System Level Modeling and Optimization of the LTE Downlink
System Level Modeling and Optimization of the LTE Downlink
System Level Modeling and Optimization of the LTE Downlink
- No tags were found...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
3. Physical Layer <strong>Modeling</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>LTE</strong> <strong>System</strong> <strong>Level</strong> SimulationOf special interest is <strong>the</strong> feedback-wise more complex case <strong>of</strong> CLSM, where <strong>the</strong>optimum precoder is precalculated at trace generation <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> optimum rank chosenat run time, for which <strong>the</strong> L2S model closely approximates link level results.3.2.1.1. Complexity EvaluationIn this section, <strong>the</strong> run-time complexity <strong>of</strong> system level simulations is compared tothat <strong>of</strong> link level simulations, showing a significant reduction in simulation run timewhen employing <strong>the</strong> L2S model. Hence, it validates <strong>the</strong> statement, much-emphasizedin this <strong>the</strong>sis, that a link abstraction model allows for significantly faster simulationtimes compared to detailed link level simulations.The same single-user, single-cell described above is simulated for <strong>the</strong> <strong>LTE</strong> channelb<strong>and</strong>widths <strong>of</strong> 1.4, 3, 5, <strong>and</strong> 10 MHz (link <strong>and</strong> system level), <strong>and</strong> additionally for<strong>the</strong> 20 MHz b<strong>and</strong>width case for system level. As from <strong>the</strong> values, listed in Table 3.4,link level simulation run times scale linearly with <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> RBs, <strong>the</strong> link levelsimulation time for <strong>the</strong> 20 MHz case has been extrapolated from <strong>the</strong> existing values.Table 3.4.: Simulation run time comparison in seconds. Marked in bold face are <strong>the</strong> systemlevel simulation times, followed by <strong>the</strong> link level simulation times.Single TX1.4 MHz 3 MHz 5 MHz 10 MHz 20 MHz6 RBs 15 RBs 25 RBs 50 RBs 100 RBs1×1 28/282 28/703 28/1 115 28/2 300 30/-1×2 30/278 28/666 28/1 089 27/2 248 32/-TxD 2×2 27/614 28/1 542 29/2 552 28/5 086 29/-OLSMCLSM2×2 32/1 308 33/3 287 34/5 446 39/10 978 33/-4×2 32/1 426 32/3 842 33/6 598 35/15 040 36/-4×4 33/2 203 37/6 029 36/10 428 40/24 531 44/-2×2 33/358 32/901 33/1 509 32/3 399 34/-4×2 31/493 35/1 257 34/2 020 33/4 394 34/-4×4 37/874 34/2 310 36/3 563 38/7 535 42/-The almost constant simulation run time <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system level simulator can be explainedby <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>floading <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> most computationally-intensive task, which is <strong>the</strong>channel trace generation. Although a detailed complexity analysis <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> system levelsimulator has not been performed, <strong>the</strong> shown simulation results indicate that, whensimulating larger b<strong>and</strong>widths, <strong>the</strong> complexity increase <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> b<strong>and</strong>width-dependentpart <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> L2S model (in this scenario <strong>the</strong> link quality model <strong>and</strong> <strong>the</strong> CQI <strong>and</strong>,when applicable, RI feedback 7 ) are almost negligible in comparison to <strong>the</strong> overallrun time.7 In a single-user scenario, no actual scheduling is performed. However, scheduling algorithms do46