Trial Report

Transmission Modes Evaluation

in TDD Network

Huawei Optimization Team

Eastern Region
29-May-2013

Contents

Technical Background
Various TM configurations
Single TM Mode Testing
Combined TM mode Testing
Comparison of all TM
Modes
summary

Technical Background
In the downlink, LTE uses technologies such as MIMO to achieve
high data rates
In 3GPP Release 8, 7 Different Transmission modes are
introduced
TM1: Single Antenna transmission
TM2: Transmit diversity
TM3: Open loop spatial multiplexing with cyclic delay diversity
(CDD)
TM4: Closed loop spatial multiplexing
TM5: Multi-user MIMO
TM6: Closed loop spatial multiplexing using a single
transmission layer
TM7: Beamforming Single Antenna Port

Huawei eRAN2.2 supports and enables TM2,3,4,6 & 7 via

various configurations

Technical Background
Following Configurations are possible in Huawei
eRAN2.2
Single Mode

TM2

TM3

TM4

TM6

Adaptive Open Loop

+ Beamforming

Adaptive Closed
Loop

TM2, TM3, TM7

TM2, TM4, TM6

In case of MIMO configuration is not Adaptive, only Single Mode

TM is used
In case of Open Loop (OL) + Beamforming (BF), 3 TM modes
are used
BF requires Open Loop setting. Thusly, it cant be implemented
with Closed Loop TM

Single TM evaluation
TM2
The default MIMO mode
Concept: sending the same information via various
antennas
Each antenna stream uses different coding and different
frequency resources Improves the signal-to-noise ratio
Makes transmission more robust.

Single TM evaluation
TM2
90% of RSRP is greater than -110dBm
87% of SINR is greater than 0
58% of Throughput is greater than 1Mbps

Single TM evaluation
TM2
Increase of RSRP and SINR yield increase in DL
throughput (reach 7.1Mbps)
Using TM2, Average SINR > 0 for RSRP > -115
Maximum SINR = 24
25

20

10

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

RSRP

-90

-80

-70

-5
-60

SINR

15

Single TM evaluation
TM3
supports spatial multiplexing of two to four layers that are
multiplexed to two to four antennas
Used when channel information is missing or when the
channel rapidly changes (e.g. for UEs moving with high
velocity)
Achieves higher data rates
Requires less UE feedback

Single TM evaluation
TM3
93% of RSRP is greater than -110
84% of SINR is greater than 0
68% of DL Throughput is greater than 1Mbps

Single TM evaluation
TM3
Increase of RSRP and SINR yield increase in DL
throughput (reach 27.5Mbps)
Using TM3, Average SINR > 0 for RSRP > -112
Maximum SINR = 27
30

20
15
10
5
0

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

RSRP

-80

-70

-60

-5
-50

SINR

25

Single TM evaluation
TM4
spatial multiplexing with up to four layers that are
multiplexed to up to four antennas
permit channel estimation at the receiver
UE Feedback the channel situation at Rx side using an
index (precoding matrix indicators, or PMI)
Most effect in case of High SINR and slow-moving UE
achieve higher data rates

Single TM evaluation
TM4
90% of RSRP is greater than -110
89% of SINR is greater than 0
70% of DL Throughput is greater than 1Mbps

Single TM evaluation
TM4
Increase of RSRP and SINR yield increase in DL
throughput (reach 5.5Mbps)
Using TM4, Average SINR > 0 for RSRP > -110
Maximum SINR: 25

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-5
-50

Single TM evaluation
TM6
special type of closed loop spatial multiplexing (TM 4)
only one layer is used (corresponding to a rank of 1)
UE estimates the channel and sends the index of the
most suitable precoding matrix back to the base station
Suitable in cases of low SINR and low mobility

Single TM evaluation
TM6
89% of RSRP is greater than -110
87% of SINR is greater than 0
63% of DL Throughput is greater than 1Mbps

Single TM evaluation
TM6
Increase of RSRP and SINR yield increase in DL
throughput (reach 8.7Mbps)
Using TM6, Average SINR > 0 for RSRP > -113
Maximum SINR = 29
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10

-150

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-15
-50

Adaptive TM evaluation
TM2, TM3 & TM7
Switches between TM2, TM3 & TM7 based on the UE
coverage
TM2 will be suitable for Low SINR and low speed
TM3 will be suitable for High SINR and high speed
TM7 will be suitable for cell edge users
This is the used transmission method in Huawei
network

Adaptive TM evaluation
TM2, TM3 & TM7
90% of RSRP is greater than -110
88% of SINR is greater than 0
69% of DL Throughput is greater than 1Mbps

Adaptive TM evaluation
TM2, TM3 & TM7
The lower RSRP goes, the higher the probability the UE
will use TM7
TM2 is less used due to mobility of UE
When RSRP <-110, TM7 becomes the main TM to be used
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

TM2

TM3

TM7

 Increase of RSRP and SINR yield increase in DL

throughput (reach 10.4Mbps)
Using TM2,3 & 7, Average SINR > 0 for RSRP > -112
Maximum SINR = 29.25
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5

-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-10
-50

Adaptive TM evaluation
TM2, TM4 & TM6
Switches between TM2, TM4 & TM6 based on the UE
coverage
TM2 will be suitable for Low SINR and low speed
TM4 will be suitable for High SINR and low speed
TM6 will be suitable for low SINR and low speed

Adaptive TM evaluation
TM2, TM4 & TM6
91% of RSRP is greater than -110
89% of SINR is greater than 0
68% of DL Throughput is greater than 1Mbps

Adaptive TM evaluation
TM2, TM4 & TM6
Regardless of RSRP variation, the UE almost always
transmit through TM4. this can be a result to:
A- Similarity between TM4 & TM6 with advantage of TM4
B- PMI reporting by the UE allows for lower RBLER, results
in reducing the need to use TM2
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

TM2

TM4

TM6

Adaptive TM evaluation
TM2, TM4 & TM6
Increase of RSRP and SINR yield increase in DL
throughput (reach 11.2Mbps)
Using TM2,4 & 6, Average SINR > 0 for RSRP > -114
Maximum SINR = 28.5

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-10
-50

Overall Comparison
DT results
As per DT results, combined mode (TM2,3,& or TM2,4,6)
shows better performance than non-compined

TM2,3 TM2,4
,7
,6

TM2

TM3

TM4

TM6

RSRP > -110

90.00%

93.00%

90.00%

89.00%

90.00%

91.00%

SINR > 0

87.00%

84.00%

89.00%

87.00%

88.00%

89.00%

DL throughput >
1Mbps

58.00%

68.00%

70.00%

63.00%

69.00%

68.00%

Overall Comparison
Coverage Radius
TM2 showed the largest coverage radius, with 1800m.
TM2,4,6 showed the lowest with 900m
When RSRP < -100dBm, variation in coverage radius
starts to appear between different TM Modes
Distance Vs. TM Mode
-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

TM246 shows smaller

cell range. It is not
suitable for huge cell
radius

-500
200
400
600
800

meters

1000

TM3 showed higher

degradation in RSRP with
larger distance from cell

1200
1400

TM237 is providing the 2 nd

cell radius range. Only
TM2 showed better cell
radius

1600
1800
2000

TM2

Moving average (TM2)

TM3

Moving average (TM3)

TM4

Moving average (TM4)

TM6

Moving average (TM6)

TM237

Moving average (TM237)

TM246

Moving average (TM246)

Overall Comparison
Coverage Radius
When RSRP > -80dBm, the SINR starts to show clear
variation between different TM Modes
All TM modes has the same SINR performance at cell
edge
RSRP Vs. SINR
-140

-130

-120

-110

-100

-90

-80

-70

-60

-50
35
30
25
20
15

Axis Title
TM237 provides a
stable RSRP Vs. SINR
Performance

10
5
0
-5
-10
-15

TM2

Moving average (TM2)

TM3

Moving average (TM3)

TM4

Moving average (TM4)

TM6

Moving average (TM6)

TM237

Moving average (TM237)

TM246

Moving average (TM246)

Overall Comparison
RSRP Vs. Throughput
TM3 showed the best DL throughput.
In order, 1) TM3 2)TM246 3) TM237 4) TM2, 5)TM4, 6)TM6

Throughput Vs. TM Mode

20000

TM3 provides the

highest throughput

18000
16000
14000
12000
10000

Axis Title

TM246 showed better

throughput on lower
RSRP than other modes

8000
TM237 shows
high efficiency
in throughput

6000
4000
2000

-140

-130

TM2
-120
-110
Moving average (TM3)
TM6
Moving average (TM237)

Moving average (TM2)

-100
-90
-80
TM4
Axis average
Title
Moving
(TM6)
TM246

TM3

-70
-60
Moving average (TM4)
TM237
Moving average (TM246)

0
-50

Summary
- TM2 out performed other modes in terms of cell radius, yet lower
-

throughput can be expected for good coverage users

TM3 resulted throughput was the highest for good coverage users.
However, the performance at the cell edge was weaker than other
TM modes
TM4 performance was normal without any exceptional out
performing areas
TM6 provided good coverage along the way. Nonetheless, the
single layer limited the maximum achievable throughput
TM2,3,7 out performed other modes in terms of coverage radius
and SINR Vs. RSRP. It is already the main TM mode in the
network. Recommended for normal cells with standard radius
(1000m)
TM2,4,6 showed higher throughput with lower RSRP. The coverage
radius is a drawback for this mode. It is recommended for cells with
small coverage radius (less than 500m)

Practical Trial
Intro
6 Sites were selected in Ahsa city. The chosen area contains
sites with maximum distance 500m and with average
Population density.

Sites Height
Sites heights varying between 16m and 25m with majority of heights
more than 20m.
30

Sites hight

25

20

15

10

0
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Applied Changes
The main goal of the below changes is to change the
transmission mode for the selected cells
from( TM2,TM3,TM7 ) To ( TM2,TM4,TM6)

disable beam forming

change MIMO ADAPTIVE mode to CL_ADAPTIVE
which is TM2,TM4,TM6
change SRS configuration to Boolean false

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

The comparison will be subjected to

1. Used TM.
2. RSRP.
3. SINR.
4. DL Throughput.
5. UL Throughput.
6. PUSCH Power.
7. Pre & post DT analyses

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

Covered by
sites out of the
modification
area

Used TM.

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

DL Throughput based on RSRP value for all
TMs

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

Used TM
TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Areas covered
by sites out of the
modification area

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

RSRP
TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

RSRP

TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

SINR
TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

SINR
TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

DL Throughput
TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

DL Throughput

TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Pre-DT & Post-DT Comparison

PUSCH Power
TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Pre-DT & Post-DT

Comparison
PUSCH Power
TM 2,3,7

TM 2,4,6

Pre-DT & Post-DT

Comparison
Comparison between
TMs

DL Throughput
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
TM3
50.00%

TM7
TM2

40.00%

TM4
TM6

30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
100000-->10000

10000-->5000

5000-->1000

1000-->0

Post DT analysis

In CL_adaptive MIMO mode, 88% of the

transmission is on TM4.
5% Enhancement noticed in RSRP and 3% in
SINR after changing to CL_Apadtive_MIMO
Very good improvement in DL throughput
specially on the areas with more than 250m
distance from the site
Decreasing in PUSCH power of the UE which
positively effects the SINR.

Changes impacts on KPIs

In the following slides, we will discuss changes

impacts on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Throughput.
DL RBER.
Service dope rate.
ERAP Setup Success Rate.
RRC Setup Success Rate(services & signaling)

Changes impacts on KPIs

Comparing the same site in the same day within two weeks, we can
notice the DL throughput improvement on cell level.
1400

DL throughput Gbyte
1200

1000

800

600

400

200

AHSA2523_LTE

AHSA3184_LTE

AHSA3187_LTE

AHSA3189_LTE

AHSA3697_LTE

HUFEA2790_P2_LTE

Changes impacts on KPIs

DL RBER slightly negatively effected

Changes impacts on KPIs

No noticeable change on Service Drop Rate

Changes impacts on KPIs

No noticeable change on ERAP setup success Rate

Changes impacts on KPIs

RRC SSR Services trend is normal

Changes impacts on KPIs

RRC SSR Signaling trend is normal