Evaluation Results of m DL Control Structure Document Number: C802.16m-08/651 Date Submitted: Source:Yi Hsuan Ping Wang Hujun Yin Venue: Denver, Colorado Re: Call for Comments and Contributions on Project m System Description Document (SDD) Base Contribution: Purpose: discussion and consideration for SDD Notice: This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE Working Group or any of its subgroups. It represents only the views of the participants listed in the “Source(s)” field above. It is offered as a basis for discussion. It is not binding on the contributor(s), who reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein. Release: The contributor grants a free, irrevocable license to the IEEE to incorporate material contained in this contribution, and any modifications thereof, in the creation of an IEEE Standards publication; to copyright in the IEEE’s name any IEEE Standards publication even though it may include portions of this contribution; and at the IEEE’s sole discretion to permit others to reproduce in whole or in part the resulting IEEE Standards publication. The contributor also acknowledges and accepts that this contribution may be made public by IEEE Patent Policy: The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures: and. Further information is located at and.

C802.16m-08/651 2 Introduction This contribution uses the evaluation methodology and criteria detailed in C802.16m-08/650 to analyze, compare, and down-select the following DL USCCH design options in SDD: Downlink USCCH multiplexing schemes Downlink USCCH coding scheme schemes Downlink USCCH locations

C802.16m-08/651 3 Multiplexing Criteria I: Link Level Performance in Ped B

C802.16m-08/651 4 Multiplexing Criteria I: Link Level Performance in VehA

C802.16m-08/651 5 Multiplexing Criteria II: Coverage Analysis 866m Cell (EMD Baseline Configuration) Test ScenariosQPSK ½ coverage QPSK ¼ coverage QPSK 1/8 coverage QPSK 1/12 coverage Outage FDM, Ped B Reuse 1, CDD46.8%67.2%93%98.4%1.6% TDM, Ped B Reuse 1, CDD44.5%64.4%89.3%96.5%3.5% FDM, Veh A Reuse 1, CDD44.2%62.8%89.4%96.2%3.8% TDM, Veh A Reuse 1, CDD43.1%61.6%85.4%94.7%5.3%

C802.16m-08/651 6 Multiplexing Criteria II: Coverage Analysis 5000m Cell with Open Rural Macrocell Pathloss Model Test ScenariosQPSK ½ coverage QPSK ¼ coverage QPSK 1/8 coverage QPSK 1/12 coverage Outage FDM, Ped B Reuse 1, CDD21.6%43.9%73.8%87.2%12.8% FFR, CDD45.7%80.2%96.5%100%0 TDM, Ped B Reuse 1, CDD19.2%41.1%66.3%81.3%18.7% FFR, CDD42%79.6%96.5%99.7%0.3% FDM, Veh A Reuse 1, CDD18.9%38.9%66.7%79.9%20.1% FFR, CDD43.5%77.6%96.4%99.6%0.4% TDM, Veh A Reuse 1, CDD18.4%36.6%60.5%77%23% FFR, CDD44.8%78.1%94.6%99.2%0.8%

C802.16m-08/651 7 Multiplexing Criteria II: Coverage Analysis 5000m Cell with Baseline Pathloss Model Test ScenariosQPSK ½ coverage QPSK ¼ coverage QPSK 1/8 coverage QPSK 1/12 coverage Outage FDM, Ped B FFR, CDD No power boost 24.7%38.9%54.2%66.2%33.8% FFR, CDD 3 dB boost 31.5%48.7%65.6%78.9%21.1% TDM, Ped B FFR, CDD23.6%37.8%51.7%63%37% FDM, Veh A FFR, CDD No power boost 23.6%35.9%52%62.3%37.7% FFR, CDD 3 dB boost 30.4%45.7%64.3%74.7%25.3% TDM, Veh A FFR, CDD23%35.3%48.4%59.9%40.1%

C802.16m-08/651 8 Coverage Summary FDM has better link level performance and coverage than TDM because of channel estimation advantage for FDM. FFR improves coverage significantly in all cell sizes FDM allows power boosting for USCCH, which can improve the cell coverage in some cases.

C802.16m-08/651 9 Coding Scheme Criteria I: Capacity Analysis Total power budget and bandwidth budget are fixed for a particular MAP region Separate coding –Randomly select n users –Based on the required SINR of each MCS, adjust the power and MCS of each user to fit into the power and bandwidth budgets of the MAP region – The capacity is mean(max(n)). Joint coding –Randomly select n users –Sort users by SINR and partition into 4 groups –The lowest SINR in each group represents the group SINR –Different groups are coded by different MCS –Adjust the group sizes so that MAP IE from all users can fit into the power and bandwidth budgets of the MAP region –The capacity is mean(max(n)).

C802.16m-08/ MAP capacity as function of IE play load Coding Scheme Criteria I: TDM Capacity Simulation

C802.16m-08/ Coding Scheme Criteria I: FDM Capacity Simulation MAP capacity as function of IE payload

C802.16m-08/ Coding Scheme Criteria I: FDM with Power boosting Capacity Simulation MAP capacity as IE payload

C802.16m-08/ MAP Capacity - Summary Capacity of separate coding is sensitive to the USCCH IE size. For some IE sizes separate coding causes significant resource waste and therefore has lower USCCH capacity than joint coding. MAP capacity without power boosting has following order: –Joint coding with size reduction (20%) ~ Separate coding with CRC mask> Joint coding Power boosting in FDM provide significant gain on MAP capacity. –At least 30% gain with 3 dB power boosting –Joint coding with size reduction has better performance than separate coding with CRC mask

C802.16m-08/ Summary and Recommendation Support FDM between DL USSCH and data for better USCCH link level performance and cell coverage. Support sub-MAP with joint coding on DL USCCH –Support MAP redundancy reduction –Support flexibly and scalable control information element design –Support dynamic group allocation (group persistent scheduling) and multiuser allocation (MU-MIMO) Support n=4 and 2 for USCCH locations where n is the number of subframes apart between two USCCH.