Comparison between LTE and Rival Wireless Technologies

(using Opnet 16)

Team 10: Josh Ancill jja48@sfu.ca

Kim Izmaylov kvi@sfu.caAnton Khomutskiy aka78@sfu.ca

http://www.mempf.com/427project/

ENSC 427: COMMUNICATION NETWORKSSPRING 2013

1

- “Long Term Evolution”

- 4G (4th Generation 3GPP standard)- Successor to UMTS/HSPA+ (3G) ()- Uses OFDMA on DL (Orthogonal frequency-division multiple

access) and Single Channel FDMA on UL

- Higher capacity, lower latency, simplified architecture and

higher data transfer rate

- 100 Mbit/s DL and 50 Mbit/s UL (1x1)

- Up to 300 Mbit/s DL and 70 Mbit/s UL (4x4 MIMO)

2

-Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access

(WiMAX)

-802.16-2009: Up to 80 Mbit/s DL and 40 Mbit/s UL (1x1)

- 802.11g (highest supported in Opnet 16.0): up

to 54 Mbit/s

- 802.11n (current version): up to 150 Mbit/s (1x1)

Rival Technologies

3

Choosing a modulation scheme

4

Wi-Fi Network Setup

5

Wi-Fi Scenario Setup

Key setup parameters (defaults not mentioned)

Application Modified Video Conference. Custom incoming

frame size (increasing linearly with time) defined in

a FSI (frame size index) file. Small outgoing frame

size.

Wi-Fi version 802.11g with 54 Mbps (latest in Opnet)

AP Transmit Power 1.0 W

AP Buffer Size 1024 Kbits

Mobile Node Transmit Power 0.1 W

Mobile Node Buffer Size 1024 Kbits

6

WiMAX Network Setup

SS: Subscriber Station

7

WiMAX Scenario SetupKey setup parameters (defaults not mentioned)

Application Modified Video Conference. Custom incoming frame size (increasing linearly with time) defined in a FSI (frame size index) file. Small outgoing frame size.

Bandwidth 20 MHz

Efficiency mode Efficiency Enabled (No physical layer simulation)

Service class “Video Class”, using rTPS scheduling

SS and BS Classifier definition All traffic is assigned to the Video Service class

SS (DL and UL) service flow service class Video Class

SS DL Modulation 64-QAM 5/6

SS UL Modulation QPSK 3/4

SS ARQ ARQ and HARQ (Hybrid ARQ) enabled

BS Maximum Transmit Power 10 W

SS Maximum Transmit Power 0.5 W

8

LTE Network Setup

- UE: User Equipment

- eNodeB: Evolved

Node B (base station)

- EPC: Evolved Packet

Core

9

LTE Scenario SetupKey setup parameters (defaults not mentioned)

Application Modified Video Conference. Custom incoming frame size (increasing linearly with time) defined in a FSI (frame size index) file. Small outgoing frame size.

Bandwidth 20 MHz

Efficiency mode Physical Enabled (Simulate everything)

EPS Bearer “Video Bearer”, non-GBR (Guaranteed BitRate)

TFT Packet Filters All traffic is assigned to the Video Bearer

UE Modulation MCS Index = 28

eNB Maximum Transmit Power 10 W

UE Maximum Transmit Power 0.5 W

10

Generating the traffic

This script generates a Frame

Size Index (.csv) file that defines

linearly increasing traffic flows.

11

Wi-Fi Results

Traffic flows per mobile node (total of 5 mobile nodes):

Blue: 0 to 3 Mbit/s

Red: 0 to 10 Mbit/s

Green: 0 to 25 Mbit/s

- Wi-Fi starts to become congested

at about 28 Mbit/s

- The 3 Mbit/s video stream did not

fully utilize Wi-Fi downlink bandwidth

12

WiMAX Results

Traffic flows per SS (total of 5 SSs):

Blue: 0 to 3 Mbit/s

Red: 0 to 10 Mbit/s

Green: 0 to 25 Mbit/s

- WiMAX starts to become

congested at about 63 Mbit/s

- The 3 Mbit/s and 10 Mbit/s video

stream did not fully utilize WiMAX

downlink bandwidth

13

LTE Results

Traffic flows per UE (total of 5 UEs):

Blue: 0 to 3 Mbit/s

Red: 0 to 10 Mbit/s

Green: 0 to 25 Mbit/s

- LTE achieves its maximum global

throughput at about 92 Mbit/s

- The 3 Mbit/s and 10 Mbit/s video

streams did not fully utilize LTE

downlink bandwidth

14

Comparison of Cross Technology Results

Technology:

Blue: LTE

Red: Wi-Fi

Green: WiMAX

- LTE maintains its throughput for much longer than

the other technologies

- WiMAX video throughput drops to ~0 Kbit/s

- Wi-Fi has the smallest delay throughout the

simulation until WiMAX throughput drops to ~0

Results produced using 0 - 25 Mbit/s

15

Comparison of Cross Technology Results

Technology:

Blue: LTE

Red: Wi-Fi

Green: WiMAX

- LTE and WiMAX maintain its throughput

throughout the simulation as opposed to WiFi

- Wi-Fi and WiMAX have lower latency at low

throughput but LTE wins at higher throughputs

Results produced using 0 - 10 Mbit/s

16

Conclusions

- LTE’s maximum throughput seen in simulation is 92 Mbit/s DL, which

is near theoretical values (100 Mbit/s)

- Given that all technologies in our simulation use 20 MHz channels,

LTE has the highest spectrum efficiency based on the simulation

results showing higher sustained data rates

- LTE has lower latency than WiMAX, comparable to WiFi

- Based on the above LTE is superior to other technologies

17

References

18

[1] M. Abdullah and A. Yonis, "Performance of LTE Release 8 and Release 10 in wireless

communications," in Cyber Security, Cyber Warfare and Digital Forensic (CyberSec), 2012.

[2] M. Nohrborg, "LTE," 3GPP, 2013. [Online]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org/Technologies/Keywords-

Acronyms/LTE. [Accessed 10 February 2013].

[3] C. Y. Yeoh, "Experimental study of 802.11n network," in The 12th International Conference on

Advanced Communication Technology (ICACT), 2010.

[4] B. McWilliams, Y. Le Pezennec and G. Connins, "HSPA+ (2100 MHz) vs LTE (2600 MHz) spectral

efficiency and latency comparison," in XVth International Telecommunications Network Strategy and

Planning Symposium (NETWORKS), 2012.

[5] C. Krapichler, "LTE, HSPA and Mobile WiMAX a comparison of technical performance," in

Institution of Engineering and Technology Hot Topics Forum: LTE vs WiMAX and Next Generation

Internet, 2007.

[6] WiMAX Forum, "WiMAX and the IEEE 802.16m Air Interface Standard - April 2010," [Online].

Available:

http://www.wimaxforum.org/sites/wimaxforum.org/files/document_library/wimax_802.16m.pdf.

[Accessed 1st April 2013].