Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

Use of MHA in a UMTS Network

th Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI
October 15 , 2002 Version 1.0

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

1. Background

The initial nominal cell plan for rural environment did not explicitly take account
of the use of MHA. Link budget numerical values were derived but no figures for
the MHA parameters were indicated. This has two main reasons :

i) Node B Vendor is was not (and is still not) selected yet, which
implies that no accurate figures were available
ii) Great caution from THE OPERATOR was taken as to where to
deploy those MHAs. Indeed, THE OPERATOR did not see the
usefulness of using MHA in DU, U and SU environment unless
justified by Critical Coverage holes due to lack of site that could
not be acquired to cope with the nominal cell plan (especially in
SU)

2. Scope of Work

This documents aims at providing a proposal for MHA Effective Quality Gain
based upon average values of Node B Noise figures supplied by most of the
Vendors, along with MHA manufacturers parameters. THE OPERATOR also
would like to show the impact on link budget, which, therefore influences the cell
count in Rural Environment.

3. Introduction

It is well known by the RF community that MHA have advantages and few
drawbacks. Let us summarize them in brief :

Advantages :
i) Very useful in Rural Environments where no electromagnetic
pollution is present
ii) Improve Uplink Coverage and therefore increase Traffic and
reduce dropped-calls due to Level in Rural and highways
iii) Allow the Operator to boost the downlink power to increase the
cell coverage area
Drawbacks :
i) Cumbersome in some cases as they do need space and can be heavy
(up to 4 kg)
ii) Costly if low Noise Factors are required
iii) Cannot be deployed anywhere as they are very sensitive to Spurious
emissions and external polluters (FM, TV, Radar out of band, etc.)
iv) Require cautious O&M System and sometimes difficult to detect the
faulty ones unless uplink counters are monitored.

4. Technical Input

4.1. Theoretical background

The theory concerning the use of MHA is detailed in ANNEX 1. The Quality
Gain in the uplink is simply given by the ratio of the C/N with MHA and C/N

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

without MHA. According to the Friis equation, the higher the feeder loss, the
better is the Quality Gain. However, for the DL too much feeder loss leads to a
high signal attenuation. Therefore, reasonable feeder loss shall be used. For THE
OPERATOR’s link budget we assume that in 99% of the cases the feeder loss will
not exceed 3 dB.

5. Results

To be able the assess such impact on the Network dimensioning, and the link
budget precisely we have used typical vendors’ values for the Noise figure of the
Node B. Concerning the MHA we have used the assumptions using the data in
ANNEX 3 from ETSA (MHA Supplier).

According to the obtained curve (Gain, Versus feeder loss) in ANNEX 2, the gain
is about 3.7 dB for 3 dB feeder loss and 0.8 dB MHA insertion loss.

The assumed MAPL is 133 dB without a MHA using 12 dB. When the MHA is
used the value is thus 136 dB.

Figure 1 : Rural coverage area without MHA

Coverage Holes (without MHA). The green should overlap !

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

Figure 2 : Rural coverage area with MHA

Figure 2 shows that the use of a MHA in rural area should fill-in the gaps as in
figure 1.

6. Conclusion

The use of MHA should save deployment cost by reducing the required number of
sites as mentioned in this study based on realistic site locations, propagation
model, and MHA and Node B noise figures.

An important note has to be done regarding the site location in rural. The
deployment strategy adopted for our UMTS network makes maximum re-use of
existing site locations, which makes it difficult to fill in all the gaps in rural
environments as greenfield sites are not considered in our network yet.

7. References

[1] MHA Technical Specifications, ETSA, www.etsa.fr

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

 Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

ANNEX 1

1. Friis Equation

F1, G1 F2, G2 F3, G3 Fn, Gn

INPUT
The composite Noise Figure of the cascaded quadripole system is given by Friis
Equation :

F2 − 1 F3 − 1 Fn − 1
F = F1 + + + ... + (1)
G1 G1G2 G1G2 ...Gn −1

1.1. Antenna-Feeder-Node B (without TMA):

Node B
F(NodeB),
Sensitivity is computed here (i.e. first G(Node B)
active device after antenna port)

Applying the Friis equation (1) leads to the following :

F2 − 1
F = F1 + (2)
G1

where F1 = Lf (numerical value), F2 = F(Node B), and G1 = 1/Lf

feeder loss is the overall top jumper, bottom jumper and the feeder cable itself.

Equation (2) can be rewritten in :

FwithoutMHA = L f + L f ( FNodeB − 1) = L f .FNodeB (3)

1.2. Antenna-TMA-Feeder-Node B :

TMA
F(MHA), Node B
G(MHA) F(NodeB),
G(Node B)
Sensitivity is computed here (i.e. first
active device after antenna port)
Friis equation leads in this case to :

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

Lf −1 FNodeB − 1
F = FMHA + + (4)
G MHA 1
G MHA .
Lf

which finally reads :

1 FNodeB
F = FMHA − + .L f (5)
G MHA G MHA

Important reminder: All values in (3) and (5) are expressed in numeric values and
not in dB at this stage.

1.3. MHA Uplink Quality Gain:

The Uplink Quality Gain is defined as :

⎛C⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎝ N ⎠ withMHA N F
Geffective = = withoutMHA = withoutMHA (6)
⎛C⎞ N withMHA FwithTMHA
⎜ ⎟
⎝ N ⎠ withoutMHA

The Gain is thus given by the ratio of (3) and (5) leading to :

L f .FNodeB
Effective
G MHA = (7)
FMHA +
1
(FNodeB .L f − 1)
G MHA

The dB value of this gain has then to be used. X = 10log10(x)…etc.

1.4. Asymptotic behaviour of the effective Gain versus the feeder loss :

When the Node B receiver is too much isolated from the MHA (high cable runs for
example), the effective Gain tends to an asymptotic maximum value of the Level gain
of the MHA as given by its manufacturer, namely GMHA. Indeed, this value is never
reached as too much feeder loss will not be a reasonable solution. This study is just a
confirmation that very low feeder loss are not really beneficial when a MHA is
installed. The asymptotic value is given by (7) using Lf to infinity:

L f .FNodeB
Effective
G MHA ≈ = G MHA
1
(F NodeB .L f ) (8)
G MHA

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

ANNEX 2
Effective Gain vs Feeder Loss

Assumptions : Node B Noise Factor = 3,5 dB, G(MHA) = 13 dB,

F(MHA) = 1,5 dB

14
Quality Gain due to MHA (dB)

12
10

8
6

4
2

0
10,5

13,5

16,5

19,5
1,5

4,5

7,5

12

15

18
0

Feeder Loss (dB)

Note : Asymptotic behaviour above 20 dB feeder loss

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

ANNEX 3
MHA Specification from ETSA

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

ANNEX 4
LINKBUDGET WITH AND WITHOUT MHA GAIN

1. Linkbudget without MHA (assumption In-Train loss = 12 dB)

Unit DU U SU Rqo

Max load in up-link % 50 50 50 20

User rate kbps 144 144 144 144

Mobil TX power dBm 21 21 21 21

Mobile TX antenna gain dBi 0 0 0 0
Body loss of mobile in up-link dB 0 0 0 0
Transmit EIRP per channel dBm 21 21 21 21

Thermal noise density dBm/Hz -174 -174 -174 -174

Receiver noise figure dB 3 3 3 3
Receiver noise density No dBm/Hz -171 -171 -171 -171
Rise over thermal (Io+No)/No (interference margin) dB 3 3 3 1
Total interference density dBm/Hz -171 -171 -171 -177
Total effective noise + interference density Io+No dBm/Hz -167,99 -167,99 -167,99 -170

Processing gain dB 14,26 14,26 14,26 14,26

Required Eb/(No+Io) dB 2,9 2,9 3,5 3,5
Receiver sensitivity dBm -113,5 -113,5 -112,9 -114,9

Soft Hand Over gain dBm 3,5 3,5 3 3

Node-B RX antenna gain dB 18 18 18 18
Cable loss Node-B in up-link dB 3 3 3 3
Total power control head room dB 2 2 2 2
Mast Head Amplifier insertion Loss 0
MHA Effective Gain 0 0 0 0

Log normal fading margin (for hard HO) dB 11 11 7 7

std deviation (sigma) for LNF dB 10 10 7 7
Fast fading margin dB

Building penetration loss dB 22 16 12 0

In-car penetration loss dB 12
Max pathloss dB 118 124 131 133

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________

Key words : Noise Figure, MHA, Link Budget_________________________________________________________________

2.Linkbudget with MHA (assumption In-Train loss = 12 dB)

Unit DU U SU Rqo

Max load in up-link % 50 50 50 20

User rate kbps 144 144 144 144

Mobil TX power dBm 21 21 21 21

Mobile TX antenna gain dBi 0 0 0 0
Body loss of mobile in up-link dB 0 0 0 0
Transmit EIRP per channel dBm 21 21 21 21

Thermal noise density dBm/Hz -174 -174 -174 -174

Receiver noise figure dB 3 3 3 3
Receiver noise density No dBm/Hz -171 -171 -171 -171
Rise over thermal (Io+No)/No (interference margin) dB 3 3 3 1
Total interference density dBm/Hz -171 -171 -171 -177
Total effective noise + interference density Io+No dBm/Hz -167,99 -167,99 -167,99 -170

Processing gain dB 14,26 14,26 14,26 14,26

Required Eb/(No+Io) dB 2,9 2,9 3,5 3,5
Receiver sensitivity dBm -113,5 -113,5 -112,9 -114,9

Soft Hand Over gain dBm 3,5 3,5 3 3

Node-B RX antenna gain dB 18 18 18 18
Cable loss Node-B in up-link dB 3 3 3 3
Total power control head room dB 2 2 2 2
Mast Head Amplifier insertion Loss 0,8
MHA Effective Gain 0 0 0 3,7

Log normal fading margin (for hard HO) dB 11 11 7 7

std deviation (sigma) for LNF dB 10 10 7 7
Fast fading margin dB

Building penetration loss dB 22 16 12 0

In-car penetration loss dB 12
Max pathloss dB 118 124 131 136

Author : Dr. Hatem MOKHTARI, Radio Planning Dept.________________________________________________