| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
I am forwarding the following message to this reflector because of problems with the evaluation criteria reflector.
Please find attached the latest version of the link budget template. Thanks David for the updates.
Best regards,
Anna.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shively, David [mailto:david.shively@cingular.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:06 AM
To: 'Lai-King Tee'; stds-80220-eval-criteria@listserv.ieee.org
Cc: 'Khan, Farooq (Farooq)'
Subject: RE: stds-80220-eval-criteria: Link Budget Template
Hi Anna,
I just wanted to note a couple of points. These are also included within the attached document.
1. I altered the power output for the mobile to be 1 Watt (30 dBm). Using the antenna gain of 0 dBi yields an
EIRP for the mobile of 30 dBm which is what I had noted was the regulatory limit in the US for the new
1700/2100 MHz band. This would be the limit for the mobile station as it is built and tested. However, when
actually in use by a person, the body losses should be included (3 dB) which would reduce the "actual" EIRP
in the field to 30 - 3 = 27 dBm (assuming 0 dBi antenna). Also, as you have noted, some systems are built
with much lower transmit power for the mobile (23 dBm). The limit of 30 dBm EIRP is an upper bound since
this would be the maximum allowed under the regulations.
2. A very minor point: there is no "r" in my last name.
Thanks,
David Shively
-----Original Message-----
From: Lai-King Tee [mailto:atee@sta.samsung.com]
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 8:54 PM
To: 'Shively, David'; stds-80220-eval-criteria@listserv.ieee.org
Cc: 'Khan, Farooq (Farooq)'; Anna Tee
Subject: RE: stds-80220-eval-criteria: Link Budget Template
Thanks David for the suggestions on the link budget template.
Please find attached an updated version with other alternate values included. I've included a row in the table for penetration loss to account for the additional loss for outdoor-indoor and vehicular users.
Best regards,
Anna.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-stds-80220-eval-criteria@majordomo.ieee.org [mailto:owner-stds-80220-eval-criteria@majordomo.ieee.org] On Behalf Of Shively, David
Sent: Monday, March 01, 2004 9:44 AM
To: 'Lai-King Tee'; stds-80220-eval-criteria@ieee.org
Cc: 'Khan, Farooq (Farooq)'
Subject: stds-80220-eval-criteria: Link Budget Template
Hi Anna,
Please find the link budget template attached with a few suggested
changes. There are also some notes below which address the points
you have listed and these are also included on page 2 of the template.
1. Antenna gain for BS and MS
This generally depends on the frequency band. In the US, for 1800-1900 MHz
we usually use 17 dBi (assumes 3 sectors per cell). For 800-900 MHz this is
usually 14 dBi for a 3 sector cell. The MS antenna gain is generally taken to
be 0 dBi with an additional loss of 3 dB due to the user's body. In the
case of laptop PCs this loss may not be due to the body but should still be
included to represent polarization mismatch or other antenna pattern effects
or blockage.
2. Receiver NF for BS and MS
Most other standards I am familiar with use 4 or 5 dB for the BS and 8 to 10 dB
for the MS. This is consistent with what you included in your email.
3. Output power for BS and MS
In the US, the limitations on output power are specific to the frequency
band in use. For 1900 MHz (PCS), the MS output is limited to 2 Watts EIRP. For
the newly approved 1700/2100 MHz band this has been reduced to only 1 Watt EIRP.
For the BS, the output power is generally limited to 100 Watts peak power with
an additional limit of 1640 Watts EIRP. I propose that the limit for the
mobile station should be 1 W EIRP and the limit for the base station should be
100 W output power (and 1640 W EIRP). As you noted, most systems do not use
this much power at the BS anyway.
Thanks,
David Shively
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. David Shively
Cingular Wireless
5565 Glenridge Connector, Mail Stop 950
Atlanta, GA 30342
Phone: 404 236 5909
Mobile: 404 285 5731
FAX: 404 236 5949
email: david.shively@cingular.com
pager: dshively@imcingular.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Lai-King Tee [mailto:a.tee@samsung.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2004 4:30 PM
To: 'Khan, Farooq (Farooq)'; stds-80220-eval-criteria@ieee.org
Subject: RE: stds-80220-eval-criteria: ECCG conference call, Tuesday
February 24, 12-2pm EST
As per Farooq's request, the outcomes of discussions on the link budget
contribution are summarized as follows.
During the evaluation conference call discussions, the following issues have
been identified for additional information:
1) Antenna gain for BS and MS
2) Receiver noise figure at BS and MS
3) Max Transmitter power at the basestation (BS) and mobile station (MS)
The question of whether the link budget template is used to ensure the same
assumptions are applied to the simulations or, as one of the evaluation
criteria was discussed. As Farooq has concluded at the end of the call, the
maximum range may be used as a performance metric for comparison of the
proposals, provided the maximum transmitter power are the same for the
different proposals.
The following information has been found after the conference call:
For antenna gain, the 802.20 channel modeling document specifies BS antenna
gain: 14 dBi for 3- sector cells, 17 dBi for 6-sector cells, as specified by
3GPP. For MS antenna, the antenna gain is -1 dBi.
In the 1xEV-DV evluation methodology document, the values used are:
1) Antenna gains: 17 dBi for 3-sector BS, -1 dBi for MS
2) Receiver noise figures: 5 dB for BS, 10 dB for MS
3) Max transmitter (PA) power: 20 W (43 dBm) for BS, 200 mW (23 dBm) for MS
The assumption for cable loss is 0 dB.
In the HSDPA report [3GPP TR25.848 V4.0], the following parameter values for
the forward link are found:
1) Antenna gains: 14 dBi, 3 sectors; 0 dBi for MS
2) Receiver noise figure: 9 dB (MS)
3) Max transmitter power: 44 dBm at BS
While the antenna gains should be the same for vehicular, pedestrian and
indoor users, I think we may need to include penetration losses in some
cases.
Please post your comments and suggestions to the reflector for further
discussions.
Best regards,
Anna.
Shively_proposed-link-budget-AT-Ver2.doc