EVDO链路预算.ppt

Coverage Analysis Coverage Analysis (2) 1xEV-DO FL Coverage IS-95-A FL Coverage Comparison 1xEV-DO RL Coverage IS-95-A RL Coverage Comparison * Typical IS-95 FL coverage analysis assumes Max. 5.3% of total power per voice channel 2-way soft combining handoff 30% Pilot, Sync and Paging channel overhead For 1xEV-DO these translates to a user that gets 15.3% of Traffic Channel slots, or 14.3% of the total time slots Use ITU-R M.1225 recommended channel models and parameters (IMT-2000) Forward Link Variable Rate Modem Budget for average throughput rather than worst case link Multiuser diversity improves coverage (~ 2.0 dB) 67.1kbps sector throughput served 14.3% of time ? 9.6 kbps user throughput Dual receive diversity improves coverage (~ 4.6 dB) Worst-case channel performance for each scenario ? ?  Log-normal std = 8dB 90% probability of cell-edge coverage 10dB penetration loss Control Channel Coverage Fixed rate transmission No multiuser gain Receive diversity is much more significant = 12 dB ? ?  IS-95 Paging Channel 20% power allocation 10% frame error rate 134.2 dB max. path loss 1xEV-DO Control Channel 136.7dB max. path loss for single antenna 148.7dB max. path loss for dual antenna IS-95 Traffic Channel 5.3% power allocation 3% frame error rate 138.2dB max. path loss 1xEV-DO Traffic Channel 147.7dB max. path loss for single antenna 152.3dB max. path loss for dual antenna ? ?  Assumptions for reverse link budget No closed-loop power control Dual receive antennas at the base station 2-way handoff (selection) 50% system load 2% packet error rate Relative DRC channel gain = -3.0dB Relative ACK channel gain = +4.0dB Required Eb/No per antenna with no system load ? ?  IS-95 RL 3% target FER Req. Eb/No = 8dB 133.9dB max. path loss 1xEV-DO RL 1.5dB coverage gain for 9.6kbps Supports 19.2kbps with same link budget as IS-95 * * *