tilt 16.4 deg. Retransmission A B C
UE cable loss ~ 1 dB w/o retransmission 99.9998% 99.9388% 99.9899%
Number of UEs 1 Type I 99.9999% 99.9906% 99.9948%
Type II 100% 100% 100%

TABLE VI. UL DECODING RATE OF EACH RETRANSMISSION METHOD

B. Experimental Hardware AT POINT A, B AND C
Figure 4 shows the experimental hardware. On the BS side,
Retransmission A B C
the radio frequency unit (RFU) and the inter-frequency unit
w/o retransmission 99.9999% 99.9589% 99.9871%
(IFU) are installed on the roof of a building, and the antenna
Type I 99.9999% 99.9996% 99.9921%
height is approximately 108 m. The baseband unit (BBU) is
Type II 100% 100% 100%
placed indoor and an optical fiber is used to connect RFU and
BBU. On the UE side, the experiment hardware is installed in B. Reliability
the test vehicle. The UE antenna is set on the roof of the test Next, we evaluate the reliability using the new frame
vehicle and the antenna height is approximately 3 m. We structure for URLLC. In this test, we use IP packet to evaluate
measured the performance with the vehicle stopping at each reliability. The tested IP packet sizes are 32, 50, 100 and 200
measurement point. bytes. Reliability, the packet success probability and the
The experimental hardware supports the TDD mode. The average latency are measured at each measurement point. The
parameters for this trial are summarized in Table IV. The packet success probability is defined as the ratio of the number
experimental hardware transmits and receives signals in the 4.5 of the correctly received packets, while reliability is the ratio of
GHz band and the bandwidth per sub-band is 20 MHz. In this the number of the correctly received packets within 1 ms user-
trial, the carrier frequency is 4.66 GHz and the subcarrier plane latency.
 TABLE VII. RELIABILITY AND PACKET SUCCESS PROBABILITY DL reliability of over 99.999% is achieved with packet sizes
AT POINT A
less than 100 bytes. Since the user-plane latency with the 200
Packet DL (SNR = 26 dB) UL (SNR = 20 dB) bytes packet is longer than that with other packet sizes and is
size Success Success shorter than the latency with the A/N-based retransmission, the
Reliability Reliability
[bytes] prob. prob. 200 bytes packet is divided and is transmitted using two TBs.
32 100% 100% 99.9997% 100% However, the reliability is less than 99.999% although the
50 99.9995% 100% 100% 100% packet success probability of 99.999% is achieved for any
100 99.9999% 100% 100% 100% packet size. Therefore, the degradation in reliability
200 99.9997% 100% 99.9999% 100% performance is caused by A/N-based retransmission of some
packet transmissions. When measuring the channel impulse
response at this location, we observed the existence of multiple
UL U-plane latency [us] DL U-plane latency [us]

paths unlike at the other locations. These paths have almost the
same power, and one path with approximately 1.3 μs delay was
observed. Therefore, it was concluded that retransmission was
522 516 517 520 caused by instantaneous channel degradation or other
phenomena due to multipath, which leads to degradation in the
reliability performance. The UL packet success probability is
also decreased. This is also considered to be caused by the
instantaneous channel degradation.

TABLE VIII. RELIABILITY AND PACKET SUCCESS PROBABILITY

603 610 607 606 AT POINT B

Packet DL (SNR = 11 dB) UL (SNR = -2 dB)

size Success Success
Reliability Reliability
[bytes] prob. prob.
IP layer RTT [us]

32 99.9408% 100% 86.5136% 100%

50 99.9701% 100% 71.2481% 100%
1266 1267 1265 1266
100 99.9128% 100% 18.5628% 100%
200 99.9386% 100% 0% 100%
UL U-plane latency [us] DL U-plane latency [us]

Fig. 5. User-plane latency and IP layer RTT at point A.

575 562 832 856
Table VII and Fig. 5 show the measured results at point A.
The reliability of 99.999% is achieved in both the DL and UL.
The average user-plane latency and IP layer RTT are almost
the same as the estimated latency shown in Table II.
However, the reliability slightly decreases despite of 100%
success probability. This is because A/N-based retransmission 836 994 1249 2877
occurs for a few packets and as a result the DL user-plane
latency exceeds 1 ms. Thus, we find that the reliability may be
degraded by A/N-based retransmission even for high SNR
locations. Table VIII and Fig. 6 show the measured results at
point B. The reliability is less than 99.999% in both the DL and
IP layer RTT [us]

UL. At point B, the reliability decreases further compared to 1567 1753 2326 3991
point A despite of 100% success probability. This is because
SNR is lower and A/N-based retransmission occurs more often
and as a result the DL user-plane latency exceeds 1 ms with
higher probability. The average user-plane latency with packet
size larger than 100 bytes is longer than that for the other
packet sizes. This is because the packet size is larger than the
TB size, and one packet is divided into several TBs. In the UL, Fig. 6. User-plane latency and IP layer RTT at point B.
although the packet success probability is 100%, a larger
packet size decreases the reliability because of the increase in Finally, we describe the performance with fixed MCS index.
user-plane latency. In addition, the UL user-plane latency is At point B, we measured the reliability, packet success
longer than the estimated value and a larger packet size probability and latency with a fixed MCS and a packet size of
increases latency. Therefore, the A/N-based retransmission and 32 bytes. The MCS index is 5 and 4 in the DL and UL,
the packet segmentation both caused a longer delay at point B. respectively. The results are shown in Table IX. The reliability
Table IX and Fig. 7 show the measured results at point C. The
with a fixed MCS is improved compared to that with AMC, TABLE X. DIFFERENCE IN PERFORMANCE BETWEEN AMC AND FIXED
MCS
and is 99.999% in the DL and UL. The average DL MCS index
is 10 when AMC is used, and the fixed MCS index is lower DL UL
than the MCS index selected by AMC. Since a lower MCS Fixed Fixed
AMC AMC
generally achieves more robust transmissions, the number of (MCS 5) (MCS 4)
retransmissions is reduced in this case. Therefore, the
Reliability 99.9998% 99.9408% 99.9995% 86.5136%
reliability is improved and the average user-plane latency is
shortened in the DL. On the other hand, the reliability is Success
100% 100% 100% 100%
improved in the UL although the fixed MCS index is higher prob.
than MCS 2 selected by AMC. Focusing on the average user- U-plane
539 μs 575 μs 547 μs 836 μs
plane latency, the latency with fixed MCS is lower than that latency
with AMC. For AMC case, packet segmentation may occur IP layer
1226 μs 1567 μs 1226 μs 1567 μs
according to the selected MCS. When a higher MCS is selected, RTT
the user-plane latency increases. Since the TB size of MCS 4 is
much larger than the size of the 32-byte IP packet, there is no VI. CONCLUSIONS
packet segmentation in the fixed MCS case. The degradation is In this paper, we presented a field experimental trial to
mainly caused by the packet segmentation in the AMC case. verify the feasibility of URLLC in real environment. To meet
Thus, when applying AMC, it is necessary to consider the reliability requirement defined in 3GPP, we applied 60-kHz
retransmission probability and packet segmentation at the same subcarrier spacing, self-contained frame structure and A/N-less
time. Therefore, AMC design is important to satisfy URLLC retransmission. The trial clarified that the reliability of
related requirements. 99.999% within 1 ms user-plane latency can be achieved for
certain IP packet sizes. Meanwhile, the trial also clarified that it
TABLE IX. RELIABILITY AND PACKET SUCCESS PROBABILITY is important to overcome multipath and improve AMC for
AT POINT C
URLLC in order to maintain reliability over a wide area.
Packet DL (SNR = 24 dB) UL (SNR = 11 dB)
size Success Success REFERENCES
Reliability Reliability
[bytes] prob. prob. [1] Recommendation ITU-R M.2083-0, “IMT-vision – Framework and
32 99.9997% 100% 99.9830% 99.9989% overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2020 and
beyond,” Sept. 2015.
50 100% 100% 99.9751% 99.9994%
[2] A. Osseiran, F. Boccardi, V. Braun, K. Kusume, P. Marsch, M. Maternia,
100 100% 100% 97.7684% 99.9993%
O.Queseth, M. Schellmann, H. Schotten, H. Taoka, H. Tullberg, M A.
200 99.9970% 100% 52.2192% 99.9986% Uusitalo, B. Timus, and M. Fallgren, “Scenarios for 5G mobile and
wireless communications: the vision of the METIS project”, IEEE
Communication Magazine, Vol.52, Issue 5, May 2014.
UL U-plane latency [us] DL U-plane latency [us]

[3] NGMN, “NGMN 5G White Paper,” Feb. 2015.

[4] 3GPP TR 38.913 v14.0.0, “Study on Scenarios and requirements for
next generation access technologies; (Release 14),” Oct. 2016.
522 530 530 801 [5] 3GPP, R1-168371, “WF on URLLC evaluation parameter and LLS
method,” Aug. 2016.
[6] 3GPP, R1-1609664, “Comparison of slot and mini-slot based
approaches for URLLC,” Oct. 2016.
[7] 3GPP, R1-1609663, “On the mini-slot structure,”Oct. 2016.
[8] P. Kala, M. Casta, J. Salmi, K. Leppännen, T. Turkka, T. Hiltunen, and
576 602 831 1129 M. Hronec, “A novel radio frame structure for 5G dense outdoor radio
frame structure for 5G dense outdoor radio access networks,” 2015 IEEE
81st Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), May 2015.
[9] Nokia and Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell, “On the URLLC transmission
formats for NR TDD,” 3GPP proposal R1-167269, Aug. 2016.
[10] K. Pedersen, F. Frederiksen, and G. Berardinelli, “A flexible frame
IP layer RTT [us]

structure for 5G wide area,” 2015 IEEE 82nd VehicularTechnology

1239 1271 1519 2173 Conference (VTC Fall), Sep. 2015.
[11] 3GPP, R1-1611220, “Overview of UL URLLC support in NR,” Nov.
2016.
[12] 3GPP TS 36.211 v14.0.0, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
(E-UTRA); Physical channel and modulation,” Sept. 2016.
[13] 3GPP TS 36.321 v10.5.0, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
(E-UTRA); Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol specification,”
March 2012.
Fig. 7. User-plane latency and IP layer RTT at the location C. [14] Q. Wang, Z. Zhao, and Y. Guo, “Enhancing OFDM by pulse shaping for
self-contained TDD transmission in 5G,” 2016 IEEE 83rd
VehicularTechnology Conference (VTC Spring), May 2016.