Simulation methodology

Jose F. Monserrat; Mikael Fallgren; David Martín-Sacristán; Ji Lianghai

doi:10.1017/CBO9781316417744.015

Home
Books
5G Mobile and Wireless Communications Technology
Simulation methodology

14 - Simulation methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2016

Jose F. Monserrat ,

Mikael Fallgren ,

David Martín-Sacristán and

Ji Lianghai

Edited by

Afif Osseiran ,

Jose F. Monserrat and

Patrick Marsch

Foreword by

Mischa Dohler and

Takehiro Nakamura

Show author details

Jose F. Monserrat: Affiliation:
Universitat Politècnica de València
Mikael Fallgren: Affiliation:
Ericsson
David Martín-Sacristán: Affiliation:
Universitat Politècnica de València
Ji Lianghai: Affiliation:
University of Kaiserslautern
Afif Osseiran: Affiliation:
Ericsson
Jose F. Monserrat: Affiliation:
Universitat Politècnica de València
Patrick Marsch: Affiliation:
Nokia
Mischa Dohler: Affiliation:
King's College London
Takehiro Nakamura: Affiliation:
NTT DoCoMo Inc.

Chapter

Book contents

Get access

Summary

A simulation methodology is needed in the 5G technical work in order to ensure consistency of results obtained, by means of a computer simulation. This methodology must comprise a procedure for calibrating the simulator, guidelines for evaluating, and a mechanism supporting and controlling the validity of the performed simulations. This chapter provides a methodology for simulation to align assumptions. The alignment allows for a direct comparison of different 5G technology components. The chapter is based on the experience of the authors in the simulation work performed in the framework of the International Mobile Telecommunications-Advanced (IMT-Advanced) definition and in METIS [1]. Finally, some relevant test cases and preferred models are introduced.

Evaluation methodology

In this section, methodology guidelines are given to enable consistent performance evaluations. The guidelines may serve as a framework with aligned assumptions, consistent choice of models and simulation reference metrics to ensure that the results can be compared. The results on different levels are not meant to be compared but to be used as possible input, e.g. link-level simulations can be used as input to system-level simulations but should not be compared to them. Below, the main performance indicators, as well as suitable channel and propagation models, are explained and defined. The main characteristics of the evaluation scenarios are out of the scope of this chapter, since they are thoroughly described in Chapter 2.

Performance indicators

The main performance indicators to be used in the evaluation of the 5G system are defined and explained hereafter. It should be noted that the material (of the performance indicators) is based on [1]–[4].

User throughput

The user throughput is defined as the total amount of received information bits at the receiver divided by the total active session time at the data link layer [2][3]. Active session time does not include the waiting time at the application layer, e.g. reading time for web-browsing, or back-off time introduced by TCP/IP's traffic control, and therefore it is, in general, different from the session length.

A second definition of the user throughput accounts for the whole session time, instead of only the active session time. Both definitions are equivalent for full buffer traffic model, which does not have neither reading nor back-off times.

Type: Chapter
Information: 5G Mobile and Wireless Communications Technology , pp. 381 - 400

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316417744.015[Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Purchase

Buy Book

Buy print or eBook

References

[1] ICT-317669 METIS project, “Simulation guidelines,” Deliverable D6.1, November 2013, www.metis2020.com/documents/deliverables/

[2] ICT-317669 METIS project, “Scenarios, requirements and KPIs for 5G mobile and wireless system,” Deliverable D1.1, May 2013, www.metis2020.com/documents/deliverables/

[3] International Telecommunications Union Radio (ITU-R), “Requirements related to technical performance for IMT-Advanced radio interface(s),” Report ITU-R M.2134, December 2008, www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-M.2134-2008

[4] INFSO-ICT-247733 EARTH project, “Most suitable efficiency metrics and utility functions,” Deliverable D2.4, January 2012, www.ict-earth.eu/publications/deliverables/deliverables.html/

[5] International Telecommunications Union Radio (ITU-R), “Guidelines for evaluation of radio interface technologies for IMT-Advanced,” Report ITU-R M.2135, December 2008, www.itu.int/pub/R-REP-M.2135-2008

[6] Medbo, J. and Harrysson, F., “Channel modeling for the stationary UE scenario,” in European Conference on Antennas and Propagation, Gothenburg, April 2013, pp. 2811–2815.

[7] International Telecommunications Union Radio (ITU-R), “Propagation data and prediction methods for the planning of short-range outdoor radiocommunication systems and radio local area networks in the frequency range 300 MHz to 100 GHz,” Report ITU-R P.1411, October 1999, www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-P.1411-0-199910-S

[8] CELTIC / CP5-026 WINNER+ project, “Final Channel Models,” Deliverable D5.3, June 2010, http://projects.celtic-initiative.org/winner+/deliverables_winnerplus.html/

[9] Proakis, J. and Salehi, M., Digital Communications, ed., New York: McGraw Hill, 2007.

[10] Nokia, “Ideal simulation results for PDSCH in AWGN,” Work Item R4-071640, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #44bis, October 2007.

[11] 3GPP TS 36.521-1 V8.1.0, “User Equipment (UE) conformance specification Radio transmission and reception. Part 1: Conformance Testing,” Technical Specification TS 36.521-1 V8.1.0, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, March 2009.

[12] Motorola, “UE demodulation simulation assumptions,” Work Item R4-072182, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #45, November 2007.

[13] 3GPP TS 36.101 V9.22.0, “User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception,” Technical Specification, TS 36.101 V9.22.0, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, March 2015.

[14] Ericsson, “Results collection UE demod: PDSCH with practical channel estimation,” Work Item R4-080538, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #46, February 2008.

[15] Motorola, “Agreed UE demodulation simulation assumptions,” Work Item R4-071800, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #44bis, October 2007.

[16] Ericsson, “Collection of PDSCH results,” Work Item R4-072218, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #45, November 2007.

[17] Nokia, “Summary of the LTE UE alignment results,” Work Item R4-082151, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #48, August 2008.

[18] Nokia, “Summary of the LTE UE alignment results,” Work Item R4-082649, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #48bis, October 2008.

[19] Nokia Siemens Networks, “PUSCH simulation assumptions,” Work Item R4-080302, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #46, February 2008.

[20] 3GPP TS 36.104 V8.5.0, “Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception,” Technical Specification TS 36.104 V8.5.0, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, December 2009.

[21] Ericsson, “Summary of Ideal PUSCH simulation results,” Work Item R4-072117, 3GPP TSG RAN WG4, Meeting #45, November 2007.

[22] Herhold, P., Zimmermann, E., and Fettweis, G., “Cooperative multi-hop transmission in wireless networks,” Computer Networks Journal, vol. 3, no. 49, pp. 299–324, October 2005.Google Scholar

[23] Zimmermann, E., Herhold, P., and Fettweis, G., “On the performance of cooperative relaying protocols in wireless networks,” European Transactions on Telecommunications, vol. 1, no. 16, pp. 5–16, January 2005.Google Scholar

[24] Zimmermann, E., Herhold, P., and Fettweis, G., “On the performance of cooperative diversity protocols in practical wireless systems,” in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Orlando, October 2003.

[25] 3GPP TR 36.814 V2.0.1, “Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects,” Technical Report TR 36.814 V2.0.1, Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, March 2010.

[26] Ericsson, ST-Ericsson, “Elevation Angular Modelling and Impact on System Performance,” Work Item R1-130569, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #72, February 2013.

[27] Wunder, G. et al., “System-level interfaces and performance evaluation methodology for 5G physical layer based on non-orthogonal waveforms,” in Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, Pacific Grove, November 2013, pp. 1659–1663.

[28] Thomas, Timothy A., Vook, Frederick W., Mellios, Evangelos, Hilton, Geoffrey S., and Nix, Andrew R., “3D Extension of the 3GPP/ITU Channel Model,” in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Dresden, June 2013.

[29] Jaeckel, S., Raschkowski, L., Borner, K., and Thiele, L., “QuaDRiGa: A 3-D multi-cell channel model with time evolution for enabling virtual field trials,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3242–3256, June 2014.Google Scholar

[30] Akdeniz, M. R., Yuanpeng, L., Samimi, M. K., Shu, S., Rangan, S., Rappaport, T. S., and Erkip, E., “Millimeter wave channel modeling and cellular capacity evaluation,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1164–1179, June 2014.Google Scholar

[31] Thomas, T. A., Nguyenm, H. C., MacCartney, G. R., and Rappaport, T. S., “3D mmWave channel model proposal,” in IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, Vancouver, September 2014, pp. 1–6.

[32] Rappaport, T. et al., “Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5G cellular: It will work!,” IEEE Access, vol. 1, pp. 335–349, May 2013.Google Scholar

[33] Rappaport, T. et al., “38 GHz and 60 GHz angle-dependent propagation for cellular and peer-to-peer wireless communications,” in IEEE International Conference on Communications, Ottawa, June 2012, pp. 4568–4573.