WiMax Vs HSDPA

DATE OF ISSUE 20/05/2007

TITLE 3G HSDPA & WIMAX

COMPARISON

CONTROL NO. NO. OF PAGES Page 1 of 15

SYRIATEL RESTRICTED:

TECHNICAL

Dimensioning Study

WiMax Vs.HSDPA

3G Team – Technical Department - Eng.Ala’aeddin Alazmeh

APPROVED BY DEPARTMENT TECHNICAL

FUNCTION 3G project manager

Technical director

NAME EMAD SAKA AMINI AYMAN ZWIYA

SIGNATURE

DATE

THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROPRIETARY TO SYRIATEL, AND IT SHALL NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN WRITING BY THE PROPRIETOR. THE RECIPIENT OF THIS INFORMATION, BY ITS RETENTION AND USE, AGREES TO PROTECT THE SAME FROM LOSS, THEFT OR UNAUTHORIZED USE.

REVISION HISTORY

REVISION DATE STATUS DESCRIPTION DRAFT 1

15/04/2007

00

20/04/2007

01

02/05/2007

02

20/05/2007

Is Modified after recommendations of Eng.Emad Saka Ameni

20/05/2007 DATE OF ADOPTION


COMPARISON



TECHNICAL DEPARTMENT – 3G Team, WIMAX & 3G COMPARISION

1.1 Purpose: Make a simple comparison between 3G HSDPA and WiMax, can WiMax challenge 3G?

1.2 Scope : High level information about site count for a given area.

1.3 Report:

Wimax vs. HSDPA



COMPARISON



Wimax, 3G and HSPA Comparison

Executive Summary:

• In the following study we have made a comparison between Wimax and UMTS HSPA in 10 km² area and find that; we need 2 UMTS(HSDPA) sites to cover 10 Km² , on the other hand we need 3.7 Wimax sites to cover the same area.

• Please note that this study doesn’t take into account indoor loss, terrain, and interference.

• More WiMax sites are needed to cover the same area.

• As per Deutsche bank, it costs 35% more to provide coverage using WiMax technology Vs.HSDPA.

• 3G HSDPA offers ubiquitous access to toll-quality voice & broadband data services within a wide area using existing infrastructure.

UMTS WiMax No. Of Sites 2 3.7

• WiMax still under deployment but it is promising technology that offers high speed data rate with cost efficient core.

• To do deeper analysis for this technology, we recommend that we do a small trial WiMax network and test its performance and see if we can use it in Hot Spots and special applications.


COMPARISON




• We approached writing using the following steps:

1. Preparation: • Primary Purpose (Wimax & HSDPA comparison) • Assess readers (Technical director – 3G Manager) • Study scope coverage (High level information about

Wimax & HSDPA) • Determinate the medium ( PDF text file).

2. Research: • Primary research (Technical references) • Secondary research (Web documents, e-mail discussions, operating manuals and PPT files).

3. organization 4. writing 5. Revision



COMPARISON



Introduction:

WiMAX has gained significant momentum over the last year. Its standardization is complete, vendor and operator ecosystems are expanding, and the hype is getting louder, often justifiably so. In this report, we move beyond the hype and theoretical discussion; we look at real-world examples of pre-WiMAX deployments and review practical issues such as time-to-market, business models and pricing, device availability, economics of scale and spectrum availability, with an emphasis on a number of key questions, most notably, can WiMAX challenge 3G?



COMPARISON



Radio Intro about Path loss models : Okumura-Hata model cont. Definition of parameters : hm mobile station antenna height above local terrain height [m] dm distance between the mobile and the building h0 typically height of a building above local terrain height [m] hb base station antenna height above local terrain height [m] r great circle distance between base station and mobile [m] R=r x 10-3 great circle distance between base station and mobile [km] f carrier frequency [Hz] fc=f x 10-6 carrier frequency [MHz] λ free space wavelength [m]

Okumura takes urban areas as a reference and applies correction factors Urban areas : LdB = A + B log10 R – E Suburban areas : LdB = A + B log10 R – C Open areas : LdB = A + B log10 R – D A = 69.55 + 26.16 log10 fc – 13.82 log10 hb B = 44.9 – 6.55 log10 hb C = 2 ( log10 ( fc / 28 ))2 + 5.4 D = 4.78 ( log10 fc )2 + 18.33 log10 fc + 40.94 E = 3.2 ( log10 ( 11.7554 hm ))2 – 4.97 for large cities, fc ≥ 300MHz E = 8.29 ( log10 ( 1.54 hm ))2 – 1.1 for large cities, fc < 300MHz E = ( 1.1 log10 fc – 0.7 ) hm – ( 1.56 log10 fc – 0.8 ) for medium to small cities.



COMPARISON



Okumura-Hata model for medium to small cities has been extended to cover 1500 MHz to 2100 MHz LdB = F + B log10 R – E + G F = 46.3 + 33.9 log10 fc – 13.82 log10 hb E designed for medium to small cities 0 dB medium sized cities and suburban areas G =3 dB metropolitan areas Wimax Path Loss = UMTS path Loss*(x + log3.5)/(x + log2.1) Wimax Path Loss > UMTS path Loss



COMPARISON



Design Conditions: • Area size: 10 km2, see graphic below.

Core: 150 subs/km2

50 subs/km2 50 subs/km2

• Type B land (medium – with no plains nor mountains) • 50% of the clients with telephone service

• Block average lower than 1%

• Clients´density • 50 clients per km2 in the surrounding area (2 areas of

2x2km2) • 150 clients per km2 in a core area of 1x2 Km2

• Re-use factor 1:10 (meaning that the average client will consume 51.2/13 kbps during peak hours)

• Average and maximum BER (lower than 10-4) • Maximum delay lower than 50ms • Base radio height: 20m • CPE height: 5 m • Frequency of platform work:

• Licensed band in 3.5 GHz, • Non-licensed band 5.8 GHz • Band of 2.3 GHz • Band of 2.5 GHz

• Area = 10 sqkm

• Core = 2 sqkm • Surrounding = 8 sqkm

• Traffic:

• Data Traffic • Core = 150 client/sqkm x 2 = 300 clients


COMPARISON




• Surrounding = 50 x 8 = 400 clients • Average Peak Hour Rate, UL/DL = 13/51.2 kbps • Peak Rate, UL/DL = 130/512 kbps

• UL/DL ratio = 1:4 for TDD recommendation (20 percent UL)

• Overbooking Factor = 10 • Utilization = OBF/(Peak-to-Average Ratio) = 100

percent • Total Bitrate Capacity Needed for Data:

• TotalBitrate,DL= 700 x 51.2 /1000 = 35.8 Mbps • Voice Traffic (50 percent of clients at 30 mErlangs and 48

kbps) • 1 Erlang = 48kbps, 30 mErlangs = 48x.03*3600/8000 =

0.648 Mbytes/hr • Total voice traffic ~48x0.03/1000*350 = 0.51 Mbps

(only 1.5%, too small) • TotalBitrate,DL + Total voice traffic = 35.8 + 0.51 =36.3 Mbps

• Wimax Sites Needed = 36.3/12 ~ 3 sites(sectors) full capacity

(assuming 12 Mbps/site, 10 MHz) • With voice traffic, utilization factor needs to be within

tolerable delay (3 sigma) • Sites needed, with <80 percent utilization = 4 sites

(sectors).

• UMTS sites needed = 36.3/(2*14) = 36.3/22.5 = 1.29 ~ 2 sites(sectors)

UMTS WiMax Sites No. 2 3.7


COMPARISON




Wimax, 3G and HSPA comparison

HSPA, HSDPA WiMAX

Channel bandwidth 5 MHz 1.75 - 20 MHz

Mobility Global, high-

speed Mobility is still

under deployment

Average downlink user data rate 1 - 2 Mbit/s 6 Mbit/s

Average uplink user data rate 384 kbit/s 2 Mbit/s

Typical cell radius 2 - 10 km 1 - 5 km

TCP roundtrip time 100 ms 20 - 50 ms

VoIP support yes yes



COMPARISON



Downlink multiplexing OFDMAWimax

CDMAHSPA

Uplink multiplexing OFDMA CDMA

Modulation QPSK, 16QAM, 64QAM QPSK, 16QAM

Coding Turbo Turbo

Frequency scheduling Yes -

MIMO Yes Expected R7

HARQ Yes Yes

Scalable bandwidth 1.25 – 20 MHz No, 5 MHz

Frequency reuse Yes -

HSPA

i-HSPA

Wimax

BTS

BTS

BTS+adapter

RNC

ASNGWMobility

Mobility

Mobility

Security

Security

Security

IP header

IP header

IP header

ARQ

ARQ

ASNGW = access service network gatewayBTS+adapter = HSPA BTS + i-HSPA adaptera-GW = access gatewayMobility = handover controlSecurity = encryptionARQ = higher layer ARQ (L1 ARQ in BTS)IP header = IP header compression

CS+PS

MobilityARQ

L1 ARQ



COMPARISON



Wimax 3G HSPA

Frequency reuse 1/3, 1/4 , 1, fractional

1 1

Mobile antenna Omni or directional

Omni Omni

Channel impairment Sensitive to doppler

Sensitive to multipath

Sensitive to multipath

Base station antenna Directional, array

Directional Directional

Main radio KPI SINR EcNo SINR (EcNo)

Dominant Traffic Data Voice Data

Handover Scheme HHO SHO HHO (HSDPA) SHO (HSUPA)

Own-cell Interference Adjacent subcarriers at high doppler

Other codes in the cell, non-orthogonality

issues

Other codes in the cell, non-

orthogonality issues

Capacity Expansion Increasing the OFDMA

bandwidth

More frequencies using Inter-frequency Handover

More frequencies


COMPARISON






COMPARISON



Conclusion: • WiMax is a promising technology and shouldn’t be ignored. • The WiMAX technology continues to evolve with the WiMAX Forum’s

approval of the Release-1 mobile WiMAX system performance profiles based on the 802.16e-2005 amendment. With OFDMA, mobile WiMAX can meet the stringent requirements necessary for the delivery of broadband services in a challenging mobile environment.

• These advantages will provide operators with added network capacity

for the support of value-added services. • Per the study above we need 2 UMTS sites to cover 10 Km²; on the

other hand we need 4 Wimax sites to cover the same area.

• To do deeper analysis for this technology, we recommend that we do a small trail WiMax network and test its performance and see if we can use it in hot spots and special applications.

____________________________________________

References: *Source Sylvain Ranvier / Radio Laboratory /TKK, 23 November 2004,[email protected] *Source: ABI, Gartner, IDC, In-Stat/MDR, Strategy Analytics, 2004 & 2005 *5 Source: Average of Strategy Analytics (2006), Gartner (2006) and Forward Concepts (2005) *Source: Strategy Analytics, Nokia evaluation *Deutsche Bank documents

mailto:[email protected]

WiMax Vs HSDPA

Documents