Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Embedded
Processors?
Embedded Intel
Solutions
delivers in-depth product, technology
and design information to engineers
and embedded developers who design with
Intel
Embedded processors
Visit
www.embeddedintel.com
Subscribe Today at
www.embeddedintel.com
Free!
Visit
Subs
E
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
I
n
t
e
l
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Gold Sponsors
T
h
e
H
o
tte
s
t T
e
c
h
n
o
lo
g
y
:
T
o
u
c
h
T
he Future
o
f Intel
A
to
m
P
ro
cesso
rs
A
re Tab
lets S
tealing
P
C
s T
hund
er?
A
P
erfect C
oupleQ
seven
and P
C
/104
y at scribe Today
Scan this
QR code
to subscribe
Fall 2011
E
m
b
e
d
d
e
d
I
n
t
e
l
S
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
s
Gold Sponsors
ID
F
2
0
11
O
p
e
n
in
g
K
e
y
n
o
te
S
h
a
re
s
C
o
n
n
e
c
te
d
C
o
m
p
u
tin
g
V
is
io
n
Scan this QR code to subscribe
Intel Em
braces A
ndroid in M
obile Push
R
am
pant C
hange D
rives
N
eed for Standard
Telecom
Platform
6 Engineers Guide to WiMAX and LTE Solutions 2012
SPECIAL FEATURE
by Drew Sproul, Adax
Circuit-Switched Fallback
Supporting Voice Services in LTE Migration
The Challenge of Supporting Voice while
Deploying LTE
Te move to LTE is advancing full-speed ahead. Tis build-
out of new equipment and services is complex and will not
happen overnight. Te ever-increasing demand for high-
speed, high-volume data applications requires network
service providers (NSPs) to focus on providing data services
rst and foremost in their initial LTE deployments. With
Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) not yet a ubiquitous solution, how
can NSPs ensure support for voice and deploy LTE?
Since voice remains the major source of NSP revenue,it must
be protected and maintained. Subscribers expect the high
quality of voice services, especially roaming, to continue
unaffected on their new smart, video- data-centric phones.
The challenge then is how to preserve voice services and
build out mobile broadband services in the absence of IMS/
VoIP. One solution is circuit-switched fallback (CSFB).
Todays 2G/3G legacy networks currently enabling the voice
revenue stream have sucient capacity for continued voice
service support. It only makes sense to let this gear continue
to generate voice revenue. CSFB allows NSPs to preserve the
sunken investment in existing circuit-switched networks.
Tis extended life of legacy equipment and its associated rev-
enues stream is a double bonus. Revenues remain the same
without the expense of new CAPEX; and with some exten-
sions, it can even promote the move to the all-IP network.
Circuit-Switched Fallback Provides a Solution
CSFB provides new LTE data-centric deployments with back-
ward compatibility to circuit-switched services. As specied in
3GPP TS 23.272, CSFB is the preferred solution for the early
and even later stages of LTE. It allows network operators to
carry voice trac over existing GERAN/UTRAN networks
from multimode LTE user equipment (UE) devices. Tis prac-
tical goal is realized by a clever innovation: network awareness
in the mobility management entity (MME). Where overlap-
ping networks exist, the MME may carry maps of UTRAN
tracking areas (TAs) to LTE location areas (LAs) that allow the
UE to utilize circuit-switched services, all managed from the
MME in conjunction with the mobile switching center (MSC).
Without the IP multimedia subsystem (IMS),VoIP services are
not available in the LTE network so the UE is instructed to
access the alternate network for voice calls.
CSFB enables mobile operators to quickly and economically
support services in conjunction with their LTE network
roll-outs. It allows mobile devices to fall back to GSM or
UMTS domains for incoming or outgoing voice calls, and
subscribers maintain access to the wide array of rich circuit-
switched capabilities, including international roaming,
while enjoying LTE broadband access to the Internet and
protected corporate VPNs.
CSFB with Enhanced VoIP Services
Implementing CSFB does not require changes to the GERAN or
UTRAN user plane transport services. Existing signaling links
Figure 1: EPS architecture for CS fallback and SMS over SGs from 3GPP TS 23.272 V10.2.1 (2011-04)
www.eecatalog.com/4G 7
SPECIAL FEATURE
and associated transport protocols can be retained if desired,
however many media gateways in the eld support VoIP.
Adding VoIP services to the CSFB gateway is clearly a benet.
Network equipment providers (NEPs) and NSPs realize that
interworking legacy voice to IP at the earliest network entry
point possible facilitates the transition to the all-IP network.
Voice interworking is being added to the CSFB formula by
many forward-looking telecom equipment manufacturers
based on multi-vendor, commercial-o-the-shelf (COTS)
ATCA equipment (see Figure 2).
Tis enhancement brings CS-based voice calls into existing
VoIP networks quickly and eciently. In the UTRAN,
interworking between ATM-IP is performed on already
AMR-encoded voice using real-time transport protocol(RTP),
which facilitates not only voice but multi-media streaming
over IP. For 2G voice over DS0s, the ATCA I-TDM specica-
tion allows T1/E1 and DSP cards to pass trac seamlessly
between them and their associated networks. Such solutions
for both GERAN and UTRAN networks can be provided on a
single ATCA platform with multi-vendor, industry-standard
AMC cards as a sub-system for OEM/VAS applications.
Te CSFB gateway architecture illustrated in Figure 2 for
existing TDM-based network services uses a standard ATCA
carrier-grade chassis, equipped with switches, SBCs and carrier
blades hosting TDM T1/E1 and VoIP/DSP AMC cards. Legacy
voice and SS7 signaling enter the system on TDM links via the
T1/E1 ports. Voice channels are interworked to IP using I-TDM
and sent to the VoIP/DSP card, which transmits VoIP packets
to the network. Data services are handled by the LTE network
or the legacy interface when there is no LTE connection. Te 3G
solution maps ATM voice trac to IP on an advanced AMC ATM
card. RTP is added on the intelligent carrier blade or an SBC, all
of which are again ATCA COTS products.
Tese components for an enhanced CSFB gateway are the foun-
dation for OEMs and TEMS to build advanced CSFB solutions
including fully redundant systems of cards and blades that may
be added, removed and re-allocated with no loss of service. Te
exible ATCA architecture fullls the promise of cost-eective,
multi-vendor solutions and short time-to-market through close
cooperation between committed ecosystem partners.
LTE in support of streaming video and data services is rolling
out to everyones satisfaction. Voice continues to be supported
via dual and tri-mode phones without service interruption of
any kind. CSFB allows the integration of these two types of
services based on dierent networks types seamlessly and eec-
tively. Enhanced CSFB gateways will bring the legacy voice into
IP all that much quicker, paving the way for the all-IP network.
All of this is made possible by industry-standard protocols and
an ecosystem of ATCA network equipment. Te future never
looked so bright, at least in this one corner of the world.
Andrew (Drew) Sproul is currently director of mar-
keting at Adax, Inc. During his 20+ year career in
telecom, Drew has held management positions in
sales and marketing at Adax, Trillium, and Ob-
jectStream. Drew has a BA in human services from
Western Washington University in Bellingham, WA.
Figure 2: Adax CSFB GW w/VoIP IW FX
8 Engineers Guide to WiMAX and LTE Solutions 2012
SPECIAL FEATURE
by Dr. Konstantinos Stavropoulos, Anite
Even Better than the Real Thing
The Competitive Advantage of Network Simulation for Mobile
Device Testing
Mobile network users have higher expectations than ever
before. Mobile network operators have therefore been
trying to enhance their offering and to minimize the
possibility of defective or poor-quality devices reaching
the end user. Such improvements can only be introduced
and sustained in a cost-effective fashion, especially in
the current economic climate. Network simulation can
help operators meet user expectations and gain competi-
tive advantage.
With mobile standards evolving from 2G to 3g and now
to LTE, original voice-centric handsets have been super-
seded by data-driven devices with PC-like capabilities.
Mobile users demand great performance when they buy
new devices, especially if they opt for the smart-labeled
ones. Unless these high
expectations are met, users
are likely to be disappointed
and use their devices less or
even churn.
The significance of quality
has also increased due to
the media spotlight. Any
negative reference to a flag-
ship device is a nightmare
scenario for both the device
manufacturer and the oper-
ator who has launched the
device. In many cases, news
coverage may not clarify
whether the issue is associated with the device only or
the network only or both, and could even highlight the
wrong culprit. Operators who consider device accep-
tance schemes would like to pre-empt these situations
and minimize the possibility of launching devices that
affect the performance of the network and ultimately the
mobile user experience.
Comprehensive tests to help identify and rectify device
and network issues before commercial launch are essen-
tial. Such tests can be run in the lab or in the field.
Despite the growing adoption of lab testing, some people
are still skeptical about its capability to reflect what hap-
pens in the live network, which they believe only field
testing can capture, and its overall practical significance.
As a consequence, many operators do not regard lab
testing as the real thing and find the need for lab-based
device assessment superfluous. Lab testing is the proac-
tive approach to test mobile devices/applications. Testing
in the lab enables the evaluation of mobile devices in a
controllable and repeatable simulated network envi-
ronment, which is immune to statistical uncertainty.
The following simplified diagram depicts the setup of the
leading network simulator solution for device interoper-
ability testing (IOT). The system shown at the top is
connected to the device under test via an RF cable, and
can be driven locally or remotely via a pc/laptop. As shown
in the diagram, test automation is supported too. This
setup can also be extended to consider RF fading, and
hence simulate the dynamic
network environment in an
even more realistic fashion.
Furthermore, mobile appli-
cations can be tested by
connecting the system to
internal or external data
servers.
The real-world relevance
(accuracy) of a network
simulator depends on the
modeled network character-
istics and the capabilities
of the underlying hardware
platform. By considering
real-world cell configuration data, in the form of hun-
dreds of settings, as well as changing RF conditions, the
leading network simulators can support realistic device
test scenarios in the lab.
Lab tests are based on scripts, i.e., software programs
that simulate interoperability scenarios, written by the
test solution provider or an operators engineers. New
devices may fail up to 40% of such tests when tested in
operator labs. Of course, not every scenario is run in the
lab. For instance, due to their infrastructure vendor-
agnostic nature, simulators may support simplified
signaling/other messaging. Yet this does not reduce the
power or value of network simulation.
Any negative reference
to a flagship device is a
nightmare scenario for both
the device manufacturer
and the operator who has
launched the device.
www.eecatalog.com/4G 9
SPECIAL FEATURE
Simulators enable comprehensive performance/compar-
ison testing, and can reveal if/which devices will perform
well in the live network. Lab tests consider real-world
scenarios, from simple (phone call, SMS or web browsing)
to more advanced (multi-call {CS/PS}, data throughput or
setup delay) use cases. International roaming can also be
tested, by using country-specific cell configurations. All
tests are based on 3GPP messages/procedures and terms
obscure to most mobile users, such as PDP Context or
Bearer Combination.
Lab testing helps imitate the real network environment
without fully replicating it. For example, when mobility
handover is tested in the lab, there is no explicit device
movement. Still, such movement is not of interest. What
is of interest is the change in the observed signal strength
and interference, which can be simulated. Hence, the con-
sidered network situation is the same, although strictly
speaking not identical, and a handover for a moving
device or other real-world network scenarios can be
tested in the lab.
Yet some people are not convinced. Network-derived
measurements, often described as the real thing, can
become an engineers gospel. Measurements are tan-
gible, directly related with the live network and thus
generally trusted.
Field testing or field trials or drive testing has been
a popular way for operators to benchmark and opti-
mize their networks. Conducted indoors/outdoors, field
testing is of great significance, especially for new and
not-so-mature technologies. Field trials can also high-
light issues in the interoperability of a device with the
network. However, device testing in the field presents a
number of challenges, mainly due to its dependence on
the dynamic live network.
Lab testing and field testing can be regarded as both
complementary and competitive options for mobile
device evaluation. While some tests are to be run only
in the lab or only in the field, there are many tests that
could be conducted in either environment.
The wireless environment is dynamic and can change
rapidly. Radio signals are subject to variation due to
the changing RF conditions, while the network load
demand for resources is only approximately known and
(to a large extent) unpredictable. Network configuration
changes or issues may also arise unexpectedly. Device
testing engineers are powerless in such cases, as these
changes/issues are outside their control.
Therefore, it is inherently not possible in the field to fully
control tests or to repeat them exactly. This is why, when
Figure 1 Caption: A simplifed (Anite SAS) system diagram for device interoperability testing in the lab
10 Engineers Guide to WiMAX and LTE Solutions 2012
SPECIAL FEATURE
device issues are identified, most engineers opt to repro-
duce use scenarios in the lab for debugging purposes.
Contrary to lab conditions, engineers cannot tame the
volatile wireless environment or adjust the network
configuration, and know that tests can only be partially
controlled and approximately repeated in the field.
Lab testing provides the flexibility to consider a variety
of scenarios with full control over their definition. For
example, under- or over-loaded networks can be simu-
lated as per the engineers requirements. Simulation is
also a great means to assess roaming without the expense
required to visit countries/regions, where partner net-
works operate, for drive testing. In addition, lab tests
enable the evaluation of features not yet implemented on
the live network.
Device testing in the lab is not inherently restricted
by any live network dependency. With the exception of
trial networks, which are not commercially launched
and hence have no subscribers, testing in the field can
only reflect the latest cell
configuration. The consider-
ation of what if scenarios,
including bad network
settings, is not advisable
as it would have an adverse
impact on mobile users. This
is something that operators
prefer not to risk.
Furthermore, lab testing is
not subject to spatiotem-
poral profile limitations.
Generally speaking, field
tests are conducted in spe-
cific network areas (such as drive test routes) and at
given time intervals during a day. In these terms, field
testing can only provide a partial view/assessment of
how a mobile device would operate when used on the live
network. So, field tests may fail to identify certain device
issues or may discover them late.
The lab environment also allows more scope for compre-
hensive device assessment. In general, testing in the field
comprises standardized tests of mostly basic nature. It is
therefore not surprising that experienced engineers are
reluctant to be actively involved, especially if tests are
repeated on a regular basis. Although lab testing includes
standardized tests too, the controllability of network
simulation and the ability to use automation are price-
less.
It is important to note that device tests in the lab can be
automated to a large degree. As lab testing is controllable
and repeatable, any use scenario that has been captured/
defined can be replayed at any time by using the same
setup. This is of great interest to engineers as they are
able to run regression tests and identify with confidence
why the measured device performance may have changed.
Device testing in the lab has evolved in the last few years
due to its popularity with major mobile network opera-
tors. In some cases, it has even been able to discover
problems with the live network setup. When reproducing
in the lab field-identified interoperability issues (for
example, as part of field-to-lab tests), there have been
instances where the network rather than the device was
found to be responsible.
Both lab and field testing have been used by leading oper-
ators to help enhance the quality of launched devices and
meet user expectations. Yet, the lab environment is the
single or preferable option for a large number of device
tests, especially from a commercial viewpoint.
The main reason: lab testing is cost-effective. Interest-
ingly, the capital expenditure (CapEx) for field testing is
typically lower, particularly
if no investment in dedi-
cated drive-test equipment
(including vans) is required.
This has led test solutions
vendors to introduce pricing
models that de-emphasize
the capital nature of the
expenditure for network
simulators. However, it is
the total cost of ownership
that should be considered.
The nature of device testing
in the field is such that
significant resource/time is required. In the absence of
automation and controllability, the operational expendi-
ture (OpEx) exceeds that of lab testing by far. Moreover,
insufficient or statistically uncertain tests pose a higher
risk to the quality of launched devices. Even when a
device passes a test that it may have failed before, it is
not clear whether this would be due to design changes to
the device or because of the changed everything flows
network environment.
Cost savings with lab testing are multidimensional, and
include manufacturer pre-testing that enables operators
to spot-check devices. This superior cost profile is the
main reason why network simulation dominates device
acceptance programs. In effect, field tests that can be run
in the lab, such as network selection or data throughput,
are reduced in number/scope. Simulation is also typically
used for first-pass evaluation by operators who promote
Tier-2 or own-branded devices, especially for manufac-
turers new to the industry or without a reputation for
quality.
Using a network simulator
is a faster, cheaper and
ultimately superior way
to meet mobile user
expectations compared
with other approaches.
www.eecatalog.com/4G 11
SPECIAL FEATURE
Lab testing can support comprehensive yet cost-effective
acceptance programs in an objective and well-functioning
manner. For operators to get the device ecosystem working
at its best, nonobjective criteria or difficult-to-reproduce
tests must be avoided. This would be in accordance with
strict industry quality standards, including ISO.
In general, due to the nature of lab testing, operators can
gain a competitive advantage through:
- Incrcascd LcsL ccicncy wiLh rcduccd Limc/rcsourcc Lo crcaLc
or run tests and with the ability to consider automation
- Minimum (spoL-chccking) asscssmcnL, as manuacLurcrs
can pre-test their devices and simply present their results
- BcLLcr qualiLy o launchcd dcviccs and rcduccd cosLs duc Lo
customer-identied issues, which can positively impact on
defection rates (churn), media coverage and share price
- FasLcr Limc Lo markcL or ncw dcviccs, cspccially ashionablc
or advanced ones (e.g. smartphones), which can inuence
market share and customer opinion.
Using a network simulator is a faster, cheaper and ulti-
mately superior way to meet mobile user expectations
compared with other approaches. More importantly, the
competitive advantage of network simulation has been
proven in practice.
The tangible and intangible benefits from lab testing
are not limited to operators. Device and chipset manu-
facturers have also benefited from 2G/3G operator
acceptance schemes and the ecosystem that these have
established. It is thus no coincidence that network simu-
lation is now used to verify that the highly anticipated
LTE devices will meet the needs of mobile subscribers.
Device testing in the field may be regarded as real-world
testing or as the real thing, while network simulation
may still be viewed with skepticism by some operators.
However, the ROI benefits of lab testing are so diverse
and so substantial that there should be no doubt: device
testing in the lab is even better than the real thing.
Dr. Konstantinos Stavropoulos joined Anite in 2009
as IOT product manager, responsible for SAS, Anites
network simulator product for mobile device interop-
erability testing. Konstantinos holds a PhD in digital
communications from Imperial College (London, UK)
and a Diploma in electrical and computer engineer-
ing from National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) (Athens,
Greece), has presented papers in conferences worldwide and is a mem-
ber of the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET).
WiMAX and LTE Solutions ONLINE
Explore...
Directory of leading WiMAX and LTE
solution providers
Top Stories and News
White Papers
Expert Opinions (Blogs)
Exclusive Videos
Valuable Articles
Ask the Experts
Sign up for the quarterly
WiMAX and LTE Solutions E-Product Alert
www.eecatalog.com/4G
12 Engineers Guide to WiMAX and LTE Solutions 2012
SPECIAL FEATURE
by Marc DeVinney, Interphase
Compact Base Stations
Taking LTE Where You Need It
Subscribers are adopting wireless broadband data services
at an unprecedented rate, causing mobile traffic to grow
exponentially. This growth limits the number of users and
their individual traffic loads that a carrier can serve with its
existing spectrum allocation. New technologies such as LTE
are designed to provide additional capacity and higher data
rates to relieve network congestion, but a new approach to
network deployment and expansion is required to address
the demand for high-bandwidth applications in a limited-
spectrum environment:
- Higher density. A higher density of base stations placed
in closer proximity increases the overall network capacity
while utilizing the same amount of spectrum in a more e-
cient manner. More base stations in a smaller radius allow
more trac to be transported within the same geographic
area.
- Base stations closer to subscribers. In an environment
with a high cell density, it is preferable to place base stations
as close as possible to the subscribers to avoid self-interfer-
ence and to improve indoor coverage.
- Lower per-bit cost. Average revenues per user (ARPUs)
are not expected to grow in line with the increase in trac
generated by subscribers, so service providers need to lower
the per-bit cost of transmissionfor both CAPEX and OPEX
itemsto continue to operate a sustainable business.
Traditional ground-based macrocell base station equip-
ment was designed to provide maximum power and
coverage and to minimize the number of base stations
installed. All the hardware, with the exception of the
antennas, is placed in an air-conditioned enclosure at
the bottom of the cell tower. This design is expensive in
terms of equipment, installation and operation costs,
and has demanding ground space requirements, but it
will undoubtedly retain a crucial role in cellular networks
for the foreseeable future. The traditional macrocell will
remain cost-effective for providing wide-area coverage
in environments where traffic levels are manageable.
However, this deployment model will struggle to remain
viable where a dense concentration of users demand high-
bandwidth wireless access.
Distributed base stations leave the baseband and power
amplifier within the ground enclosure, but move the
radio frequency (RF) equipment to the cell tower to be
close to the antenna. This approach reduces the power
dissipation due to the use of coaxial cables in tradi-
tional, ground-based base stations, increasing the energy
efficiency and providing some limited reduction in the
size and weight of the equipment on the ground. While
providing a reduction in cost and size, distributed base
stations still rely on ground equipment, which limits the
flexibility of deployment and incurs the cost of installing
and operating the ground-based equipment.
Both ground-based and distributed macrocell base
stations are poorly suited for dense, high-capacity 4G
network topologies where high power and wide range
are unnecessaryand are often not desired, as they
may cause self-interferenceand where building new
cell towers is difficult due to space and permitting
restrictions.
In dense deployments, microcell and picocell base
stations will become more widely used in the 4G
network topology, complementing or replacing mac-
rocells in at least two situations. One is downtown
Figure 1. Ground-based, distributed, and compact base stations
www.eecatalog.com/4G 13
SPECIAL FEATURE
environments where tall buildings make it difficult
to establish good indoor and outdoor coverage. The
new small-cell topology enables service providers to
create a dense network of cells installed close to the
subscriber and to increase capacity density. Another
is providing fill-in coverage for macrocell areas that
have zones with limited or no cellular coverage, often
in rural areas or environments with complex RF
propagation. Compact base stations enable mobile
service providers to extend coverage to these areas in
a cost-effective way.
Microcell and picocell base stations that use a ground-
based or distributed architecture have been available
for a long time. Even though they have a smaller foot-
print than ground-based macrocells, they still require
ground equipment and, as a result, are expensive to
install and operate, use high levels of power, and have
demanding site requirements. As a result, micro and
pico base stations still account for a small percentage
of installed base stations.
To enable high-capacity and dense deployments,
service providers need access to equipment that is
small, can be installed on non-telecom assets, and is
cost-effective to purchase, install and operate. Com-
pact base stations have been specifically designed to
address this challenge and give service providers the
Ar chi t ect ur e Gr ound-Based Di st r i but ed Compact
Desi gn
Descr i pt i on
Tr adi t i onal base
st at i on, i nst al l ed i n a
shel t er on t he gr ound
Baseband and power
ampl i f i er (PA)
equi pment i n a shel t er
on t he gr ound.
Radi o equi pment on
t he mast , near t he
ant enna
Baseband, PA, and RF ar e i n a si ngl e
encl osur e whi ch can be i nsi de t he ant enna
encl osur e (zer o f oot pr i nt ), have a smal l
st and-al one encl osur e, or be added as a
bl ade i n a mul t i f unct i onal syst em. No gr ound
equi pment .
Per f or mance
Same t hr oughput , l at ency, and cover age ar ea,
assumi ng t hey use t he same spect r um and t r ansmi ssion power
For m f act or Macr ocel l , mi cr ocel l , pi cocel l Macr ocel l , mi cr ocel l , pi cocel l , f emt ocel l
Sect or s
Macr ocel l : 1 t o 8, t ypi cal l y 3
Mi cr ocel l , pi cocel l : t ypi cal l y 1 t o 3
1 t o 3 sect or s
Equi pment
Baseband
Gr ound encl osur e
Gr ound encl osur e
Passi vel y cool ed uni t PA
RF Passi vel y-cool ed uni t
Ant enna
Usual l y i n cel l t ower or on r oof t op, not
i nt egr at ed
Can be i nt egr at ed wi t h base st at i on uni t
Connect i on t o
backhaul
Coaxi al cabl e Fi ber CAT-5 or f i ber
Cool i ng Temper at ur e-cont r ol l ed gr ound shel t er None needed
Ot her met r i cs
Power
consumpt i on*
100 W 2636 W* *
Wei ght
15% t o 25% of gr ound-based base st at i on
weight * *
Cost
Compar abl e t o
gr ound-based base
st at i ons
25% of gr ound-based base st at i on* *
* Base st at i on, excl udi ng cool i ng syst em and r adi o component s
* * Tot al depends on speci f i c f or m f act or and number of sect or s
Table 1. Comparison across base station architectures
14 Engineers Guide to WiMAX and LTE Solutions 2012
SPECIAL FEATURE
tools to evolve to more flexible network topologies as
they move to 4G.
In a clear departure from the traditional base station
architecture, compact base stations eliminate the
need for ground equipment. They strive to maximize
traffic capacity and reduce the costs of building and
operating a network by being small and flexible,
thus reducing both CAPEX and OPEX. The compact
architecture can be used for macrocells, microcells,
picocells and femtocells, but all compact base sta-
tions share some key features:
- Compact, lightweight form factor. Base stations can be
installed on virtually any vertical surface or pole. Tey can
be installed on cell towers as well, but it is not required.
- No ground equipment. If solar power and wireless back-
haul are used, there is no need to have any connection from
the base station to the ground. Otherwise, only an Ethernet
connection (typically using CAT-5 or ber) to the ground is
needed to provide backhaul connectivity and power over
Ethernet (PoE).
- System-on-a-chip (SoC) chipset. A single multicore
chipset can support multiple sectors, and it is fully com-
pliant with the air interface standards.
- Same performance as traditional equipment. Data
rates for compact base stations are comparable to those for
ground-based or distributed base stations with similar con-
gurations (e.g., spectrum band or channel size).
- Single ruggedized enclosure for baseband, PA and RF.
In some congurations, antennas may also be integrated
within the same enclosure; this is called a zero-footprint
conguration.
- Low power consumption.
- Passive cooling.
Compact base stations include baseband, control,
PA and RF in a single low-power, passively cooled
package. They enable antenna placement in conve-
nient, existing locations, whether mounted on an
existing cell tower, a lamppost, a building or even
a mobile vehicle. These small, powerful base sta-
tions can be made in a variety of form factors: a zero
footprint, a small stand-alone enclosure or even a
blade where it makes sense to include the small cell
application within existing server equipment for a
multifunctional system.
Zero-footprint base stations, the ultimate in com-
pact size, reduce the base station to a module that
is mounted inside the antenna enclosure, similar to
a femtocell but with the performance of a picocell or
microcell. Depending on expected user density, these
extremely cost-effective base stations can support
from one to three sectors.
Stand-alone compact base stations can come in a
variety of enclosures to suit the application, including
a ruggedized casing suitable for pole or building
mounting, a ruggedized chassis for vehicle mounting,
and a standards-based, small-footprint chassis such
as MicroTCA. These compact base stations can be
configured to handle picocell, microcell or macrocell
applications in this single enclosure, supporting one
to three sectors. They can even be configured to be a
self-contained evolved packet core (EPC), as well as a
base station.
The small form factor and low-power consumption
that sets compact base stations apart from tradi-
tional equipment is enabled by highly integrated
system-on-a-chip (SoC) technology. SoC multicore
chipsets combine physical (PHY) layer (layer 1),
media access control (MAC) sublayer in the data link
layer (layer 2), and, optionally, network layer(layer 3)
functionality to support the computationally inten-
sive processing of 4G wireless interfaces. A compact
base station SoC chipset has multiple coresdigital
signal processing (DSP), reduced instruction set
computing(RISC) and applicationspecific integrated
circuit (ASIC) coresand hardware accelerators. A
single SoC chipset can support up to three sectors
with 2x2 multiple input multiple output (MIMO)
technology. Furthermore, the tight integration of
PHY, MAC and layer 3 functionality within the same
chipset minimizes the end-to-end latency, which is
crucial to real-time applications such as voice, video
or gaming. The RF can be part of the base station or
in a separate housing.
Since compact base stations are typically placed close
to the antennas or inside the antenna enclosure,
this arrangement limits the power loss due to the
coaxial cable used to connect the ground equipment
to the antennas, and substantially reduces the power
requirement of the entire base station.
A three-sector compact base station, including the
antenna,can weigh as little as 10 kg. Because they do
not require a shelter on the ground or active cooling,
compact base stations can be installed in virtually
any locationfrom cell towers to lampposts and
vertical walls, and from rural assets to corporate cam-
puses and indoor locations. The only requirements
to operate them are power and backhaul. However,
energy consumption is sufficiently low (26 W to 36 W
for the processor core in a zero-footprint configura-
tion) to allow solar panels to power the base station
www.eecatalog.com/4G 15
SPECIAL FEATURE
or to use power over Ethernet (PoE). Furthermore,
wireless backhaul can be used to further reduce the
size of the equipment and allow more flexibility in the
positioning of the base station. As a result, compact
base stations present strong advantages for remote
locations where power and wireline connectivity are
not available.
Crucially, however, compact base stations do not
compromise on performance. Assuming the same
spectrum bandwidth and the same transmission
power, performance of a compact base station is com-
parable to that of ground-based or distributed base
stations.
Compact base stations have been primarily developed
to meet the demands of 4G high-capacity, high-
density networks, but their flexible form factor, low
power consumption, and affordability also make them
an ideal technological solution for outdoor locations
with multi-sector macrocell and microcells (often
used in rural deployments)and for indoor coverage
with single-sector picocell and femtocells (Figure 2).
Often, these are combined to form a heterogeneous
network (or HetNet).
In order to meet the OPEX targets, HetNets require
self-organizing network (SON) software to minimize
or even eliminate the amount of front-end network
planning and ongoing equipment reconfiguration to
optimize the performance and reduce RF interfer-
Figure 2. Moving toward smaller form factors and a compact base station architecture
Figure 3. Interphases fexiblecompact LTE base station module: form factors.
16 Engineers Guide to WiMAX and LTE Solutions 2012
SPECIAL FEATURE
ence of nearby eNode B cell sites. With advanced SON
software currently available in the market, compact
base stations have become even more practical.
Compact base stations are also well placed to sup-
port vertical applications in marketssuch as safety,
transportation, corporate, asset-tracking and utili-
tieswhere equipment flexibility and affordability
are key requirements. Because the eNode B module
used in all these configurations can be the same,
service providers can easily integrate and manage
different form factors within their core network.
The topology of wireless networks is rapidly evolving
to meet the need to transport much larger volumes of
data traffic, to keep the per-bit costs at a minimum,
and to extract the maximum performance from new,
computationally-intensive 4G interfaces such as LTE.
Deploying a larger number of traditional base sta-
tions that require actively cooled ground equipment
is a solution that is too expensive, and that fails to
the deliver the spectrum efficiency,capacity density
and coverage that wireless service providers need in
their 4G deployments.
Compact base stations have been designed to meet
these challenges. This new base station architecture
is ideally suited for dense, high-capacity deployments
in urban areas, for vertical applications and for cost-
effective wide-area coverage in under served areas.
Their small footprint and low power consumption
allow service providers to reduce their CAPEX and
OPEX, while retaining the advanced performance of
4G technologies.
Marc DeVinney is the vice president of engineering
for Interphase Corporation, where he is responsible
for all aspects of the planning, development and de-
livery of Interphase products. He also leads the LTE
line of business for Interphase. He has more than 25
years of experience in the telecom arena and holds a
masters degree in electrical engineering.
A network dedicated to the needs of
engineers, developers, designers and
engineering managers
www.eecatalog.com
f the needs of
rs and
edicated to the n
s, designers a
gers
edicate
s, de
gers
www.eecatalog.com/atca
Engineers Guide to
AdvancedTCA
& MicroTCA