qweqweqw jjhj gfghf jgjh jhgj kjh kjkj

1. 1
Title: LTE/LTE-A Monte Carlo simulation assumption
and methodology for coexistence studies with
other Services including Broadcast
Source: Ericsson, Intel, Qualcomm
1 Introduction
The purpose of this input is to provide Monte Carlo simulation assumptions and methodology for
LTE and LTE-A, based on 3GPP analysis in TR36.942, AWG previous studies and ITU-R
relevant studies.
Monte Carlo coexistence simulations are used to investigate the mutual interference impact
between radio systems, such as LTE/LTE-A, broadcasting, satellite, etc. The simulations are based
on snapshots where users are randomly placed in a predefined deployment scenario. It is a kind of
static simulation which doesn’t take into account the small scale fading and mobility. By Monte
Carlo approach, we can simulate the aggregate interference generated by LTE/LTE-A networks.
The transmitted power of User Equipment (UE) and Base Station (BS)1 is simulated by applying
algorithms for admission control , scheduling, power control etc. The locations and transmit power
of LTE/LTE-A UE and BS should be realistic and self-consistent sufficiently.
This methodology for evaluating interference between radio systems is applied to provide more
accurate results for interference scenarios where aggregation of interference from multiple users is
necessary, and where positions and transmit power of interfering equipment needs to be reflected
in detail. It also provides a means for realistically reflecting the interaction between radio links in
the interfering and/or interfered systems, e.g. through power control and scheduling.
Monte Carlo simulations can be compared with two other methodologies, Minimum Coupling
Loss and interference aggregation through averaging. MCL analysis is primarily used to provide a
worst-case analysis between a single transmitter and the interfered equipment. Thus it doesn’t
capture the aspect of interference aggregation, nor does it in general reflect the variations of power
and position of the interferers. Estimating interference through aggregating average power may be
appropriate when there is a large number of interferers causing roughly the same level of
interference, generally at a rather large separation distance from the interfered receiver, but it will
not reflect the statistical variations that appear when one or a few interferers are dominant. Thus,
the aggregate interference can for some scenarios be analyzed more accurately with Monte Carlo
simulations compared to methods based on the deterministic analysis or averaging.
LTE and LTE-A are both OFDMA based in DL and SC-FDMA based in UL. So the same
methodology can be applied for both LTE and LTE-A coexistence studies. However, the detailed
assumptions could differ depending on whether LTE system or LTE-A system is under
1 UMTS BS and LTE BS are referred to as Node B (NB) and enhanced Node B (eNB), respectively.

2. 2
consideration. ACLR and power control parameters are also different due to the different
bandwidth for LTE-A and LTE.
Two examples of how Monte Carlo simulations can be applies to co-existence between LTE/LTE-
A and other services are presented in this contribution. The first example is for studying the
coexistence between DTV and LTE/LTE-A. It mainly focuses on analyzing the aggregate
interference from LTE UL to DTV receiver. The second example is for investigating the aggregate
interference from an IMT indoor system to FSS (Fixed Satellite System) Earth Stations.
2 Simulation Assumptions and Methodology of LTE/LTE-A
The general simulation assumptions and the detailed simulation flow are presented in this section
to provide a guideline on how to perform the coexistence simulation.
2.1 General Assumptions
For LTE or LTE-A RF coexistence studies, the static Monte-Carlo simulation methodology is
performed. Given that LTE and LTE-A are orthogonal systems, there is no intra-cell interference,
rather only inter-cell interference. E.g. in UL case only UEs allocated with the same sub-carriers
(frequency resource block) in different cells could cause other-cell interference.
A macro network layout is depicted in Figure 1. The whole network region relevant for
simulations is a cluster of 19 cells (cells 1 to 19 in the center of figure), where the other clusters of
19 cells are repeated around this central cluster based on a wrap-around technique employed to
avoid the network deployment edge effects. For more detials on wrap-around technique and the
rational for its application to system-level simulations, please see [1] and Appendix I of [2]). UEs
(denoted by red stars) are deployed randomly in the whole network region according to a uniform
geographical distribution. A frequency reuse of 1/1 is used, i.e. the same RF channel is used in all
19 cells.
For the simulation of packet-switched LTE and LTE-A systems, there is need for a traffic model
for the services supported by the system and a scheduler algorithm for the allocation of network
resources (time and frequency) to different users. The selection of the traffic model and the
scheduler in the aggressor network has a crucial impact on modeling the amount of interference
caused to the victim network. Therefore, realistic assumptions on traffic model and scheduler in
the LTE network are key for a fair assessment of coexistence between LTE and other services.

3. 3
Figure 1: LTE/LTE-A Macro Network Layout
The LTE indoor hotspot scenario consists of single floor of a building as shown in Figure 2
[4] ( Annex A.2.1.1.5). The height of the floor is 6 m. The floor contains 16 rooms of 15 m
x 15 m and a long hall of 120 m x 20m. Two sites are placed in the middle of the hall at
30m and 90m with respect to the left side of the building.
Indoor/hotspot BS and UE can be put into the macro layout as Figure 1 and the wrap-
around technqiue can be employed, when network deployment edge effects should be
removed or the overall interference of the heterogenous network needs to be considered.
Figure 2: Indoor hotspot network layout

4. 4
2.2 Simulation Flow for the case LTE/LTE-A interfering with
LTE/LTE-A with same system bandwidth)
The simulation flow is develped from [3] (section 5.1.2).
2.2.1 Downlink LTE/LTE-A interfer with LTE/LTE-A with same system
bandwith
For i=1:# of snapshots
1. Distribute sufficiently many UEs randomly throughout the system area such that to
each cell within the HO margin of 3 dB the same number K of users is allocated as
active UEs. Typically K=1, i.e. the BS transmits to one UE at a time.
 Calculate the pathloss from each UE to all cells and find the smallest pathloss
 Link the UE randomly to a cell to which the pathloss is within the smallest
pathloss plus the HO margin of 3 dB
 Select K UEs randomly from all the UEs linked to one cell as active UEs. These
K active UEs will be scheduled during this snapshot.
 All available resource blocks (RBs) will be allocated to active UEs. And each
UE is scheduled with the same number N of RBs. Thus, the BS transmit power
per UE is fixed. BSs are transmitting with full power or are silent with equal
probability, i.e. select randomly 50% of the BSs to transmit and the rest remain
silent2. For those that transmit, the power per UE is calculated as follows:
Let
Max
BSP denote the maximum transmit power of BS
KNM  is the number of all available RBs in each cell
UE
BSP is the transmit power from BS to the active UE, and
M
N
PP Max
BS
UE
BS  .
2. Calculate DL C/I for all active UEs in all cells.
Loop over all cells from 1j to cellN (the number of cells in the system area e.g.
57 for 19 sites with tri-sector antennas)
Loop over all active UEs from 1k to K
For the k -th active UE in the j -th cell (i.e. kjUE , ) its C/I is denoted by
),(
),(
kjI
kjC
 ),( kjC is the received power from the serving BS, i.e., the j -th BS (here
BS and cell are interchangeable)
 ),(),( , jkj
UE
BS BSUEpathlossPkjC 
2An alternative approach is random selection of BS loads in the range of the maximum transmit power and a minimum transmit power.
This option is equivalent to that described in Section 2.2.1, if the minimum transmit power is set to 0dBm.

5. 5
 ),( kjI is the interference power which consists of other cell interference
),( kjIother , intersystem interference from interfering system in adjacent
channel ),(int kjI er and the thermal noise tN .
 terother NkjIkjIkjI  ),(),(),( int
 

cellN
jll
lkj
UE
BSother BSUEpathlossPkjI
,1
, ),(),(
 linear
N
m
ermkj
UE
erBSer ACIRBSUEpathlossPkjI
cell
 1
int,,int,int )(),(
 )10/))(10log10174((^10 UEt eNoiseFigurRBsNofbandwithN 
 For downlink a common ACIR for all frequency resource blocks to calculate
inter-system shall be used. [3](section 5.1.1.3)
4. Determine the throughput for each UE with its C/I according to the link-to-system
level mapping given in [3] Annex 1.
5. Collect statistics.
2.2.2 Uplink LTE or LTE-A interfer with LTE or LTE-A with same system
bandwith
For i=1:# of snapshots
1. Distribute sufficiently many UEs randomly throughout the system area such that to
each cell within the HO margin of 3 dB the same number K of users is allocated as
active UEs. Typically K is in the interval 3 to 6.
 Calculate the pathloss from each UE to all cells and find the smallest pathloss
 Link the UE randomly to a cell to which the pathloss is within the smallest
pathloss plus the HO margin of 3 dB
 Select K UEs randomly from all the UEs linked to one cell as active UEs.
These K active UEs will be scheduled during this snapshot
 Note: a full load system is assumed, namely, all available RBs will be
allocated to active UEs. And each UE is scheduled with the same number N
of RBs.
2. Perform UL power control
 Set UE transmit power to

























ilex
t
PL
PL
RPP ,max,1min minmax
where Pt is the transmit power of the UE in dBm, Pmax is the maximum
transmit power in dBm, Rmin is the ratio of UE minimum and maximum
transmit powers Pmin / Pmax and determines the minimum power reduction
ratio to prevent UEs with good channel conditions to transmit at very low
power level.. PL is the path-loss in dB for the UE from its serving BS and

6. 6
PLx-ile is the x-percentile path-loss (plus shadowing) value3. With this power
control scheme, the 1-x percent of UEs that have a path-loss larger than PLx-
ile will transmit at Pmax
4. Finally, 0<<=1 is the balancing factor for UEs with
bad channel and UEs with good channel.
3. Calculate UL C/I for all active UEs in all cells.
Loop over all cells from 1j to cellN (the number of cells in the system area e.g.
57 for 19 sites with tri-sector antennas)
Loop over all active UEs from 1k to K
For the k -th active UE in the j -th cell (i.e. kjUE , ) its C/I is denoted by
),(
),(
kjI
kjC
,
 ),( kjC is received power from kjUE , , at the j -th BS (here BS and cell are
interchangeable)
 ),(),(),( , jkjt BSUEpathlosskjPkjC  ( ),( kjPt is in linear.)
 ),( kjI is the interference power which consists of other cell interference
),( kjIother , intersystem interference from interfering system in adjacent
channel ),(int kjI er and the thermal noise tN .
 terother NkjIkjIkjI  ),(),(),( int
 

cellN
jll
jkltother BSUEpathlossklPkjI
,1
, ),(),(),(
 Note: as mentioned in the introduction, a fully orthogonal system is assumed
so that by calculating other cell, intra-system interference, only UEs which
transmit in the same frequency subcarriers will introduce interference to each
other. Thus, in the above equation, only UEs in other cells with the same
index k are considered.
  

cellN
m
K
v
linearjervmerter vACIRBSUEpathlossvmPkjI
1 1
int,,int,int )(),(),(),(
For the UL case, the ACIR is dominated by the UE ACLR. 3GPP
specifications define for different channel bandwidths the UE ACLR under
the assumption that the UE transmits in the entire channel bandwidth. Since
the available UL channel bandwidth (or total RBs) are normally shared by
3PLx-ile is defined here as the value in the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF), which is bigger than the path-loss of x percent of
the MSs in the cell from the BS.
4 The value of x has a crucial impact on the aggregated interference generated in the uplink and therefore on network throughput. As a
result, special care should be taken when selecting this parameter for simulations. This issue is discussed in details in Section 2.3.

7. 7
several UEs, the bandwidth of UEs will be lower than the total available
channel bandwidth, which means that adjacent channel performance of UEs
is improved. To accommodate this fact in the studies on co-existence
between LTE systems operating in adjacent channels, 3GPP has
defined in [3] a model for the UE ACLR which is a function of the
occupied bandwidth by (or the number of RBs allocated to) the
aggressor LTE UE and the frequency separation between the
bandwidth (or RBs) of the aggressor LTE UE and that of the victim
LTE UE. For coexistence studies between IMT/LTE and other services in
adjacent channels with different receiver bandwidth, ACLR values of
aggressor IMT/LTE UE can be derived from the OOB emission limits in
3GPP TS36.101 by integration over the bandwidth of the victim receiver.
This is a worst case assumption, because the resulting ACLR is based on the
implicit assumption that each IMT/LTE UE would be transmitting in the
entire channel bandwidth. This approach doesn’t take into account the
improved adjacent channel performance of IMT/LTE UEs. Therefore, it is
suggested to use in such studies an approach similar to that used in [3] for
the co-existence studies between LTE systems.
 )10/))(10log10174((^10 BSt eNoiseFigurRBsNofbandwithN 
4. Determine the throughput for each UE with its C/I according to the link-to-system
level mapping given in [1] Annex 1.
5. Collect statistics.
2.3 Consideration on the proper assumptions for power control
The results of any coexistence or compatibility analysis involving LTE or LTE-A systems
are highly dependent upon the assumptions made regarding the systems being simulated5.
In coexistence studies, some simulation assumptions are closely related to each other, such
as operating frequency, cell radius, power control parameters, propagation model, user
density and terrain environment (urban/suburban/rural). Therefore, assumptions should be
made in a proper way in order to be realistic and consistent.
Cell radius results from the link budget which highly depends on environment
(urban/suburban/rural), propagation loss and operating frequency assumed. So, the proper
cell radius should be selected to be consistent with these assumptions; . e.g., the lower the
operating frequency, the greater the cell radius will be.
Power control parameters also depend on operating frequency, cell type
(macro/micro/pico), cell radius and propagation model. LTE power control consists of open
loop and close loop power control. For coexistence studies, mainly open loop power control
model is used. The algorithm for this model sets the UE Tx power based on the path loss
5 A major consideration for applying any methodology used for assessing the coexistence of wireless telecommunication systems is the
parameters that are needed to characterize the systems to be studied and the models that are needed to represent the propagation
conditions under which the systems are assumed to operate. A list of those parameters that may be necessary for simulations
involving Monte Carlo, minimum coupling loss, or average aggregate power determinations are given in the Annex to this
document. Also listed for ease of reference are a number of the propagation models that have been used in coexistence studies.

8. 8
between UE and its serving base station or eNB and some other parameters including that
which corresponds to the percentage of the active users transmitting with the maximum
power Pmax. In particular, care should be taken when selecting parameter relevant to the
percentage of active users with the maximum Tx power. Thus, the percentage of the users
with maximum Tx power can be close to that in a real network or slightly more than in a
real network. If there are too many users transmitting with the maximum power, the uplink
of the LTE system will operate in a high IoT (Interference over Thermal, also called noise
rise) condition, which is the result of excessive interference at the BS receiver of a specific
radio cell due to high Tx power of active UEs in other radio cells. This condition will cause
the uplink cell edge throughput to deteriorate or even the coverage to shrink. The stability
of the overall system will be affected due to unstable UL control channel performance
under high IoT condition. Also high Tx power will reduce the active time and standby time
of the user equipment. The power consumption is a serious problem for smart phone and it
can impact the user experience significantly. Therefore, we suggest setting appropriate
power control parameters by allowing a reasonable portion of total UEs (in the order of
2%~5% for macro cells, less than 1% for pico cells or mixed macro/pico cells) to transmit
with the maximum power, depending on operating frequency and cell radius. The power
control parameters can be determined by some pre-simulations.
To illustrate the above discussion, the performance of an example macro LTE network with
different power control parameters is presented below, including UE Tx power CDF, eNB
IoT CDF and UL C/I CDF. The network is assumed to operate in a suburban environment
in the 700MHz frequency range. The Inter-Site-Distance (ISD) is assumed to be 3km and a
modified Hata model given in Report SM.2028 [6] is used for calculating path loss. We
assume 6 UEs per cell/sector in the following simulation.
With a proper selection of power control settings, the network will operate at a moderate
IoT condition and achieve a good tradeoff between the overall system stability and the
average throughput. With an aggressive power control setting, the portion of UEs
transmitting with the maximum power will increase and the average throughput can
increase, too. However, IoT of the network will be higher, which will deteriorate the cell
edge throughput and make the system less stable. With a too conservative power control
setting, the UE transmission power will be lower resulting in a quite low IoT. The price to
be paid is a lower average and cell edge throughput in the network. Therefore, it is not
necessary for an operator to select an over-conservative power control configuration, rather
a balanced one. E.g. in the example network, PC setting 2 is the most appropriate one,
which achieves the best tradeoff among UE Tx power, IoT and the network throughput
performance. PC setting 3 is too conservative since the throughput is low. PC setting 1 is
too aggressive since the IoT operating point of the network is the highest which may cause
unstable control channel quality. With this power control setting, the portion of UEs with
the maximum transmit power is the highest and the portion of UEs with bad C/I
performance is the highest.
Table 1. Simulation results of different PC settings
PC setting 1 PC setting 2 PC setting 3

9. 9
PLxile in dB 115 122 130
 1 1 1
Portion of UE with
maximum tx power
24.8% 2.6% 0.003%
Average IoT in dB 14.00 8.81 0.89
Average throughput
(b/s/Hz)
0.522 0.417 0.252
5% CDF throughput
(b/s/Hz)
0.167 0.177 0.141
Figure 3. LTE eNB IoT CDF with different power control parameters
-10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
IoT of LTE BS UL [dB]
CDF[%]
PLxile=130 dB
PLxile=122 dB
PLxile=115 dB

10. 10
Figure 4. LTE UL C/I CDF with different power control parameters
3 Coexistence study examples
3.1 Coexistence study between LTE and broadcast service
In this section, we present the simulation methodology for investigating coexistence
between LTE and the broadcast service as used in [5].
The simulation scenario assumes that outdoor LTE UE Tx interferes with DVB-T Rx with
outdoor rooftop antenna and a minimum distance of 10 m.
Figure 5.: the simulation scenario of outdoor LTE UE Tx interfering with DTV Rx
with outdoor rooftop antenna
3.1.1 Network layout for LTE interfering DTV co-existence simulation in
suburban area
The radius of coverage of a broadcast transmitter is usually much greater than the cell
radius of IMT service. If the layout of LTE simulation area is fully overlapped with the
coverage of broadcast transmitter, the number of LTE eNBs will be too high, so that the
complexity and the computation time of the simulation may be unacceptable. We give a
simulation layout with a two-fold purpose: to maintain the complexity of LTE simulation
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
LTE UL CtoI [dB]
CDF[%]
PLxile=130 dB
PLxile=122 dB
PLxile=115 dB
10m
… … …

11. 11
reasonable and to ensure with a high confidence a realistic modeling of aggregate
interference from multiple LTE UEs to the DTV receiver.
IMT clusters are dropped into DTV coverage randomly. Each cluster consists of 57 cells.
The wrap-around technique is applied between the LTE UE and DTV receiver. By wrap-
around, each DTV UE is surrounded by LTE UEs in three layers of cells.
Figure 6: Simulation layout consisting of DTV transmitter and LTE sites
3.1.2 Simulation methodology and assumptions
 Randomly and uniformly drop the LTE clusters into DTV coverage.
 Randomly and uniformly drop sufficient LTE UEs into LTE clusters. For each
cluster, follow the LTE simulation methodology as described in Section 2
(scheduling, power control, interference calculation, C/I and throughput statistic).
Since LTE is the aggressor system, LTE inter-cell interference calculation C/I
statistic can be skipped.
 Randomly and uniformly drop DTV receivers into LTE clusters.
 Collect DTV Rx SNR for the case without LTE UE aggregate interference and SINR
for the case with LTE UE aggregate interference. Get the statistics for DTV Rx
SNR/SINR outage probability to assess LTE UE interference.
 Assumptions summary:
The assumptions used in this submission are just for the sake of performing some
example simulations and shouldn’t be understood as a proposal for future studies.
» Simulation parameters are mainly taken from [8].
» JTG5-6 propagation models were adopted.
» Different ACIR values are taken into account.
 Simulation Outputs:
» CDFs of DTV Rx SNR without and SINR with LTE UE interference in all DTV
coverage area

12. 12
» CDFs of DTV Rx SNR without and SINR with LTE UE interference at the DTV
border area
3.1.2.1 LTE simulation assumption
 Operating frequency is 700MHz.
 Suburban environment, cell range of 2 km
 10MHz bandwidth, 6 simultaneous transmitting UEs per LTE cell
 57 cells with wrap-around technique
 Both BS horizontal and vertical antenna pattern refer to [8] Downtilt angle = 3
degree.
 A Round Robin scheduler6 and the full buffer traffic model7 are used. The selection
of the scheduler and the traffic model in this example is just for simplicity purposes
and doesn’t reflect the reality of LTE network operation (see also the footnotes).
 Power control modeling
» LTE UE minimum and maximum Tx power are -40 dBm and 23 dBm,
respectively.
» LTE uplink power control equation
Table 2. power control algorithm parameters
Gamma PLx-ile
10 MHz bandwidth
1 122
» In this example, the power control is selected based on the considerations
explained in Section 2.3 in order to allow about 2.6% of UEs transmitting with
the maximum power.
6 Round-robin is one of the oldest, simplest, fairest and most widely used scheduling algorithms, designed especially for time-sharing
systems, which is also applied to data packet scheduling in wireless communications networks. As the term is generally used, time
slices are assigned to each wireless data user in equal portions and in circular order, handling all users without priority. The name of
the algorithm comes from the round-robin principle known from other fields, where each person takes an equal share of something
in turn. Round-robin scheduling is simple and easy to implement. Due to fairness in allocating resources to wireless users, including
those in bad radio-frequency conditions, it represents a pretty pessimistic estimation of interference conditions in the wireless
network.
7 Full buffer model is a simplified version of the traffic received/transmitted by a user in a data session. It is characterized by two facts:
the number of users in the cell is constant and the buffers of the users’ data flows always have infinite data (or a larger file) for
transmission. Even the assumption is not practical; full-buffer transmission has been widely used as a baseline traffic model for
OFDMA/CDMA technology comparison in simulation-based and theoretical investigations due to its simplicity. The model allows
users with good RF conditions to transmit more data than users with poor RF conditions. As a result, the system throughput could
be higher than the actual achievable throughput. In addition, by using a full buffer traffic model, we assume all distributed network
elements are actively transmitting continuously in their entire allocated frequency band. Therefore, compared to real mobile
networks with finite-size data, the full buffer traffic model is usually a worst case estimation of traffic load which causes severe
interference.

























ilex
t
PL
PL
RPP ,max,1min minmax

13. 13
3.1.2.2 DTV simulation assumption
 Case description: outdoor LTE UE Tx interfering with DTV Rx with outdoor
rooftop antenna and a minimum distance of 10 m
 DTV channel bandwidth = 8 MHz (DVB-T), receiver bandwidth=7.61MHz
 DTV receiver noise figure 7dB
 DTV Tx ERP = 1 kW, DTV Tx antenna height = 75 m, horizontal antenna pattern
omni-directional antenna, vertical antenna pattern according to [8], antenna
downtilt angle 1 degree and DTV Tx antenna feeder loss 5 dB
 Rx antenna height=10m, Rx horizontal antenna pattern omni-directional and
vertical antenna pattern according to [8].
 DTV receivers are randomly and uniformly distributed with a DTV Tx to DTV Rx
distance between 1 km and 16 km. The coverage radius should be set consistent
with the propagation model and frequency range. By a cell radius of 16 km, the
overall outage rate of the simulation is reasonable and close to the realistic level.
 DTV Rx is judged to be in outage if SNR/SINR < 20 dB.
Based on the above assumptions, the probability of overall DTV Rx SNR outage (< 20 dB)
without LTE UE interference is in the order of 0.8%.
3.1.2.3 LTE UE to DTV Rx ACIR modeling
Adjacent Channel Interference Power Ratio (ACIR = 1/(1/ACLR + 1/ACS)) is a
function of transmitter Adjacent Channel Leakage Ratio (ACLR) of the interfering
UE and Adjacent Channel Selectivity (ACS) of the victim DTV receiver. The
parameters agreed at the APT-AWG 700MHz for ACLR and ACS, showed that the
ACLR value is the dominant factor. Based on this observation, although DTV ACS
was considered in the AWG studies, the recommendation was to focus on
determining an appropriate ACLR (OOB emission) limit.
As pointed out at the end of in Section 2.2.2, for coexistence studies between LTE
and other services in adjacent band with different receiver bandwidth, ACLR values
can be derived from the LTE UE OOB emission limits in 3GPP TS36.101 by
integration over the DTV receiver bandwidth. It is worth mentioning that this is a
worst case assumption as lower OOB emissions of sub-band resource allocation are
not considered and this method of calculating UE ACLR is based on the implicit
assumption that all UEs would be transmitting with the maximum number of
resource blocks allocated (i.e. in the entire bandwidth).
The cases considered (highlighted in the table below) represent the spread of LTE
maximum UE OOB level limits (ACL) from -8 to -21 dBm/8MHz.
Table 3: Band plan scenarios considered & corresponding UE OOB
emission maximum limits
Ref Band Plan LTE UE ACLR
(dBC)
LTE UE Max
ACL Level *
(dBm/8MHz)
DTV Rx ACS
(dBC)
2 5 MHz GB, 10 MHz LTE -32.8 -9.8 -54.8
* Maximum OOB emission level limit when UE is at maximum power with no power
control back-off (i.e. at coverage edge).

14. 14
3.1.3 Simulation output example
Figure 7: Simulation Results: DTV SINR CDF (10MHz LTE BW, 6 UEs per cell)
Table 5 Simulation results of DTV outage rate
DTV total outage rate [%]
Single DTV system without external
interference
0.8
DTV system with LTE UE interference,
ACIR=33dB
1.93
3.2 Coexistence study between LTE and FSS (Fixed Satellite Service)
In this section, we present the simulation methodology for evaluating the aggregate interference
from LTE indoor BSs (local area BS or home BS) or LTE UEs to the earth station receiver of
fixed satellite service (FSS) by Monte Carlo simulation. In this example, LTE and FSS earth
station operate in co-channel case and share the same frequency band. The simulation
methodology, assumption and simulation results referred to a public CCSA (China
Communications Standardization Association) contribution [7].
3.2.1 Network layout for indoor LTE system interfering FSS
When the aggregate interference from LTE indoor system to FSS is evaluated, the most severe
interference comes from those buildings which is closest and surrounding the earth station. LTE
indoor system is assumed to be deployed surrounding FSS earth station, shown as Figure 8.
-40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 100
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
DTV Rx SINR [dB]
CDF[%]
w/o LTE interference
with LTE UE interf. ACIR=33dB

15. 15
protectiond
is defined to be the distance between the center of houses with LTE indoor coverage and
earth station. The buildings with LTE indoor deployment are assumed to be located on a circle,
where the center is the location of the FSS earth station. ersitedint is defined to be the distance
between the centers of two buildings. The original value of ersitedint is assumed to be 300 meters
in the simulation. According to the circle radius (d_protection), the number of the surrounded
buildings should be calculated as the following equation.





 

ersite
protection
BS
d
d
N
int
2
The inter-site distance in the simulation should be adjusted by the following equation.
BS
protection
ersite
N
d
d


2
int
Figure 8. Demonstration on the simulation layout for LTE interfering FSS earth
station
3.2.2 Simulation methodology and assumption
The simulation methodology for one snapshot is summarized as follows [7].
 Decide the building locations of LTE indoor coverage surrounding FSS earth station
according to protectiond
.
 Drop LTE UEs into the indoor coverage randomly and uniformly. The layout of indoor
coverage and LTE BS site locations are described in section 2.1 same as the layout in
3GPP TR36.814.
 Calculate the path loss between each LTE UE and LTE indoor BS.

16. 16
 Follows LTE simulation methodology specified in 3GPP TR 36.942 as previous
description on the scheduling and power control.
 Calculate the path loss between each LTE BS and FSS earth station.
 Calculate the path loss between each scheduled LTE UE and FSS earth station.
 Calculate the aggregate interference (I) from all IMT indoor BSs to FSS earth stations.

 
cellN
i
iBSFSSBS BSonEarthStatipathlossPI
1
),( . Then record I/N.
 Calculate the aggregate interference from the scheduled IMT indoor UEs to FSS earth
stations. 
 
cellN
i
iiUEFSSUE UEonEarthStatipathlossPI
1
, ),( . Then record I/N.
After sufficient (such as >10000 times) snapshots, calculate the average I/N. The additional
isolation is defined to be the gap between the average I/N and FSS I/N criteria.
The assumption of LTE indoor system is summarized in Table 4.
Table 4. Assumption and parameters for LTE indoor system
Parameters Uplink Downlink
RB(Resource Block) 180kHz
BS-UE MCL 45dB
Shadowing standard
deviation
Between LTE indoor BS and UE: 6dB
Between FSS earth station and indoor LTE BS: 8dB
Between FSS earth station and indoor LTE UE: 8dB
Maximum transmitted
power of BS
N/A
24dBm/20MHz,
or 20 dBm/20MHz
Transmitted power of UE
Maximum power:23dBm
Minimum:-40dBm
N/A
User number per cell 3 1
Power control model 
























ilex
t
PL
PL
RPP ,max,1min minmax
PLx-ile=99 and =1 for 20MHz
N/A
The assumption of FSS earth station is summarized in Table 5. The off-axes angle of earth station
is assumed to be 15 degrees or 40 degrees in the simulation results.
Table 5. Assumption and parameters for FSS earth station
Parameters Value
Operation band 3400-4200MHz
Antenna pattern ITU-R S.465

17. 17
Noise temperature 100K
Receiver noise floor -118.6dBm/MHz
Antenna diameter 1.2 to 3 m (ITU-R S.2199)
I/N protection criteria -12.2dB
3.2.3 Simulation output example
Figure 9 to Figure 11 show some simulation results cited from CCSA contribution [7].
Figure 9. Simulation results on the protection distance between LTE indoor BS and FSS
earth station sharing same frequency (LTE pico tx power of 24dBm)8
8 CATR stands for China Academy Telecommunication Research Institute of MIIT. SRRC stands for State Radio Regulation Center.
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
0
5
10
15
20
25
dprotection
(m)
Additionalisolation(dB)
Cochannel LTE indoor BSs interfere with FSS.BS transmitted power is 24dBm
off-axis angle=15 degrees,CATR
off-axis angle=15 degrees,SRRC
off-axis angle=40 degrees,CATR
off-axis angle=40 degrees,SRRC

18. 18
Figure 10. Simulation results on the protection distance between LTE indoor BS and FSS
earth station sharing same frequency (LTE pico tx power of 20dBm)
Figure 11. Simulation results on the protection distance between LTE indoor UE and FSS
earth station sharing same frequency
4 Conclusion
The Monte Carlo simulation methodology can be applied for evaluating interference between
radio systems to provide more accurate results for interference scenarios where aggregation of
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
dprotection
(m)
Additionalisolation(dB)
Cochannel LTE indoor BSs interfere with FSS.BS transmitted power is 20dBm
off-axis angle=15 degrees,CATR
off-axis angle=15 degrees,SRRC
off-axis angle=40 degrees,CATR
off-axis angle=40 degrees,SRRC
100 150 200 250 300 350 400
0
5
10
15
dprotection
(m)
Additionalisolation(dB)
Cochannel LTE indoor UEs interfere with FSS
off-axis angle=15 degrees,CATR
off-axis angle=15 degrees,SRRC
off-axis angle=40 degrees,CATR
off-axis angle=40 degrees,SRRC

19. 19
interference from multiple users is necessary, and where positions and transmit power of
interfering equipment needs to be reflected in detail. It also provides a means for realistically
reflecting the interaction between radio links in the interfering and/or interfered systems, e.g.
through power control and scheduling. These features of interference aggregation together with
detailed information about power and position is not provided by other methods such as Minimum
Coupling loss or summation of average power.
Thus, the aggregate interference can for some scenarios be analyzed more accurately with Monte
Carlo simulations. Two such examples are provided, IMT/IMT-A versus broadcasting and FSS
Earth Stations.
5 References
[1] Ericsson, 3GPP2 WG3, C30-20020708-030, “Basic operation of the wrap-around technique
for system-level simulation”.
[2] 3GPP2 C.R1002-0, “cdma2000 Evaluation Methodology”, December 10, 2004, Version 1.0.
[3] 3GPP TR36.942v10.2.0 “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRA);
Radio Frequency (RF) system scenarios”, 2010-12.
[4] 3GPP TR36.814-v9.0.0,“Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Further
advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects”, 2010-03.
[5] AWG-11-INP-48_Qualcomm_System_Level_Simulations_LTE_UE_-_DTV_FINAL
,“Simulation Result of Studies on Coexistence between LTE UE TX in the APT 700MHz
band and Digital TV RX”,QUALCOMM, 2011 September
[6] Rep. ITU-R SM.2028, “Monte Carlo simulation methodology for the use in sharing and
compatibility studies between different radio services or systems”.
[7] CCSA_TC5_WG8_2013_029B, “Research report on the compatibility study between IMT
indoor coverage system and FSS in 3400 MHz to 3600 MHz band”, 2013-03.
[8] JTG5-6 chairman report …..

20. 20
ANNEX [to Deployment Document]:
PARAMETERS AND MODELS
A major consideration for applying any methodology used for assessing the coexistence of
wireless telecommunication systems is the parameters that are needed to characterize the systems
to be studied and the models that are needed to represent the propagation conditions under which
the systems are assumed to operate. A list of those parameters that may be necessary for
simulations involving Monte Carlo, minimum coupling loss, or average aggregate power
determinations are given in this Annex. Also listed for ease of reference are a number of the
propagation models that have been used in coexistence studies.
General list of parameters needed in sharing studies – Taken from Recommendation M. 1825
NOTE: Not all the parameters below are needed for all coexistence and sharing studies involving
LTE and LTE-A systems.
General
Frequency band (MHz)
Type of emission
Deployment type (e.g. cellular …)
Access technique
Number of sectors
Frequency reuse factor
Antennas per sector
Type of antenna systems
Co-located antenna minimum coupling loss (dB)
System
Channel bandwidth (kHz)
Modulation type
Duplex method
Typical BER or SINAD or FER
Transmitter
Output power (W)
ERP or EIRP (dBW or dBm)
Necessary channel bandwidth (kHz)
ACLR (adjacent channel leakage ratio) or out-of-
band emission mask
Antenna gain (dBd or dBi)
Antenna height (m)
Radiation pattern
Antenna polarization
Receiver
Noise figure (dB)
IF filter bandwidth (kHz)
Sensitivity (dBm)
Off-channel-sensitivity:
– ACS (adjacent channel selectivity)
– Blocking characteristics (in-band and out-of-
band)
Protection criteria
Intermodulation spurious response attenuation (dB)
Antenna gain (dBd or dBi)
Antenna height (m)
Radiation pattern
Antenna polarization
Depending on the type of system, additional characteristics for sharing studies may include:
 cell size or coverage area;
 antenna down-tilt angle;

21. 21
 feeder loss (if not already included in the antenna gain);
 required data rates;
 transmit power range due to power control;
 SNR targets for uplink and downlink.
Propagation models used in sharing studies:
 Recommendation ITU-R P.452,
 Recommendation ITU-R P.676,
 Recommendation ITU-RP.1238,
 Recommendation ITU-R P.1406,
 Recommendation ITU-R P.1407,
 Recommendation ITU-R P.1411,
 Recommendation ITU-R P.1546,
 Hata model as given in Report ITU-R SM. 2028, COST 231
 3GPP Technical Report TR 25.942, v6.4.0, RF system scenarios,
 ETSI TR 125 942 V4.0.0 (2001-09).