Date of publication xxxx 00, 0000, date of current version xxxx 00, 0000.

Digital Object Identifier xx.xxxx/ACCESS.2020.DOI

Coverage Evaluation for 5G Reduced

Capability New Radio (NR-RedCap)
SAEEDEH MOLOUDI1 , MOHAMMAD MOZAFFARI2 , SANDEEP NARAYANAN KADAN
VEEDU1 , KITTIPONG KITTICHOKECHAI1 , Y.-P. ERIC WANG2 , JOHAN BERGMAN3 , and
ANDREAS HÖGLUND1
1
Ericsson Research, Sweden, (e-mails: {saeedeh.moloudi, sandeep.narayanan.kadan.veedu, kittipong.kittichokechai, andreas.hoglund}@ericsson.com)
arXiv:2101.07310v1 [cs.IT] 18 Jan 2021

2
Ericsson Research, Silicon Valley, Santa Clara, CA, USA, (e-mails: {mohammad.mozaffari, eric.yp.wang}@ericsson.com)
3
Ericsson Business Unit Networks, Sweden, (e-mail: [email protected])
Corresponding author: Saeedeh Moloudi (e-mail: [email protected]).

ABSTRACT The fifth generation (5G) wireless technology is primarily designed to address a wide
range of use cases categorized into the enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB), ultra-reliable and low latency
communication (URLLC), and massive machine-type communication (mMTC). Nevertheless, there are a
few other use cases which are in-between these main use cases such as industrial wireless sensor networks,
video surveillance, or wearables. In order to efficiently serve such use cases, in Release 17, the 3rd
generation partnership project (3GPP) introduced the reduced capability NR devices (NR-RedCap) with
lower cost and complexity, smaller form factor and longer battery life compared to regular NR devices.
However, one key potential consequence of device cost and complexity reduction is the coverage loss. In
this paper, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of NR RedCap coverage for different physical channels
and initial access messages to identify the channels/messages that are potentially coverage limiting for
RedCap UEs. We perform the coverage evaluations for RedCap UEs operating in three different scenarios,
namely Rural, Urban and Indoor with carrier frequencies 700 MHz, 2.6 GHz and 28 GHz, respectively. Our
results confirm that for all the considered scenarios, the amounts of required coverage recovery for RedCap
channels are either less than 1 dB or can be compensated by considering smaller data rate targets for RedCap
use cases.

INDEX TERMS 5G, NR, Reduced capability devices, RedCap, Link budget evaluation, Coverage recovery.

I. INTRODUCTION munications (LTE-M) and narrowband Internet-of-Things

The fifth generation (5G) wireless technology enables a wide (NB-IoT) [3–5]. In addition, there are still several other use
range of services with different requirements in terms of cases whose requirements are higher than LPWAN (i.e., LTE-
data rates, latency, reliability, coverage, energy efficiency, M/NB-IoT) but lower than URLLC and eMBB [6]. In order
and connection density. Specifically, the 5G new radio (NR) to efficiently support such use cases which are in-between
primarily supports enhanced mobile broadband (eMBB) and eMBB, URLLC, and mMTC, the 3rd generation partnership
ultra-reliable and low-latency communication (URLLC) use project (3GPP) has studied reduced capability NR devices
cases [1, 2]. The 5G NR caters to flexibility, scalability, and (NR-RedCap) in Release 17 [6]. The RedCap study item has
efficiency with its unique features and capabilities. It sup- been completed in December 2020 and is continued as a work
ports a wide frequency range, large bandwidth (BW), flexible item [7].
numerology, dynamic scheduling, and advanced beamform- The NR-RedCap user equipment (UE) is designed to have
ing features which make it suitable for enabling various use lower cost, lower complexity (e.g., reduced bandwidth and
cases with stringent data rate and latency requirements [1]. number of antennas), a longer battery life, and enable a
Meanwhile, massive machine-type communication (mMTC) smaller form factor than regular NR UEs. These devices
is supported by the low-power wide-area network (LPWAN) support all frequency range 1 (FR1) and frequency range
solutions such as long term evolution for machine-type com- 2 (FR2) bands for both frequency division duplex (FDD)

VOLUME XX, 2016 1

and time division duplex (TDD) operations. One drawback TABLE 1: List of abbreviations.
of complexity reduction in terms of device bandwidth re- Abbreviation Definition
duction or number of Rx/Tx antenna reduction for RedCap BW Bandwidth
UEs is coverage loss which varies for different physical BWP Bandwidth part in NR
channels. To compensate for the coverage loss, different CRC Cyclic redundancy check
coverage-recovery solutions can be considered depending on CORESET Control resource set
DCI Downlink control information
the coverage-limiting channels and the level of the needed DL Downlink
coverage recovery. DMRS Demodulation reference signal
Our aim in this paper is to investigate the impact of FDD Frequency division duplex
the complexity reduction on the coverage performance of FDRA Frequency domain resource allocation
LLS Link-level simulation
RedCap UEs, identify the corresponding coverage-limiting LPWAN Low-power wide-area network
channels, and evaluate the amount of coverage recovery LTE-M Long term evolution for machine-type communications
needed for those channels. For that, we have considered MCS Modulation and coding scheme
MCL Maximum coupling loss
the Rel-15 NR UEs as a reference UE, and compared the
MIL Maximum isotropic loss
coverage performance of RedCap UEs to the reference UE MPL Maximum path loss
performance for all NR physical channels used for the initial Msg2 Message 2 for random access response over PDSCH
access, random access, as well as control and data channels Msg3 Message 3 for scheduled UL transmission over PUSCH
Msg4 Message 4 for contention resolution PDCCH or PDSCH
for downlink (DL) and uplink (UL) transmissions. NB-IoT Narrowband Internet-of-Things
To evaluate the coverage performance, we have followed NR New Radio
two main steps: 1) performed link-level simulations (LLSs) OFDM Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing
to obtain the required SINR, considering performance targets PDCCH Physical downlink control channel
PDSCH Physical downlink shared channel
such as block error rate (BLER) for the different physi- PRACH Physical random-access channel
cal channels; 2) used the LLS results and performed link- PRB Physical resource block
budget evaluation for both reference UE and RedCap UE. PUCCH Physical uplink control channel
Finally, considering maximum isotropic loss (MIL) as a PUSCH Physical uplink shared channel
Rx Receiver
coverage-evaluation metric, we have identified the reference SCS Subcarrier spacing
UE channel with the lowest MIL as the bottleneck channel, SSB Synchronization signal block
(i.e. the channel that is limiting Rel-15 coverage), and the TBS Transport block size
TDD Time division duplex
corresponding MIL as a coverage threshold. Any RedCap TDRA Time domain resource allocation
channel with MIL smaller than the threshold is considered Tx Transmitter
as coverage limiting channel and needs coverage recovery. UE User equipment
Our results show that for RedCap UEs operating in FR1 UL Uplink
bands, PUSCH and Msg3 need approximately 3 dB and 0.8
dB coverage recovery, respectively. In FR2, the impact of
complexity reduction is more considerable for DL channels. As can be seen from Table 2, the requirements on data rate,
Based on our results, PDSCH and Msg4 require 3.4 dB latency and reliability are diverse for RedCap use cases.
and 0.5 dB coverage recovery, respectively. It should be Furthermore, these requirements differ significantly from the
noted that the required coverage recovery for data channels requirements for LPWAN use cases, currently addressed by
can be compensated by reducing the data rate targets. Our LTE-M and NB-IoT. Thus, NR-RedCap is not intended for
results demonstrate key tradeoffs and guidelines needed for LPWAN use cases and is mainly intended “mid-range" IoT
designing the NR-RedCap. market segment.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. First, we In addition to the use case specific requirements in Table 2,
provide a list of main abbreviations (see Table 1) used the following generic requirements are common to all Red-
throughout the paper. In Section II, we provide an overview Cap use cases [6]:
of NR-RedCap UEs and their key features. In Section III, • Lower device cost and complexity as compared to high-

a detailed description and results of LLSs are presented. end eMBB and URLLC devices of Release-15/Release-
Subsequently, Section IV covers our link budget evaluations. 16.
Finally, the concluding remarks are provided in Section V. • Smaller device size or compact form factor, and
• Support deployment in all FR1/FR2 bands for FDD and

II. REDUCED CAPABILITY NEW RADIO DEVICES TDD.

(NR-REDCAP) In order to meet the above generic requirements, and more
The use cases envisioned for RedCap include industrial wire- specifically the one on device complexity and device size, the
less sensor network (IWSN), video surveillance cameras, following features have been considered in the RedCap study
and wearables (e.g., smart watches, rings, eHealth related item [6]:
devices, medical monitoring devices, etc.). The specific re- a) Reduced number of UE receiver (Rx) and/or transmitter
quirements of these use cases are summarized in Table 2. (Tx) branches,
2 VOLUME XX, XXXX
 TABLE 2: Use case specific requirements for RedCap. is used as a reference. The maximum bandwidth capability
IWSN IWSN Video Wearables of the reference UE is assumed to be 100 MHz in FR1 and
(non-safety) (safety) surveillance
Data rate UL: < 2 Mbps UL: < 2 Mbps UL1 : 2-4 Mbps UL2 : 2-5 200 MHz in FR2, for both uplink and downlink. For RedCap
(reference bit rate) Mbps, DL3 : UEs, the bandwidth reduction options considered during the
5-50 Mbps
Latency < 100 ms 5-10 ms < 500 ms - study item [6] are 20 MHz in FR1 and 50 or 100 MHz in
Battery life Few years - - 1-2 weeks FR2. The cost reduction, relative to that of the reference NR
Reliability 99.99% 99.99% 99%-99.9% -
Note 1: High-end video e.g. for farming would require 7.5-25 Mbps. UE, is summarized in Table 4 [8].
Note 2: Peak data rate of the wearables is up to 50 Mbps for uplink. As shown in Table 3 and Table 4 , the reduction of number
Note 3: Peak data rate of the wearables is up to 150 Mbps for downlink.
of Rx branches and UE bandwidth will lead to cost saving
TABLE 3: Estimated relative UE cost reduction for reduced num- benefits for the RedCap UEs. The drawback, however, is
ber of UE Rx branches. that the performance and consequently the coverage of the
Reduced number FR1 FDD FR1 TDD FR1 TDD FR2 (2Rx to UEs can be negatively impacted. In the following sections,
of Rx branches (2Rx to 1Rx) (4Rx to 2Rx) (4Rx to 1Rx) 1Rx) we evaluate the coverage impacts that entail from the use
Case 1 26% 31% 46% 31%
Case 2 37% 40% 60% 40%
of these complexity reduction features. In addition to the
Case 1: Total cost reduction (without DL MIMO layer reduction). complexity reduction features, the coverage analysis in FR1
Case 2: Total cost reduction (with DL MIMO layer reduction, i.e. number also takes into consideration reduced antenna efficiency due
of MIMO layer equal to number of Rx branches).
to size limitations for devices such as wearables. The antenna
TABLE 4: Estimated relative UE cost reduction for reduced maxi- efficiency loss is limited to 3 dB, and is considered for both
mum UE bandwidth. uplink and downlink channels in the link budget evaluations.
Reduced UE FR1 FDD FR1 TDD FR2 (200 FR2 (200
bandwidth (100 MHz to (100 MHz to MHz to 100 MHz to 50 III. LINK LEVEL SIMULATIONS
20 MHz) 20 MHz) MHz) MHz)
Total cost reduction 32% 33% 16% 24% In order to evaluate the impact of the UE complexity re-
duction on coverage of RedCap physical channels, as the
first step we have performed link-level simulations (LLS)
b) UE bandwidth reduction, to obtain the required SINR for the physical channels under
c) Half-duplex FDD, performance target for the both reference UEs and RedCap
d) Relaxed UE processing time, UEs. Then, the outcomes of the LLSs are used to perform
e) Relaxed UE processing capability. the link budget evaluation to find coverage limiting channels.
The complexity reduction features which are expected to As it is expected that the coverage of a physical channel
have the largest impact on coverage performance are (a) re- is affected by complexity reduction differently in different
duced number of UE Rx/Tx branches and (b) UE bandwidth frequency bands, we have performed the LLSs for three
reduction. Therefore, in what follows, we describe these different scenarios:
features in more detail. More details on features (c), (d) and
1) FR1, Rural with the carrier frequency of 0.7 GHz,
(e) are provided in TR 38.875 [8].
2) FR1, Urban with the carrier frequency of 2.6 GHz,
The reduction of minimum number of Rx and/or Tx
3) FR2, Indoor with the carrier frequency of 28 GHz.
branches relative to that of a reference Rel-15 NR UE will
lower the cost and complexity of the RedCap UEs. The Any of the UL and DL initial access messages or physical
reference NR UE supports 2Rx/1Tx branches in FR1 FDD channels can be potentially coverage limiting for RedCap
bands, 4Rx/1Tx branches in FR1 TDD bands, and 2Rx/1Tx UEs, therefore, we have considered LLSs for the following
branches in FR2 bands [8]. For RedCap UEs, the config- messages and channels [1]:
uration for Rx and Tx branches that were considered are • Synchronized signal block (SSB), including primary
1Rx/1Tx and 2Rx/1Tx, in both FR1 and FR2. Furthermore, SS (PSS), secondary SS (SSS) and physical broadcast
carrier aggregation is not considered. The cost reduction, channel (PBCH), is periodically transmitted on DL to
relative to that of the reference NR UE and in terms of initial cell search (in this paper mainly consider PBCH),
modem bill of materials, from reducing the minimum number and carries the information that UE needs in order to
of Rx branches is summarized in Table 3 [8]. In FR1, the connect to the network,
reduction of number of Rx branches is also beneficial in • Physical random-access channel (PRACH), is used by
terms of reducing the device size. In FR2, however, the UE for transmission of preamble over UL,
reduction of number of Rx branches may not provide much • Message 2 (Msg2) or random-access response, is trans-
benefit in terms of reducing the device size as the antenna mitted on DL for indicating reception of the preamble
separation is in the order of the wavelength. and sending time alignment information,
In addition to the reduction in number of Rx branches, • Message 3 (Msg3) is used by UE to transmit information
UE bandwidth reduction is another important feature that such as a device identity that is needed for the next
can considerably bring down the cost and complexity of the message over PUSCH,
RedCap UE. For the estimation of relative cost/complexity • Message 4 (Msg4) transfers the UE to the connected
saving due to UE bandwidth reduction, a Release 15 NR UE state,
VOLUME XX, XXXX 3
TABLE 5: Link-level simulations assumptions for reference UE. TABLE 7: Channel-specific parameters for SSB.
Carrier frequencies Rural: 700 MHz (FDD)
Channel Assumptions
Urban: 2.6 GHz (TDD)
Indoor: 28 GHz (TDD) SSB (Residual) frequency offset (UE): 0.1 ppm
BWP BW Rural: 20 MHz SS burst set periodicity: 20 ms
Urban: 100 MHz
Indoor: 100 MHz Precoder: Precoder cycling
SCS Rural: 15 kHz Number of transmissions (shots): 4
Urban: 30 kHz
Indoor: 120 kHz BLER target: 1%
Frame structure for TDD Urban: DDDDDDDSUU (S: 6D:4G:4U)
Indoor: DDDSU (S: 10D:2G:2U)
Number of gNB TX chains Urban: 4
Rural, Indoor: 2 10 0
Number of gNB RX chains Urban: 4 1 Rx, 2 Tx
Rural, Indoor: 2 2 Rx, 2 Tx
Number of UE TX chains Rural, Urban, Indoor: 1

BLER 4 transmissions
Number of UE RX chains Urban: 4
Rural, Indoor: 2
Channel model Rural, Urban,: TDL-C, NLOS
Indoor: TDL-A, NLOS
UE antenna correlation Rural, Urban, Indoor: Low 10 -1
Delay spread Rural, Urban: 300 ns
Indoor: 30 ns
UE velocity Rural, Urban, Indoor: 3 km/h

TABLE 6: Link-level simulations assumptions for RedCap.

10 -2
BWP BW Rural: 20 MHz -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
Urban: 20 MHz SNR [dB]
Indoor: 100 MHz
Number of UE RX chains Rural, Urban, Indoor: 2 and 1 FIGURE 1: BLER performance of SSB, 700 MHz.

• Physical downlink control channel (PDCCH), is mainly SSB.

used for transmission of control information such as Our simulation results are shown in Figures 1-3 for Rural,
scheduling decisions, Urban, and Indoor scenarios, respectively. For Rural scenario
• Physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), is mainly at carrier frequency of 700 MHz, the performance (at 1%
used as the main transmission of DL unicast data, BLER) degrades by 4.4 dB considering the complexity re-
• Physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) is used by ductions for RedCap UEs.
UE to send information such as acknowledgments and Based on the results shown in Figure 2, the performance
channel-state reports, losses for PBCH (after 4 transmissions, at 1% BLER) in-
• Physical downlink shared channel (PUSCH), is the up- curred from reducing the number of receiver branches for a
link counterpart of PDSCH. RedCap UE with respect to the reference NR UE are 3.0 dB
Our general simulation assumptions for the reference UE and 6.9 dB for a 2 Rx and 1 Rx RedCap UE, respectively,
are listed in Table 5. To investigate the impact of the com- for Urban scenario. For the Indoor scenario in the FR2 band,
plexity reduction on the BLER performance of RedCap UEs, as it is shown in Figure 3, reducing the Rx branches to 1 the
we have also performed the LLSs for RedCap UEs consid- BLER performance degrades by 3.7 dB at 1% BLER.
ering the parameters shown in Table 5, except that the UE
bandwidth and the number of Rx branches are reduced as B. PRACH
reported in Table 6. Table 8 represents our assumptions for LLS of PRACH. The
Our channel-specific assumptions, the required perfor- miss detection rate for the PRACH of Rural, Urban, and
mance targets such as the BLER performance are discussed Indoor scenarios are shown in Figure 4. In the uplink, the
separately for each channel in the following sections. More- number of Tx branches is the same at the reference NR UE
over, the SINR requirements for meeting BLER targets for and the RedCap UE. Furthermore, as shown in Table 8, the
different channels and signals in FR1 and FR2 are summa- PRACH BW for each PRACH occasion in the frequency
rized in Tables 16-18. domain is less than that of the RedCap UE BW in all the
considered scenarios. Therefore, the link performance of
A. SSB RedCap-PRACH is identical to that of the reference UE-
Based on the assumptions reported in Table 7, we have PRACH.
performed the LLSs for both reference UE-SSB and RedCap-
4 VOLUME XX, XXXX
 0.7 GHz, format 0 (1.25 kHz SCS), 2 Rx
10 0 100 2.6 GHz, format B4 (30 kHz SCS), 4 Rx
1 Rx, 4 Tx 28 GHz, format B4 (120 kHz SCS), 2 Rx
2 Rx, 4 Tx
4 Rx, 4 Tx

Missed detection rate

BLER 4 transmissions

-1
10

-1
10

10-2

-2 10-3
10 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5
-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4
SNR [dB]
SNR [dB]

FIGURE 2: BLER performance of SSB, 2.6 GHz. FIGURE 4: Missed detection rate of PRACH.

TABLE 9: Channel-specific parameters for Msg2.

10 0 Channel Assumptions
1 Rx, 2 Tx Msg2 FDRA: 12 PRBs (considering TBS scaling factor is 0.25)
2 Rx, 2 Tx TDRA: 12 OFDM symbols
Waveform: CP-OFDM
BLER 4 transmissions

DMRS: Type I, 3 DMRS symbol, no multiplexing with data

Payload/MCS index: 9 bytes/MCS0
Number of transmissions: No HARQ
10 -1 Rx combining: MRC
Precoder: Precoder cycling, PRB bundle size of 2
BLER target: 10%

[9]. We have also considered TBS scaling of 0.25, so that a

smaller TBS can be assigned to a given MCS and a given
10 -2
-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 number of PRBs, by considering a TBS scaling factor in
SNR [dB] computing Ninfo as [9]:
FIGURE 3: BLER performance of SSB, 28 GHz.
Ninfo = SNRE Qm v, (1)
TABLE 8: Channel-specific parameters for PRACH. where S, NRE , R, Qm , and v are the scaling factor, the
Channel Assumptions
number of available resource elements, code rate, modulation
PRACH PRACH format: order, and the number of transmission layers, respectively.
- Rural: Format 0 (1.25 KHz SCS), BW = 1.04875 MHz Figures 5-7 show the BLER performance of Msg2 at
- Urban: Format B4 (15 KHz SCS), BW = 2.085 MHz carrier frequencies of 700 MHz, 2.6 GHz and 28 GHz,
- Indoor: Format B4 (120 KHz SCS), BW = 16.68 MHz respectively. As it is shown in Figure 5, at BLER performance
Number of transmissions: 1 of 10%, by reducing the number of UE Rx branches to 1,
Rx combining: non-coherent combining of branches
Msg2 performance is degraded by 6.5 dB for Rural case.
Propagation delay (RTT):
- Rural: uniformly distributed [0, 23] µs (ISD 6 km) Based on our results shown in Figure 6, at carrier fre-
- Urban: uniformly distributed [0, 2.7] µs (ISD 700 m) quency of 2.6 GHz and BLER performance of 10%, Msg2
- Indoor: uniformly distributed [0, 0.077] µs (ISD 20 m) performance is respectively degraded by 3.1 dB and 3.4 dB
Frequency error: 0.1 ppm at UE, none at gNB for reducing the number of UE Rx branches from 4 to 2 and
Performance target: 10% and 1% missed detection from 2 to 1. As it is shown in Figure 7, at carrier frequencies
at 0.1% false alarm probability of 28 GHz and BLER performance of 10%, reducing the
number of UE Rx branches to 1, Msg2 performance is
degraded by 3.8 dB.
C. MSG2
Our simulation assumptions for performing Msg2 LLSs, are D. MSG3
shown in Table 9. For Msg2 we have considered the payload Table 10 shows the assumptions for LLS of Msg3. The
size of 9 bytes and MCS index of 0 from Table 5.1.3.1-1 in BLER performance of Msg3 is shown in Figure 8. Similar
VOLUME XX, XXXX 5
 TABLE 10: Channel-specific parameters for Msg3.
100
2 Tx, 2 Rx, TBS Scaling=0.25 Channel Assumptions
2 Tx, 1 Rx, TBS Scaling=0.25 Msg3 FDRA: 2 PRBs
TDRA: 14 OFDM symbols
Waveform: DFT-s-OFDM
DMRS: Type I, 3 DMRS symbol, no multiplexing with data
Payload/MCS index: 56 bits/MCS0
BLER

10-1 Number of transmissions: No HARQ

Rx combining: MRC
No frequency hopping
BLER target: 10%

10-2 100 0.7 GHz, 2 PRBs, 56 bits, 2 Rx

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2.6 GHz, 2 PRBs, 56 bits, 4 Rx
SNR [dB] 28 GHz, 2 PRBs, 56 bits, 2 Rx

BLER (initial transmission)

FIGURE 5: BLER performance of Msg2, 700 MHz.

10-1
100 4 Tx, 4 Rx, TBS Scaling=0.25
4 Tx, 2 Rx, TBS Scaling=0.25
4 Tx, 1 Rx, TBS Scaling=0.25

10-2
BLER

10-1 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

SNR [dB]
FIGURE 8: BLER performance of Msg3.

TABLE 11: Channel-specific parameters for Msg4.

-2
10 Channel Assumptions
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
Msg4 FDRA (reference UE):
SNR [dB] - Rural: 36 PRBs
FIGURE 6: BLER performance of Msg2, 2.6 GHz. - Urban: 36 PRBs
- Indoor: 37 PRBs
TDRA: 12 OFDM symbols
Waveform: CP-OFDM
100 2 Tx, 2 Rx, TBS Scaling=0.25
DMRS: Type I, 3 DMRS symbol, no multiplexing with data
2 Tx, 1 Rx, TBS Scaling=0.25
Payload/MCS index: 130 bytes /MCS0
Number of transmissions: No HARQ
Rx combining: MRC
Precoder: Precoder cycling; PRB bundle size of 2
BLER target: 10%
BLER

-1
10

BW of Msg3 is assumed to be smaller than the RedCap UE

BW, and the number of the Tx branches of the RedCap UE is
identical to that of the reference UE.

10-2 E. MSG4
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2
SNR [dB] Our simulation assumptions for LLS of Msg4 are shown in
Table 11. Figures 9-11 show the BLER performance of Msg4
FIGURE 7: BLER performance of Msg2, 28 GHz. at carrier frequencies of 700 MHz, 2.6 GHz and 28 GHz,
respectively. Based on our simulation results in Figure 9,
by reducing the BW and the number of UE Rx branches
to PRACH, the Msg3 performance of the RedCap UE is the to 1, Msg4 performance is degraded by 4.1 dB at carrier
same as that of the reference NR UE. This is because the frequencies 700 MHz. As it is shown in Figure 10, at carrier
6 VOLUME XX, XXXX
 100 100
2 Tx, 2 Rx
2 Tx, 2 Rx
2 Tx, 1 Rx 2 Tx, 1 Rx

10-1

BLER
BLER

10-1

10-2

10-2
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
SNR [dB] SNR [dB]
FIGURE 9: BLER performance of Msg4, 700 MHz. FIGURE 11: BLER performance of Msg4, 28 GHz.

100 10 0
4 Tx, 4 Rx
1 Rx, 2 Tx
4 Tx, 2 Rx
2 Rx, 2 Tx
4 Tx, 1 Rx
BLER

BLER

10-1 10 -1

10-2
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 10 -2
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
SNR [dB] SNR [dB]
FIGURE 10: BLER performance of Msg4, 2.6 GHz. FIGURE 12: BLER performance of PDCCH, 700 MHz.

TABLE 12: Channel-specific parameters for PDCCH.

For Rural scenario at carrier frequency of 700 MHz, the
Channel Assumptions
PDCCH DCI payload size: 40 bits+CRC performance (at %1 BLER) degrades by 3.5 dB considering
Aggregation level (AL): 16 the complexity reductions for RedCap UEs.
CORESET: 2 symbols and 48 PRBs The performance losses for PDCCH (at 1% BLER) in-
Precoding: Precoder cycling at CCE level (REG bundle = 6) curred from reducing the number of receiver branches for a
BLER target: 1% RedCap UE with respect to the reference NR UE are 3.2 dB
and 6.2 dB for a 2 Rx and 1 Rx RedCap UE, respectively
at carrier frequency of 2,6 GHz. In FR2 band at carrier
frequency of 2.6 GHz and BLER performance of 10%, Msg4 frequency of 28 GHz, the performance loss is 3.9 dB by
performance is respectively degraded by 3.5 dB and 4 dB for reducing the number of Rx branches to 1 for RedCap UE.
reducing the number of Rx branches from 4 to 2 and from 2 to
1. For Indoor scenario, by reducing the BW and the number G. PDSCH
of UE Rx branches to 1, at BLER performance of 10%, Msg4 Table 13 show our assumptions for LLS of PDSCH. It is
performance is degraded by 4 dB. worth to mention that our assumptions on data rate target is
based on agreements from [6] and for the given number of
F. PDCCH PRBs, we have selected the smallest MCS index, from table
We have performed the LLS for PDCCH channel based on 5.1.3.1-1 in [9], that satisfies our data rate constraints.
the assumptions reported in Table 12, and our simulation The BLER performances for PDSCH at carrier frequencies
results are shown in Figures 12-14, respectively for carrier of 700 MHz, 2.6 GHz and 28 GHz are show in Figures 15-
frequencies 700 MHz, 2.6 GHz, and 28 GHz. 17, respectively. As it is shown in these figures, at the carrier
VOLUME XX, XXXX 7
 TABLE 13: Channel-specific parameters for PDSCH.
10 0
1 Rx, 4 Tx
Channel Assumptions
2 Rx, 4 Tx PDSCH FDRA (reference UE):
4 Rx, 4 Tx - Urban: 200 PRBs
- Indoor: 60 PRBs
- Rural: 40 PRBs
FDRA (RedCap UE):
BLER

-1 - Urban: 51 PRBs
10
- Indoor: 30 PRBs
- Rural: 40 PRBs
TDRA: 12 OFDM symbols
Waveform: CP-OFDM
DMRS: Type I, 2 DMRS symbol, no multiplexing with data
Target data rate/TBS/MCS (reference UE):
-2 - Urban: 10 Mbps/TBS =5640/MCS0
10
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 - Indoor: 25 Mbps/TBS = 3624/MCS3
SNR [dB] - Rural: 1 Mbps/TBS = 1128/MCS0
Target data rate/TBS/MCS (RedCap UE):
FIGURE 13: BLER performance of PDCCH, 2.6 GHz. - Urban: 10 Mbps/TBS = 1480/MCS0
- Indoor: 25 Mbps/TBS =3240/MCS6
- Rural: 1 Mbps/TBS = 1128/MCS0
Number of transmissions: No HARQ
10 0
1 Rx, 2 Tx Rx combining: MRC
2 Rx, 2 Tx Precoder: Precoder cycling; PRB bundle size of 2
BLER target: 10%

100
BLER

-1
10 2 Tx, 2 Rx
2 Tx, 1 Rx
BLER

10-1
-2
10
-12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
SNR [dB]

FIGURE 14: BLER performance of PDCCH, 28 GHz.

10-2
-10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
frequency of 700 MHz and 10% BLER performance, by re-
SNR [dB]
ducing the number of UE Rx branches to 1, the performance
of PDSCH is degraded by 3.8 dB. FIGURE 15: BLER performance of PDSCH, 700 MHz.
As it is shown in Figure 16, at the carrier frequency of 2.6
GHz and BLER performance of 10%, PDSCH performance TABLE 14: Channel-specific parameters for PUCCH.
is respectively degraded by 3 dB and 3.2 dB for reducing the Channel Assumptions
number of Rx branches from 4 to 2 and from 2 to 1. As it PUCCH FDRA: 1 PRB
is shown in Figure 17, For a RedCap UE with 1 Rx branch TDRA: 14 OFDM symbols
and operating at the carrier frequency of 28 GHz the PDSCH Payload and format:
- 2 bits (A/N) for format 1
performance is 4 dB worse than that of the reference UE at
- 4/11/22 bits (A/N+SR/UCI) for format 3
10% BLER. Frequency hopping: At UL BWP edge
DMRS:
H. PUCCH - Format 1: every even symbol according to the specification
- Format 3: Additional DMRS configured (4 symbols)
Table 14 shows the channel-specific parameters and perfor- Performance target:
mance targets for PUCCH. The LLS results for PUCCH at - Format 1: 1% D2A and Aerr, 0.1% N2A
carrier frequencies of 700 MHz, 2.6 GHz and 28 GHz are - Format 3: BLER 1%
shown in Figures 18-23. The results show that there is no
significant performance impact due to complexity reduction
in terms of reduced BW as the PUCCH frequency resource
8 VOLUME XX, XXXX
 100 100 PF3, 4 bits
4 Tx, 4 Rx
4 Tx, 2 Rx PF3, 11 bits
PF3, 22 bits
4 Tx, 1 Rx

BLER
10-1
BLER

10-1

10-2
-16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
-2
10 SNR [dB]
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
SNR [dB] FIGURE 18: BLER performance of PUCCH format 3, 700
FIGURE 16: BLER performance of PDSCH, 2.6 GHz. MHz.

100
100
Ack error (Aerr)
2 Tx, 2 Rx Nack-to-ACK (N2A)
2 Tx, 1 Rx DTX-to-ACK (D2A)

10-1
ACK, N2A, DTX error

10-2
BLER

-1
10

10-3

10-4
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2

10-2 SNR [dB]

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
SNR [dB]
FIGURE 19: BLER performance of PUCCH format 1, 700
MHz.
FIGURE 17: BLER performance of PDSCH, 28 GHz.

TABLE 15: Channel-specific parameters for PUSCH. 100 PF3, 4bits, 20 MHz BW
PF3, 11bits, 20 MHz BW
PF3, 22bits, 20 MHz BW
Channel Assumptions PF3, 4bits, 100 MHz BW
PUSCH FDRA: PF3, 11bits, 100 MHz BW
- Urban: 30 PRBs PF3, 22bits, 100 MHz BW
- Indoor: 66 PRBs
- Rural: 4 PRBs
BLER

TDRA: 14 OFDM symbols 10-1

Waveform: DFT-s-OFDM
DMRS: Type I, 2 DMRS symbol, no multiplexing with data
Target data rate/TBS/MCS: using MCS Table 6.1.4.1-2 (TS38.214 [])
- Urban: 1 Mbps/TBS =552/MCS3
- Indoor: 5 Mbps/TBS = 736/MCS1
- Rural: 100 kbps/TBS = 128/MCS6
Rx combining: MRC 10-2
No frequency hopping -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4
BLER target: 10% SNR [dB]

FIGURE 20: BLER performance of PUCCH format 3, 2.6

GHz.
spans only 1 PRB. Since a single UE transmit antenna is
assumed in the simulation for both RedCap and NR reference
UE, there is no performance impact related to the reduction I. PUSCH
of the number of UE antennas. Our assumptions for performing PUSCH LLSs are shown
in Table 15. Figure 24 and Figure 25 show the BLER per-
VOLUME XX, XXXX 9
 100 10
0 0.7 GHz, 4 PRBs, 2 Rx
Aerr, BW 20 MHz 2.6 GHz, 30 PRBs, 4 Rx
Aerr, BW 100 MHz 28 GHz, 66 PRBs (100 MHz), 2 Rx

BLER (initial transmission)

N2A, BW 20 MHz
N2A, BW 100 MHz
ACK, N2A, DTX error

D2A, BW 20 MHz
10-1 D2A, BW 100 MHz

10-1

10-2

10-3
10-2
-14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
SNR [dB] SNR [dB]
FIGURE 21: BLER performance of PUCCH format 1, 2.6 FIGURE 24: BLER performance of PUSCH.
GHz.

0.7 GHz, 4 PRBs, 2 Rx

100 PF3, 4bits, #100 MHz BW 2.6 GHz, 30 PRBs, 4 Rx
PF3, 11bits, #100 MHz BW 28 GHz, 66 PRBs (100 MHz), 2 Rx
PF3, 22bits, #100 MHz BW 10 1
PF3, 4bits, #200 MHz BW
PF3, 11bits, #200 MHz BW Data rate [Mbps]
PF3, 22bits, #200 MHz BW

10 0
BLER

10-1

10 -1

10 -2
10-2 -18 -16 -14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2
-14 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
SNR [dB]
SNR [dB]

FIGURE 22: BLER performance of PUCCH format 3, 28 FIGURE 25: Data rate for PUSCH.
GHz.
at the reference UE and the RedCap UE. Furthermore, as
shown in Table 15, the PUSCH transmission BW is assumed
10-1 Aerr, BW 100 MHz
Aerr, BW 200 MHz
to be less than that of the RedCap UE BW in Urban, Indoor
N2A, BW 100 MHz and Rural scenarios. Therefore, the link performance will be
N2A, BW 200 MHz
identical for the RedCap UE and the reference UE.
ACK, N2A, DTX error

D2A, BW 100 MHz

D2A, BW 200 MHz

IV. LINK BUDGET EVALUATION

10-2
Link budget evaluation is used to investigate coverage by
tracking the transmitted power, the gains and the losses along
the transmission path and power is sufficient so that the
system can operate acceptably. Coverage can be expressed
by different metrics such as maximum coupling loss (MCL),
10-3
maximum path loss (MPL) and maximum isotropic loss
-7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2
(MIL) [10]. Among these metrics, MIL and MPL include
SNR [dB]
the antenna gains. However, compared to MPL, MIL is
FIGURE 23: BLER performance of PUCCH format 1, 28 more straightforward to compute as it does not consider
GHz. parameters such as shadow fading and penetration margins.
Therefore, in this paper, we have used MIL as the key cov-
erage evaluation metric. Considering the simulation results
formance and data rate of the PUSCH for different carrier and the corresponding performance targets for the different
frequencies. Similar to other uplink physical channels con- physical channels, the required SINRs to fulfill these targets
sidered in this paper, the number of Tx branches is the same are reported in Tables 16-18, respectively, for Rural, Urban,
10 VOLUME XX, XXXX
 TABLE 16: Required SINR (dB), 700 MHz.
BW= 20 MHz, 2Rx BW= 20 MHz, 1Rx
SSB -7.3 -2.9
PRACH -9.2 -9.2
Msg2 -9.6 -5.8
Msg3 -1.5 -1.5
Msg4 -5.9 -2.2
PDCCH -6.6 -3.1
PDSCH -5.6 -2
PUCCH (2 bits) -2.9 -2.9
PUCCH (11 bits) -3.4 -3.4 FIGURE 26: MIL for 700 MHz.
PUCCH (22 bits) -0.9 -0.9
PUSCH -2.4 -2.4

TABLE 17: Required SINR (dB), 2.6 GHz.

BW= 100 MHz, 4Rx BW= 20 MHz, 2Rx BW= 20 MHz, 1Rx
SSB -11 -8 -4.1
PRACH -17.5 -17.5 -17.5
Msg2 -9.6 -6.5 -3.1
Msg3 -6 -6 -6
Msg4 -6.6 -3.1 0.9
PDCCH -9.2 -6 -3 FIGURE 27: MIL for 2.6 GHz.
PDSCH -5.7 -2.7 0.5
PUCCH (2 bits) -6.6 -6.6 -6.6
PUCCH (11 bits) -7.3 -7.3 -7.3
PUCCH (22 bits) -5.3 -5.3 -5.3
PUSCH -10.5 -10.5 -10.5

TABLE 18: Required SINR (dB), 28 GHz.

BW= 100 MHz, 2Rx BW= 100 MHz, 1Rx
SSB -8.2 -4.5
PRACH -12.2 -12.2
Msg2 -9.4 -6 FIGURE 28: MIL for 28 GHz.
Msg3 -1.8 -1.8
Msg4 -5.4 -1.4
PDCCH -6 -2.1
PDSCH -2.3 1.7
scenarios, the NR physical channel with the lowest MIL is
PUCCH (2 bits) -3.02 -3.02 considered as coverage bottleneck channel, i.e. the corre-
PUCCH (11 bits) -3.37 -3.37 sponding value is the minimum acceptable MIL and the Rel-
PUCCH (22 bits) -0.91 -0.91
PUSCH -9.4 -9.4 15 NR coverage limit is assumed to be given by this MIL. We
have considered this MIL value as the minimum acceptable
TABLE 19: Link budget assumptions. MIL also for RedCap channels and used it as a threshold to
identify the RedCap physical channels that need coverage
Parameter name Value
gNB total transmit power for carrier bandwidth (dBM) Rural: 49 recovery. Any RedCap channel whose MIL is worse than
Urban: 53 that of the threshold MIL needs coverage recovery and the
Indoor: 23 amount of required coverage compensation is the difference
Number of gNB TXRUs Rural: 2
Urban: 64 of the RedCap-channel-MIL and the threshold MIL.
Indoor: 2 As it can be seen in Figure 26 and Figure 27, for the ref-
UE total transmit power (dBm) for carrier bandwidth (dBM) Rural: 23 erence UE operating in Rural and Urban scenarios, PUSCH
Urban: 23
Indoor: 12 is the bottleneck channel and has the lowest MIL value
(MIL = 142.8 dB for Rural and MIL = 143.9 dB for
Urban). For RedCap UEs operating in Rural scenario, all
and Indoor scenarios. the physical channels and initial access messages, except
The SINR values shown in these tables are used to perform PUSCH and Msg3, have MIL larger than the threshold value.
link budget evaluation based on the template [11]. Table 19 Based on our results for Rural case, PUSCH and Msg3
shows the key assumptions that we have considered in our need 3 dB and 0.8 dB coverage compensation. For RedCap
link budget evaluations. It should be noted that for RedCap UEs operating in Urban scenarios, only PUSCH needs 3 dB
UEs operating in FR1 band (Rural and Urban), due to device coverage compensation.
size limitations, we have considered additional 3 dB antenna For the reference UE in Indoor scenario, as it is shown
inefficiency compared to the reference NR UEs. in Figure 28, PUSCH is the bottleneck channel with
In Figures 26-28 the coverage of different RedCap phys- MIL = 127.7 dB. For RedCap UE with 1 Rx branch, coverage
ical channels in terms of MIL are compared to that of the compensations of approximately 3.4 dB and 0.5 dB are
corresponding NR channels at carrier frequencies of 700 respectively, needed for PDSCH and Msg4.
MHz 2.6 GHz and 28 GHz, respectively. At each of the
VOLUME XX, XXXX 11
V. CONCLUSIONS evaluation templates, RAN1 102-e,” Aug. 2020.
In this paper, we have investigated the coverage performance
of the NR-RedCap UEs and identified the physical channels
that limit the coverage of these devices. We first have pro-
vided an overview of the NR-RedCap and discussed its use
cases, requirements, and main features. Then, for different
deployment scenarios and carrier frequencies (FR1 and FR2),
we have evaluated the link performance of RedCap UEs and
performed link-budget evaluations for all physical channels
and messages for DL and UL transmissions.
Our results have shown that for RedCap UEs operating
in FR1 band, the PUSCH can limit the coverage, and it
needs 3 dB coverage recovery. It is worth to highlight two
observations; first, the 3 dB coverage loss resulting from the
UE antenna efficiency loss due to device size limitations;
second, by reducing the data rate target for RedCap UEs
in UL, no coverage recovery is needed. For the Rural case,
a small amount of coverage compensation (approximately
0.8 dB) is needed for Msg3. For RedCap UEs operating
in FR2 band, the impact of complexity reduction is more
considerable for DL channels, and PDSCH and Msg4 are
the channels that may need coverage recovery. However, the
amount of coverage-compensation needed for Msg4 is less
than 0.5 dB and by considering smaller data rates no coverage
recovery is needed for PDSCH.

REFERENCES
[1] E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Skold, 5G NR: The
next generation wireless access technology. Academic
Press, 2018.
[2] S. Ahmadi, 5G NR: Architecture, Technology, Imple-
mentation, and Operation of 3GPP New Radio Stan-
dards. Academic Press, 2019.
[3] GSMA, “Mobile IoT in the 5G future-NB-IoT and LTE-
M in the context of 5G,” White paper, 2018.
[4] O. Liberg, M. Sundberg, E. Wang, J. Bergman, and
J. Sachs, Cellular Internet of Things: Technologies,
Standards, and Performance. Academic Press, 2017.
[5] M. Mozaffari, Y.-P. E. Wang, O. Liberg, and
J. Bergman, “Flexible and efficient deployment of NB-
IoT and LTE-MTC in coexistence with 5G new radio,”
in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, April 2019, pp. 391–396.
[6] 3GPP Tdoc RP-201677, Ericsson, “Revised SID on
study on support of reduced capability NR devices,”
July 2020.
[7] 3GPP Tdoc RP-202933, Ericsson and Nokia, “New
WID on support of reduced capability NR devices,”
Dec. 2020.
[8] 3GPP TR 38.875, “Study on support of reduced capa-
bility NR devices (Release 17),” Dec. 2020.
[9] 3GPP TS 38.214, “NR; physical layer procedures for
data (Release 16),” 2019.
[10] 3GPP TR 38.830, “Study on NR coverage enhance-
ments (Release 17),” Dec. 2020.
[11] 3GPP Tdoc R1-2007481, Moderator (Ericsson, Apple,
Qualcomm), “Feature lead (FL) summary 4 for redcap
12 VOLUME XX, XXXX