IEEE C802.16-09/0013
Project
IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Access Working Group <http://ieee802.org/16>
Title
IEEE 802.16m evaluation results for PCT for IMT-Advanced
Date
Submitted
2009-09-24
Apostolos Papathanassiou, Alexei Davydov,
Chunming Han, Rongzhen Yang, Roshni
Srinivasan, Sassan Ahmadi, Takashi Shono
Intel Corporation
Source(s)
apostolos.papathanassiou@intel.com
Masoud Olfat
Clearwire
masoud.olfat@clearwire.com
Kwangjae Lim, Wooram Shin
ETRI
kjlim@etri.re.kr
Michiharu Nakamura, Zhou Hua, Yan
Hongzhong
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
michi.nakama@jp.fujitsu.com
Mitsuo Nohara, Satoshi Imata
KDDI R&D Laboratories
mi-nohara@kddilabs.jp
Wookbong Lee, Sunam Kim, Sungho Park,
Seunghyun Kang, DongCheol Kim, Jinsam
Kwak
LG Ekectronics
wbong@lge.com
I-Kang Fu, Kelvin Chou, Yu-Hao Chang, PeiKai Liao
Mediatek Inc.
Mark Cudak, Bill Hillery, Anup Talukdar,
Eugene Visostsky, Fred Vook
Motorola Inc.
IK.Fu@mediatek.com
Mark.Cudak@motorola.com
Jeongho Park, Junsung Lim, Taeyoung Kim,
Hyunkyu Yu, Suryong Jeong, Jaeweon Cho,
Hokyu Choi
Samsung Electronics
jeongho.jh.park@samsung.com
Hongwei Yang
Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell
Hongwei.yang@alcatel-sbell.com.cn
Kenji Saito
UQ Communications
kenji@uqc.jp
1
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
Venue:
IEEE802.16 Session #63.5 in Hawaii, USA
Abstract
The purpose of this contribution is to provide IEEE 802.16m evaluation results for the PCT of IMTAdvanced.
Purpose
To supplement self-evaluation results of IEEE 802.16m for the PCT of IMT-Advanced.
Notice
Release
Patent
Policy
This document does not represent the agreed views of the IEEE 802.16 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.
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 802.16.
The contributor is familiar with the IEEE-SA Patent Policy and Procedures:
<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/bylaws/sect6-7.html#6> and
<http://standards.ieee.org/guides/opman/sect6.html#6.3>.
Further information is located at <http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-material.html> and
<http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat>.
IEEE 802.16m evaluation results for PCT for IMT-Advanced
Apostolos Papathanassiou, Alexei Davydov, Chunming Han, Rongzhen Yang, Roshni Srinivasan, Sassan
Ahmadi, Takashi Shono
Intel Corporation
Masoud Olfat
Clearwire
Kwangjae Lim, Wooram Shin
ETRI
Michiharu Nakamura, Zhou Hua, Yan Hongzhong
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
Mitsuo Nohara, Satoshi Imata
KDDI R&D Laboratories
Wookbong Lee, Sunam Kim, Sungho Park, Seunghyun Kang, DongCheol Kim, Jinsam Kwak
LG Ekectronics
I-Kang Fu, Kelvin Chou, Yu-Hao Chang, Pei-Kai Liao
Mediatek Inc.
2
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
Mark Cudak, Bill Hillery, Anup Talukdar, Eugene Visostsky, Fred Vook
Motorola Inc.
Jeongho Park, Junsung Lim, Taeyoung Kim, Hyunkyu Yu, Suryong Jeong, Jaeweon Cho, Hokyu Choi
Samsung Electronics
Hongwei Yang
Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell
Kenji Saito
UQ Communications
1. Introduction
This contribution provides IEEE 802.16m evaluation results generated for the purpose of filling the
Performance Compliance Template (PCT) of IMT-Advanced. All evaluation results were generated by
following the IMT-Advanced evaluation methodology [1]. Section 2 contains the evaluation results for
the cell/cell-edge user spectral efficiency. Section 3 contains the evaluation results for the VoIP capacity.
Section 4 contains the evaluation results for the mobility requirement. The evaluation results are
presented for all mandatory test environments (InH, UMi, UMa, and RMa). Section 5 concludes the
contribution.
In the tables of Sections 2 to 4, the different sources of the evaluation results correspond to contributors
from the different affiliations according to the following mapping:
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5
Source 6
Source 7
Source 8
Source 9
Source 10
Source 11
Intel Corporation
Clearwire
ETRI
Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd.
KDDI R&D Laboratories
LG Electronics
MediaTek Inc.
Motorola Inc.
Samsung Electronics
Alcatel-Lucent Shanghai Bell
UQ Communications
2 Evaluation results for the cell/cell-edge user spectral efficiency
2.1 Simulation assumptions and parameters for full-buffer data traffic
The simulation assumptions and configuration parameters used in the simulations for full-buffer data
traffic are described in the tables of Annex 3 in [2]. Compared to the tables of Annex 3 [2], the following
modifications/additions are made for full-buffer data traffic in FDD/TDD operation:
 Downlink configuration:
o
Subchannelization for data allocations: In the case of the InH and UMi, Scheme-1 (subband-
3
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
based CRU subchannelization) was selected in the simulations. In the case of UMa and RMa,
Scheme-2 (miniband-based CRU subchannelization) was simulated.
o
Multi-antenna Transmission Format for data: In the case of InH and UMi, the 6-bit
transformed codebook based MU-MIMO scheme was simulated using the 4 x 2
configuration, i.e., adaptive switching among rank-1, rank-2, rank-3, and rank-4 transmission.
In the case of UMa and RMa, MU-MIMO with long term beamforming was simulated using
4 x 2 configuration, i.e., adaptive switching among rank-1, rank-2, rank-3, and rank-4
transmission.
o
Receiver Structure: The MMSE receiver was simulated for the AMS for both channel
estimation and data detection.
o
HARQ: Chase combining HARQ with maximum retransmission delay of four frames was
used for the simulations.
o
Control signalling: Signalling errors were modelled for A-A-MAP and HF-A-MAP, and
sounding estimation errors were modelled for A-MIDAMBLE.
o
Control Channel Overhead: Dynamic overhead modelling for A-A-MAP and HF-A-MAP and
fixed overhead modelling for non-user specific A-MAP (NUS-A-MAP), A-PREAMBLE, AMIDAMBLE, and SFH are used in this contribution. Detailed calculation of the DL control
channel overhead for each test environment is shown in Section 2.2.1.
 Uplink configuration:
o
Subchannelization for data allocations: In the case of the InH and UMi, Scheme-1 (subbandbased CRU subchannelization) was selected in the simulations. In the case of UMa and RMa,
Scheme-2 (miniband-based CRU subchannelization) was simulated.
o
Multi-antenna transmission format for data: In the case of the InH and UMi, the 3-bit
codebook-based MU-MIMO scheme was selected with adaptive switching between a single
user and collaborative spatial multiplexing using 2x4 antenna configuration. In the case of
UMa and RMa, the MU-MIMO scheme with long-term beamforming and adaptive switching
between a single user and collaborative spatial multiplexing was used in the simulations
using 2x4 antenna configuration.
o
Receiver structure: The MMSE receiver was simulated for the ABS for both channel
estimation and data detection.
o
HARQ: Chase combining HARQ with retransmission delay of four frames was used for the
simulations.
o
Control signalling: Signalling errors were modeled for Primary Feedback Control Channel
(P-FBCH) (UMa, RMa), Secondary Feedback Control Channel (S-FBCH) (InH, UMi), and
HARQ Feedback Control Channel (H-FBCH), and sounding estimation errors were modelled
for the Sounding channel.
o
Control Channel Overhead: Dynamic overhead modeling for P-FBCH, S-FBCH and H-
4
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
FBCH and fixed overhead modeling for Long-Term Covariance Matrix (LT-CM), Initial
Ranging (IR), and Bandwidth Request (BW-REQ) are adopted. Detailed calculation of the
UL control channel overhead for each test environment is shown in Section 2.2.2.
2.2 Control overhead calculations
In this section, details of the control overhead calculations for DL and UL are presented.
2.2.1 Control overhead calculations for the downlink
The following assumptions were made for the DL control channels:
• A-A-MAP: The A-A-MAP control overhead is dynamically calculated based on the scheduler
allocations in each simulated frame of both DL and UL in each test environment. The average DL AA-MAP and UL A-A-MAP overhead is accounted for in the estimation of the cell spectral efficiency
and cell-edge user spectral efficiency.
• HF-A-MAP: The overhead calculation for the HF-A-MAP channel is based on the dynamic
calculation of the required ACKs/NACKs from the UL system level simulations for each test
environment.
• A-PREAMBLE: Fixed overhead of 1 OFDMA symbol per frame is assumed for both TDD and FDD.
• A-MIDAMBLE: Fixed overhead of 1 OFDMA symbol per frame is assumed for both TDD and FDD.
• SFH: Fixed overhead of 20 Logical Resource Unit (LRU)s per superframe is assumed for both FDD
and TDD.
Table 2-1 contains the summary of the DL control channel overhead calculations for TDD and FDD.
Table 2-1: Summary of DL total control channel overhead percentage per mode
(TDD/FDD) and test environment (InH, UMi, UMa, RMa)
TDD
FDD
InH
9.19%
9.74%
UMi
12.33%
16.28%
UMa
11.17%
13.77%
RMa
11.15%
13.63%
2.2.2 Control overhead calculations for the uplink
The following assumptions were made for the UL control channels:
•
P-FBCH: The UL control overhead of the P-FBCH is calculated according to the P-FBCH reporting
period of 5 ms for UMa and RMa, and by assuming that all 10 users/sector transmit the PFBCH in
each 5 ms frame.
•
S-FBCH/UL MAC management: The feedback of CQI/PMI is done either through S-FBCH or UL
MAC management messages. In both cases, the reporting period is 5 ms for both TDD and FDD.
•
H-FBCH: The overhead of the H-FBCH was based on the dynamic calculation of the required
ACKs/NACKs from the DL system level simulations for each test environment.
5
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
•
LT-CM: Although the feedback of the LT-CM is not assumed to be received through a dedicated UL
control channel but through a regular UL MAC management burst, its overhead is included in the
calculation of the UL control overhead. Fixed overhead of the LT-CM feedback is assumed assuming
a reporting period of 20 ms for both UMa and RMa.
•
Sounding: To enable the required sounding capabilities for both FDD and TDD, fixed overhead of 1
symbol per long TTI for both TDD and FDD is assumed.
•
IR: Fixed overhead of 4 LRUs per superframe is assumed for both TDD and FDD.
•
BW-REQ: Fixed overhead of 4 LRUs per superframe is assumed for both TDD and FDD.
Table 2-2 contains the summary of the UL control channel overhead calculations for TDD and FDD.
Table 2-2: Summary of UL total control channel overhead percentage per mode
(TDD/FDD) and test environment (InH, UMi, UMa, RMa)
InH
7.85%
6.02%
TDD
FDD
UMi
12.60%
10.58%
UMa
9.23%
8.01%
RMa
8.34%
6.51%
2.3 Evaluation results for TDD
Tables 2-3 and 2-4 present the cell and cell-edge user spectral efficiency results from the different
sources for the TDD DL and TDD UL, respectively. Based on the average value from all sources for each
test environment in the DL and UL, it is concluded that the IEEE 802.16m TDD meets the ITU
requirements for the cell and cell-edge user spectral efficiency.
Table 2-3: Results for the cell/cell-edge user spectral efficiency in the TDD downlink
Test environment
Source 10 Source 3
ITU Requirement
Source 1
Source 6
Indoor (InH)
Cell
Cell-edge user
3.0
0.10
Microcellular (UMi)
Cell
Cell-edge user
2.6
0.075
3.04
0.076
3.18
0.089
3.45
0.087
3.13
0.097
Base coverage urban
(UMa)
Cell
Cell-edge user
2.2
0.06
2.36
0.060
2.32
0.071
2.62
0.071
2.40
0.077
High speed (RMa)
Cell
Cell-edge user
Source 8
6.75
0.235
1.1
0.04
3.58
0.095
2.35
0.064
Source 9
Average
7.10
0.286
6.93
0.260
3.28
0.112
3.22
0.092
2.41
0.069
2.41
0.069
2.88
0.092
3.23
0.093
Table 2-4: Results for the cell/cell-edge user spectral efficiency in the TDD uplink
6
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
Test environment
Indoor (InH)
Microcellular (UMi)
Cell
Cell-edge user
Average IoT (dB)
< 10 dB
2.25
0.07
Cell
Cell-edge user
Average IoT (dB)
< 10 dB
1.8
0.05
Base coverage urban
(UMa)
Cell
Cell-edge user
Average IoT (dB)
< 10 dB
High speed (RMa)
Source 1
ITU Requirement
1.4
0.03
Cell
Cell-edge user
Average IoT (dB)
< 10 dB
0.7
0.015
Source 6
Source 9
Average
5.20
0.361
6.79
0.491
9.37
8.70
2.60
0.137
2.53
0.091
2.62
0.106
9.00
9.30
9.80
2.38
0.113
2.49
0.091
2.86
0.123
9.59
9.90
9.90
2.45
0.125
2.87
0.114
8.60
9.80
5.99
0.426
2.58
0.111
2.57
0.109
2.66
0.119
2.4 Evaluation results for FDD
Tables 2-5 and 2-6 present the cell and cell-edge user spectral efficiency results from the different
sources for the FDD DL and FDD UL, respectively. Based on the average value from all sources for each
test environment in the DL and UL, it is concluded that the IEEE 802.16m FDD meets the ITU
requirements for the cell and cell-edge user spectral efficiency.
Table 2-5: Results for the cell/cell-edge user spectral efficiency in the FDD downlink
Test environment
ITU Requirement
Source 3
Source 1
Indoor (InH)
Cell
Cell-edge user
3.0
0.10
Microcellular (UMi)
Cell
Cell-edge user
2.6
0.075
3.05
0.089
3.57
0.090
Base coverage urban
(UMa)
Cell
Cell-edge user
2.2
0.06
2.23
0.060
2.63
0.069
High speed (RMa)
Cell
Cell-edge user
Source 6
6.85
0.239
1.1
0.04
3.58
0.095
Source 9
Average
6.89
0.266
6.87
0.253
3.30
0.101
3.14
0.108
3.27
0.097
2.48
0.082
2.30
0.063
2.41
0.069
2.72
0.087
3.15
0.091
Table 2-6: Results for the cell/cell-edge user spectral efficiency in the FDD uplink
7
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
Test environment
Indoor (InH)
Microcellular (UMi)
ITU Requirement
Cell
Cell-edge user
Average IoT (dB)
< 10 dB
2.25
0.07
Cell
Cell-edge user
Average IoT (dB)
< 10 dB
1.8
0.05
Base coverage urban
(UMa)
Cell
Cell-edge user
Average IoT (dB)
< 10 dB
High speed (RMa)
Source 1
Cell
Cell-edge user
Average IoT (dB)
< 10 dB
1.4
0.03
0.7
0.015
Source 6
Source 9
5.40
0.377
7.06
0.511
9.45
8.70
2.66
0.141
2.75
0.107
2.73
0.110
9.10
9.40
9.80
2.46
0.117
2.66
0.097
2.96
0.128
9.39
9.80
9.90
2.54
0.130
2.99
0.118
9.05
9.80
Average
6.23
0.444
2.72
0.119
2.69
0.114
2.77
0.124
3 Evaluation results for the VoIP capacity
3.1 Simulation assumptions and parameters for VoIP traffic
The modeling assumptions and configurations used in the system level simulations for VoIP are as
described in tables in Annex 3 of [2]. Additional details relevant to system level simulations of the RIT
for VoIP are listed in this section. In relation to the information in Annex 3 [2], the following items are
specific to VoIP traffic:
Downlink configuration:
•
Subchannelization for VoIP allocations: A mix of DRU and miniband CRU subchannelization
schemes is used in the simulations. Since the control channels are always allocated in distributed
resources, a fixed partition is used in each subframe between the DRU and miniband CRU resources.
•
Multi-antenna transmission format for VoIP: In the case of DRU, SFBC with non-adaptive precoding
is used. In the case of miniband CRU, rank-1 tranmission with wideband beamforming is used.
•
Receiver structure: The MMSE receiver was simulated for the AMS for both channel estimation and
data detection.
•
HARQ: Chase combining HARQ with maximum retransmission delay of 4 frames was used.
•
Control channel overhead:
-
A-MAP Region: A fixed overhead is assumed for NUS-A-AMAP and HF-A-MAP. The A-AMAP control overhead is explicitly simulated based on the scheduler allocations in each
simulated subframe on both DL and UL in each test environment.
8
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
-
A-PREAMBLE: Fixed overhead of 1 OFDMA symbol per frame is assumed.
-
A-MIDAMBLE: Fixed overhead of 1 OFDMA symbol per frame is assumed. Midamble
estimation errors are included in the presented results.
-
SFH: 20 LRUs are reserved for the SFH in the first subframe of every superframe.
-
Control channel signalling errors: DL control channel signalling errors were explicitly
modeled in the VoIP simulations for both FDD and TDD.
•
Persistent scheduling: Persistent scheduling for individual VoIP connections as described in [3] is
modelled. The MAC procedure and dynamic control overhead based on the persistent allocation AMAP IE for initial transmissions is modelled. HARQ retransmissions are not scheduled persistently.
•
Control channel overhead: A dynamic overhead model for the A-A-MAP and SFH and a fixed
overhead model for the other DL control channels are used.
Uplink configuration:
•
Subchannelization for VoIP allocations: DRU-based subchannelization is used.
•
Multi-antenna transmission format for VoIP: Open loop SFBC with a 2x4 antenna configuration is
used.
•
•
Receiver structure: The MMSE receiver was simulated for the ABS for both channel estimation and
data detection.
HARQ: Chase combining HARQ with retransmission delay of four frames was used for the
simulations.
•
Control signalling:
-
P-FBCH: The P-FBCH is utilized for feeding back CQI information. Additionally, when
wideband beamforming is used, wideband PMI is also fed back. UL control overhead
induced by the P-FBCH is calculated in a fixed manner according to the reporting period
derived from the number of active users, voice activity factor, and duration of persistence for
persistent scheduling.
-
H-FBCH: The overhead from the H-FBCH was based on the maximum number (30) of
required ACKs/NACKs in each subframe from the DL system level VoIP simulations for
each test environment.
-
Sounding channel: To facilitate sounding for 16 users per frame when the system is operating
at the maximum VoIP capacity, a fixed overhead of 2 OFDMA symbols per frame is
assumed.
-
IR: Fixed overhead of 1 LRU per frame is used.
-
BW-REQ channels: Fixed overhead of 1 LRU per frame is used.
-
Control channel signalling errors: UL control channel signalling errors were explicitly
9
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
modeled in the VoIP simulations for both FDD and TDD.
•
Persistent scheduling: Persistent scheduling for individual VoIP connections as described in [3] is
modelled. The MAC procedure and dynamic control overhead based on the persistent allocation AMAP IE for initial transmissions is modelled. HARQ retransmissions are not scheduled persistently.
•
Control channel overhead: A fixed overhead model for the UL control channels is used.
3.2 Evaluation results for TDD
Table 3-1 presents the VoIP capacity results from the different sources for the IEEE 802.16m TDD
mode. Based on the average value from all sources for each test environment, it is concluded that the
IEEE 802.16m TDD meets the ITU requirements for the VoIP capacity.
Table 3-1: VoIP capacity results for TDD
Test environment
Indoor (InH)
Microcellular (UMi)
Source 1 Source 6
Source 9
Average
UL
154
176
DL
146
135
Min of UL and DL
146
135
140
ITU requirement
50
50
50
UL
99
110
104
DL
84
86
77
Min of UL and DL
84
86
77
82
ITU requirement
40
40
40
40
98
95
50
165
Base coverage urban
(UMa)
UL
93
DL
78
78
68
Min of UL and DL
78
78
68
74
ITU requirement
40
40
40
40
103
High speed (RMa)
UL
101
106
DL
99
80
Min of UL and DL
99
ITU requirement
30
10
30
80
89
30
30
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
3.3 Evaluation results for FDD
Table 3-2 presents the VoIP capacity results from the different sources for the IEEE 802.16m FDD mode.
Based on the average value from all sources for each test environment, it is concluded that the IEEE
802.16m FDD meets the ITU requirements for the VoIP capacity.
Table 3-2: VoIP capacity results for FDD
Test environment
Indoor (InH)
Microcellular (UMi)
Source 1 Source 6
Source 9
Average
UL
156
176
DL
144
134
Min of UL and DL
144
134
139
ITU requirement
50
50
50
104
102
50
166
UL
100
DL
80
84
68
Min of UL and DL
80
84
68
77
ITU requirement
40
40
40
40
96
95
Base coverage urban
(UMa)
UL
94
DL
74
80
64
Min of UL and DL
74
80
64
72
ITU requirement
40
40
40
40
101
High speed (RMa)
UL
102
100
DL
96
84
Min of UL and DL
96
84
90
ITU requirement
30
30
30
11
30
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
4 Evaluation results for the mobility requirement
Following the evaluation methodology for the mobility requirement [1], in a first step UL system-level
simulations were run for each test environment to obtain the UL SINR distribution. From the UL SINR
distribution the median (or 50th percentile) value was obtained for each test environment. In a second
step, link-level simulations were run to generate the spectral efficiency versus SNR curves for each test
environment. The generated spectral efficiency numbers include the impact of control channel overhead
by accounting for the average control channel overhead from the UL system-level simulations for each
test environment, see Table 2-2. To assess whether the RIT meets the mobility requirement, the spectral
efficiency value from the link-level curves is obtained for the median SINR value from the system-level
simulations. It is noted that evaluation results are presented for both the LoS and NLoS channel models
of each test environment.
The following embedded Excel file contains the UL SINR distributions from the different sources in
tabular format. Based on the information in the embedded Excel file, the average median UL SINR
values are 16.6 dB, 5.0 dB, 4.3 dB, and 5.6 dB for the InH, UMi, UMa, and RMa test environment of
IMT-Advanced, respectively.
Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 present the evaluation results for the mobility requirement from the different
sources for TDD and FDD, respectively. Based on the average value from all sources for each test
environment and for both the LoS and NLoS channel models, it is concluded that the IEEE 802.16m
meets the ITU mobility requirement for both TDD and FDD.
Table 4-1: Results for evaluating the mobility requirement for TDD
12
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
Test environment
Indoor (InH)
Source 1 Source 6 Source 9
LOS
3.51
NLOS
3.41
ITU requirement
Microcellular (UMi)
1.0
High speed (RMa)
4.00
1.0
1.64
NLOS
1.33
1.66
ITU requirement
0.75
0.75
1.58
NLOS
1.26
1.33
ITU requirement
0.55
0.55
LOS
1.54
NLOS
1.23
ITU requirement
0.25
1.0
1.0
1.98
1.81
1.50
0.75
0.75
1.85
1.72
1.30
0.55
0.55
1.85
1.70
1.23
0.25
0.25
Table 4-2: Results for evaluating the mobility requirement for FDD
13
3.76
3.41
LOS
Base coverage urban
(UMa)
LOS
Average
0.25
IEEE C802.16-09/0013
Test environment
Indoor (InH)
Source 1
LOS
3.64
NLOS
3.56
ITU requirement
Microcellular (UMi)
1.0
Source 9
4.08
Average
3.86
3.56
1.0
LOS
1.70
NLOS
1.41
1.60
ITU requirement
0.75
0.75
Base coverage urban
(UMa)
LOS
High speed (RMa)
Source 6
1.66
NLOS
1.30
1.38
ITU requirement
0.55
0.55
LOS
1.61
NLOS
1.27
ITU requirement
0.25
1.0
1.0
1.74
1.72
1.51
0.75
0.75
1.60
1.63
1.34
0.55
0.55
1.60
1.61
1.27
0.25
0.25
0.25
5 Conclusion
Based on the evaluation results presented in this contribution, it is concluded that IEEE 802.16m meets
all IMT-Advanced requirements for the cell/cell-edge user spectral efficiency, the VoIP capacity, and the
mobility requirement.
References
[1] ITU-R M.2135, “Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for IMT-Advanced”, 2008.
[2] IEEE L802.16-09/0101r1, “[Draft] submission of a candidate IMT-Advanced RIT based on 802.16 (Part 4),
September 2009.
[3] IEEE 802.16m-09/0047, “System Evaluation Details for IEEE 802.16 IMT-Advanced Proposal”, September
2009.
14