1. 5G Micro Cell Deployment in Coexistence with Fixed Service
Master Thesis Seminar ( )
Khaled Matyas Abdallah

2. Outline Motivation Previous Work Research Question System Model
Use cases and BS characteristics
UE characteristics
FL characteristics
Experimental Setup
Simulation Results
Conclusion

3. Motivation 2018-11-18 5 G requirements: Millimeter-Wave bands(mmW)
Gbps data rates
High capacity demands
Low latency
Etc..
Millimeter-Wave bands(mmW)
200xgreater available spectrum
Large numbered antenna arrays
Path loss compensated by antenna high gain (beamforming)
Problem:
Coexistence with existing Fixed links in mmW bands

4. Previous Work Coexistence with Macro outdoor deployement (1)
Impact ofBeamforming
Interference from FL towards 5G network.
High/Low traffic load scenarios, for co-channel and adjacent channel cases.
Coexistence of 5G Micro-Cells and Fixed Service (2)
Separation Distance from FL
Simple modeling of interference for different FS orientations
Measurements on outdoor mmW propagation (3)
Factors influencing propagation characteristics of mmWs

5. ?? Research Question What are the main factors that impact
5G (microcells) and FSs
Coexistence at 28GHz?
The effects of these factors on
the performance of the users
of the 5G network?
Parameters:
Transmit Power of Antennas
Beamforming
UE deployment ??

6. System Model Deployment Scenario:
Single P-P FL deployed in hotspots in a ”high rise building” scenario.
Heterogeneous Network
Interference from 5G system (UL & DL) to th FL
Area of map: 2000x2000m

7. System Model 5G DL-to-FL 5G UL-to-FL
Aggregated intereference generated by every single transmission from a 5G BS (i):
5G UL-to-FL
Aggregated intereference generated by every single transmission from a 5G MS (j):

8. System Model(Hetnet) 5G Network : 2018-11-18 Users (Layer 1) 3000 UE
2 Systems
Central Macro (Layer 2)
7 BSs (21 cells)
Surrounding Macro (Layer 3)
28 BS (84 cells)
Micro Layer (Layer 4):
30 BSs
Beamforming
Higher Frequency
Larger Bandwidth

9. System Model (Layer1) UE Characteristics: Parameter LTE System
5G System
Operating Frequency (GHz)
0.9 28
System Bandwidth (MHz) 10 60
UE Height
1.5 m
UL max Power (Watt)
0.2
System Highest Modulation
16 QAM
64 QAM
Thermal Noise(dBm/MHz)
-114
Noise Figure(dB) 9

10. System Model (Layers 2 & 3)
Central MacroLayer: Surrounding Macro Layer:
ISD = 200m ISD = 400m
Parameter
Macro Layer
Operating Frequency (GHz)
0.9
System Bandwidth (MHz) 10
Deployment
3 m above rooftop ( on roof edge)
Max Tx Power (Watt) 40
Max Antenna Gain (dBi) 17
System Highest Modulation
64 QAM
Thermal Noise (dBm/MHz)
-114
Noise Figure (dB) 2

11. System Model (Layer 4) Operating Frequency (GHz)
Parameters
Micro Layer
Operating Frequency (GHz) 28
System Bandwidth (MHz) 60
Deployment
5m above ground
Max Antenna Element Gain(dBi)
5.3
System Highest Modulation
64 QAM
Thermal Noise(dBm/MHz)
-114
Noise Figure(dB) 8
Micro BS Antenna Configuration

12. System Model
Fixed link Characteristics (based on ITU-RF.2108)
Parameters
Value
Operating frequency (GHz) 28
Channel Bandwidth (MHz) 60
Tx power density (dBm/MHz) 17
Antenna type
0.3m Dish
Antenna main beam gain (dBi)
31.5dBi according Rec. ITU-R F.758-6
Antenna height (m) 35
Noise Figure (dBm) 4
I/N (dB)
-10
Maximum long-term Co-channel interference (dBm/MHz)
-120
System Modulation
64 QAM
FS Antenna Pattern based on Rec. ITU-R F
0.3m Dish Antenna for 28Ghz

13. Experiment Setup User Deployment (UD1): Uniform Distribution
All outdoor:
No Users on higher floors
More traffic through Micro Layer
Cell Selection Offset
-Increased to 9dB
-More Traffic through Micro Layer

14. Experiments Exp1: Map Sampling: Exp2: Worst Case Position:
104 Positions
Exp2: Worst Case Position:
Effect of Different Loads
Exp3: Effect of Antenna Elements
AOSA: 8x1 and 2x1
Max Antenna gains: dBi and 6.02 dBi
Exp4: Reduced Micro-BS EIRP
EIRP: 40 dBm and 60 dBm
Exp5: User Distribution 2 (UD 2)
Indoor and Outdoor ratio = 80:20
Cell Selection Offset =3dB
Loads
Downlink (Mbps)
Uplink (Mbps)
Load 1
72.2
36.1
Load 2
144.4
Load 3
288.8
Load 4
361
180.5
Load 5
1444
722
Load 6
2166
1083

15. Exp1: map Sampling interference from 5G to fl
LOAD 5– Case DL
Percentage of carried traffic
Layer 2 (Central Macro)
13.9 %
Layer 3 (Surrounding Macro
35.64 %
Layer 4 (Micro)
50.45 %
LOAD 5– Case UL
Percentage of carried traffic
Layer 2 (Central Macro)
19 %
Layer 3 (Surrounding Macro
44.4 %
Layer 4 (Micro)
36.6 %
LOAD 6– Case DL
Percentage of carried traffic
Layer 2 (Central Macro)
11.2 %
Layer 3 (Surrounding Macro
28.7 %
Layer 4 (Micro)
60.1 %
LOAD 6– Case UL
Percentage of carried traffic
Layer 2 (Central Macro)
16.9 %
Layer 3 (Surrounding Macro
38.7 %
Layer 4 (Micro)
44.4 %
Higher load -> more traffic carried by micro-layer -> higher interference at FL
Even for these higher loads interference for UL could be acceptable for some scenarios

16. Exp1: map Sampling Impact of interference from FL to 5g
Simulation before deploying the FL
Simulation After Deploying FL
AOSA 8x1
EIRP = 60dBm
Negligible interference caused by FL to the 5G Network

17. Exp2: Worst Case Position interference from 5G to fl
AOSA 8x1/EIRP 60 dBm
Percentage of carried traffic
Layer 2 (Central Macro)
18.8 %
Layer 3 (Surrounding Macro)
48.2 %
Layer 4 (Micro)
33 %
Stable system for all loads
Increasing the load increases the interference at the FL
Promising results for UL

18. Exp3: Antena Array Effects interference from 5G to fl
AOSA 2x1 (AOSA 8x1)
Percentage of carried traffic
Layer 2 (Central Macro)
19.5 % (18.8 %)
Layer 3 (Surrounding Macro)
50.5 % (48.2 %)
Layer 4 (Micro)
30 % (33 %)
Higher loads benefits from larger antenna array
Less traffic carried by the micro layer yet higher interference generated at the FL

19. Exp4: Reduced Micro-BS EIRP interference from 5G to fl
EIRP 40 dBm (EIRP 60dBm)
Percentage of carried traffic
Layer 2 (Central Macro)
23.3 % (18.8 %)
Layer 3 (Surrounding Macro)
57.4 % (48.2 %)
Layer 4 (Micro)
19.3 % (33 %)
Decreased traffic carried by the micro layer, as lower TX power was used
Expected decrease of the interference at the FL for both UL & DL

20. Exp5: User Distribution 2 interference from 5G to fl
UD 2 (UD 1)
Percentage of carried traffic
Layer 2 (Central Macro)
40.5 % (18.8 %)
Layer 3 (Surrounding Macro)
50 % (48.2 %)
Layer 4 (Micro)
9.5 % (33 %)
Less interference with UD2, less users are connected to the micros
(indoor users count with wall penetration losses = connect to Macros)

21. Conclusion (Interference)
Three criteria considered:
Primary sharing : interference below threshold 99% of the time (ITU-rec.)
Only possible with low EIRP or micro serving outdoor users (low load)
Co-Primary sharing: interference below threshold 90% of the time (ITU-rec.)
Possible for UL and for low load DL scenarios or low EIRP and micro serving lower percentage of outdoor users.
Middle value : interference below threshold 95% of the time (assumed for comparison)
Only Possible for system with low load or with low EIRP

22. Conclusion (UE Throughput)
Better Performance in throughput for 5G UE and in interference at the FL by using AOSA 8x1
Trade-off between UE throughput and interference at FL for EIRP 40 dBm
For less number of served users, improvement in UE throughput and interference at FL for UD2
Similar Case as for DL in AOSA 8x1
Great improvement in interference and UL UE throughput for EIRP 40 dBm, due to the worst case user being closer to the BS and less inter-cell interference generated.
For less number of served users, improvement in UE throughput and interference at FL for UD2