Interference Evaluation of Control Channels under the Co-existence of LTE-FDD

and TD-LTE
Xiaofeng Zhong
Department of Electronic Engineering
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, CHINA
zhongxf@tsinghua.edu.cn

Jie Wei
School of Electronics and Information Engineering
Beijing Jiaotong University
Beijing 100044, CHINA
jwei@bjtu.edu.cn

Xiaolong Fu
Information Technology Center
Tsinghua University
Beijing 100084, CHINA
fuxiaolong@cic.tsinghua.edu.cn

Liaowei Liu
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Stony Brook University
USA
xiaowei.liu@stonybrook.edu

As for FDD mode, the uplink control channels and the

downlink control channels are transmitted in different
frequency bands (FDD uplink and FDD downlink as shown
in Fig. 1) separately. However, for TDD mode, both uplink
control channels and downlink control channels are
transmitted in the same full bandwidth, and in different
timeslot. Therefore, control channels in the two systems, TDLTE and LTE-FDD, are likely to experience interference
from both control channels and traffic channels from the
each other when they are placed together.
In [2], simulation results suggest that the TDD and FDD
base stations cannot be co-located if they use the adjacent
frequency band between which the value of Adjacent
Channel Interference Ratio (ACIR) is below about 70dB.
Results of system throughput loss under different ACIR
value in the co-existence scenario are given in [3]. The
results are important, but it did not take control channels into
specifically consideration. In our work, we investigated the
interference of control channels in LTE system given the coexistence scenario. Simulations are done to investigate in the
interference problem. In the simulation results, we give the
Signal to Interference and Noise Ratio (SINR) CDF curve
under different ACIR offset to show the severity of
interference that each physical control channel experience.
Given the demodulation threshold in [4][5], we reach the
results of the percentage of UEs that are able to demodulate
certain control channels under different ACIR offset value in
the co-existence scenario.
In the paper, Section 2 gives the system model and also a
brief introduction of the concept of ACIR. The investigation
methods are given in Section 3. Section 4 shows the
simulation results. Conclusions are reached in Section 5.

AbstractIn the co-existence scenario of LTE-FDD and TDLTE systems, interference should be one of the most important
issues for system throughput. In this work we investigated
interference from user equipment (UE) to physical control
channels between the two systems: LTE-FDD and TD-LTE.
The results show that if the base stations of LTE-FDD and TDLTE are placed together and they use the adjacent carriers,
some of the physical control channels will experience severe
adjacent channel interference and therefore unable to be
demodulated correctly. We also reached the results of the
interference severity of different physical control channels
under different adjacent channel interference ratio (ACIR)
offset value.
Keywords-LTE-FDD;
existence; ACIR

I.

TD-LTE;

control

channels;

co-

INTRODUCTION

According to ITU-R, spectrum is divided into two parts:

Paired Spectrum and Unpaired Spectrum, which are used for
Frequency Division Duplex (FDD) and Time Division
Duplex (TDD) in the 3rd Generation (3G), separately. LTE
(Long Term Evolution) is the upgrade and evolution of 3G
technologies and therefore the system should support both
Paired Spectrum and Unpaired Spectrum, which makes LTE
supporting both FDD and TDD methods. LTE-FDD systems
and TD-LTE systems are recommended by ITU to use
adjacent frequency bands, such as the 2500MHz to
2690MHz band [1] shown in Fig. 1. With the
commercialization of LTE, the co-existence scenario seems
very likely to happen in the deployment of LTE systems.
Therefore, our investigation of interference between the two
systems is of practical value.
LTE-FDD Uplink
(2500MHz to 2570MHz)

TD-LTE Uplink
(2570MHz to 2620MHz)

II.

LTE-FDD Downlink
(2620MHz to 2690MHz)

A. System Model
In this paper we investigate in the interference between
the LTE-FDD and TD-LTE systems and we mostly focus on
the interference from UEs in LTE-FDD/TD-LTE system to
the physical control channels in TD-LTE/LTE-FDD system.

Fig. 1 Frequency band allocation in co-existence scenario

978-1-4799-3689-2/14/$31.00 2014 IEEE

SYSTEM MODEL AND ACIR

192

ICOIN 2014

Here we divide the physical control channels into two

categories: uplink control channels and downlink control
channels.
Uplink control channels:
Physical Random Access Channel (PRACH);
Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH).
Downlink control channels:
Physical Broadcast Channel (PBCH);
Physical Control Format Indicator Channel (PCFICH);
Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH);
Physical HARQ Indicator Channel (PHICH).
The characteristics in both time and frequency domain
are being investigated, including their formats, modulation
and demodulation, mapping to physical resources, etc [4].
For UEs from the other cell (system) interfering uplink
control channels, interference could be divided into two parts.
One is Adjacent Channel Interference (ACI), coming from
UEs from the other cell (system). The other part is CoChannel Interference (CCI), coming from the UEs from the
same cell (system). As shown by b in Fig. 2.
For UEs from the other cell (system) interfering
downlink control channels, interference could also be
divided into two parts. One is ACI, coming from UEs from
the other cell (system). The other part is CCI, coming from
the base stations from the same cell (system). As shown by
Fig. 2.

LTE-FDD/TD-LTE

TD-LTE/LTE-FDD

Fig. 2 Interference to uplink and downlink control channels

An important measurement to evaluate the quality of
communication is SINR. In the co-existence of LTE-FDD
and TD-LTE systems, SINR could be expressed by (1),
S
SINR Ncell Nsector
(1)
N cell N sector

j 1 i 1

A,i , j

j 1 i 1

C ,i , j

Here, ACLR is the Adjacent Channel Leakage power

Ratio of the interfering systems transmitter (specified as the
ratio of the mean power centered on the assigned channel
frequency to the mean power centered on an adjacent
channel frequency) and ACS is the corresponding receiver
requirement on Adjacent Channel Selectivity of the victim
system receiver.
We consider ACIR as an important measurement in the
simulation we performed.
For downlink a common ACIR for all frequency resource
blocks to calculate inter-system shall be used (we did not
perform simulation for this part). For uplink, ACIR is
dominated by UE ACLR. In 10MHz E-UTRA, the number
of resource blocks (RBs) per aggressor UE is 10. Therefore,
the ACLR adjacent to the edge of victim RBs (less than 10
RBs away) is 30+X dB, and the ACLR not adjacent to the
edge of victim RBs (more than 10 RBs away) is 43+X dB [1].
Here X serves as the step size for simulations, X = -10, -5,
0, 5, 10 dB. For uplink interferer, difference in
interference depends mainly on the power spectral density
(PSD) in the 10RBs adjacent to the edge of aggressor
bandwidth.
III.

EVALUATION METHOD

The interference is evaluated by simulation of Monte

Carlo method, which is to simulate the actual network by
taking a certain number of snapshots. Simulation of both noaggressor system and with-aggressor system are done in
order to better compare the severity of interference.
The first step is the deployment of base stations. After the
network of base stations is generated, UEs attached to the
base stations are randomly placed in the network, with the
same number of UEs in each cell.
Next, the path loss between each base station and each
UE are calculated according to the path loss models we
selected. For path loss between base stations and UEs, we
select the Hata model, defined as in (3). For path loss
between UEs and UEs, we select the path loss formula from
H.Xia, which is in (4).
LUE BS ( R)
69.55 26.16log10 ( f ) 13.82 log10 ( Hb)
[44.9 6.55log10 ( Hb)]log( R) 4.78(log10 ( f ))2 (3)

S) N

18.33log10 ( f ) 40.94
where R is the base station-UE separation in kilometers, f
is the carrier frequency in MHz, Hb is the base station
antenna height above ground in meters.

where S is the received signal power, I A,i , j is the ACI from

the i th sector in the j th cell, I C ,i , j is the CCI from the i th
sector in the j th cell, and N is the thermal noise.

LUE UE
20log(
)
2 2 d
1
1
10log[ 2 (
)2 ]
(4)
2 r 2
b 2
1
1

10log[(
)
(
)2 ]
2
2
2 d
( hm ) b 2

B. ACIR
ACIR is defined as the ratio of the total power
transmitted from a source (base station or UE) to the total
interference power affecting a victim receiver, resulting from
both transmitter and receiver imperfections. ACIR is defined
in (2).
1
ACIR
(2)
1
1

ACLR ACS

193

where

is
2

r ( hm ) x

the
2

UE-UE

UEs in the victim system while intra-system interferences

come from UEs in the aggressor system. For downlink
control channels, PBCH, PCFICH, PDCCH and PHICH,
inter-system interferences come from base stations within the
victim system while intra-system interferences come from
UEs in the aggressor system. After calculating the
interferences, SINR could be given using (1).
Finally, the snapshot ends with collecting statistics.

separation

in kilometers,
| hm |
,
)
tan (
x
1

tan 1 (| hm | b ) .

The next simulation step is setting the UE transmit power

by adjusting each control channel with their specific power
control method. The power control methods for uplink
control channels, PRACH and PUCCH, are shown in (5) and
(6).

IV.
Table 2

PCMAX , P0_PUCCH PL

PPUCCH i min
[dBm] (5)
h
n
,
n

g
i

F_PUCCH
CQI
HARQ

Parameters

Cellular layout
Carrier frequency
Bandwidth
Resource Block (RB)
size
Number of active UEs
per sector
Base Transceiver Station
(BTS) antenna height
UE antenna height
Receive antenna gain
(include feeder loss)
Transmission antenna
gain (include feeder
loss)
log-normal fade shadow
Shadowing correlation
BS max Tx power
UE max/min Tx power
White noise power
density
BTS noise figure
UE noise figure
Scheduling

where PCMAX is the configured UE transmitted power, PL

is the downlink path loss estimate calculated in the UE in
dB, h nCQI , nHARQ is a PUCCH format dependent value,

nCQI corresponds to the number of information bits for the

channel quality information defined in section 5.2.3.3 in [7]
and nHARQ is the number of HARQ bits, F_PUCCH F is
provided by higher layers, g i is the current PUCCH
power control adjustment state.
PPRACH min{PCMAX ,

PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER+

(6)

PL}[dBm]
where PCMAX is the configured UE transmitted power.
the
PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER is
target preamble received power and PL is the downlink path
loss estimate calculated in the UE.
There are also power control methods for uplink traffic
channel, Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH). Here
we adopt the power control method for PUSCH in[1], which
is expressed in (7).
PPUSCH (i ) min{PCMAX ,

10log10 ( M PUSCH (i )) PO_PUSCH ( j )

1
0.8

Simulation Parameters

Uplink
Downlink
Macro: Hexagonal grid, 19 cell sites, 57
sectors (Wrap around)
2600MHz
10MHz
180kHz
5
30m
1.5m
15dBi

15dBi

10dB
Between cells: 0.5, Between sectors: 1.0
46dBm
24dBm/-30dBm
-174dBm/Hz
5dB
9dB
RR/PF

In our simulation, LTE-FDD cells and TD-LTE cells are

placed adjacent to each other. First we studied 10MHz EUTRA uplink interfering uplink control channels. For both
PUCCH and PRACH, we did simulations under different
PUSCH power control parameter sets shown in table. Also,
for
P0_PUCCH
and
PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER , which are
power control parameters for PUCCH and PRACH, we
applied their maximum, minimum and median value of them
127dBm, 111dBm, 96dBm ,
in our simulation: P0_PUCCH

(7)

( j ) PL TF (i ) f (i )}[dBm]
where PCMAX is the configured UE transmitted power,
P0_PUSCH is a parameter defined in [36.213], PL is the
downlink path loss estimate calculated in the UE in dB,
M PUSCH (i ) is the assigned number of resource blocks valid
for subframe i, ( j ) , TF (i ) , f (i ) are specific parameters
provided by higher layers.
Two sets of parameters are introduced, see Table 1.
Table 1 Parameter sets for PUSCH power control method

P0 PUSCH dBm
Parameter set
Set 1
Set 2

SIMULATION RESULTS

PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER= 120dBm,
106dBm, 90dBm.
From the simulation results we could conclude that
whether the SINR could reach the demodulation threshold
depends on the power control parameters ( P0_PUCCH for
PUCCH
or
for
PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER
PRACH), as well as ACIR offset. Here we define that if over
95% of the users could reach the demodulation threshold, the
certain channel is able to be demodulated correctly.

-101
-92.2

Then, inter-system and intra-system interferences are

calculated for each victim UE. For uplink control channels,
PUCCH and PRACH, inter-system interferences come from

194

SINR CDF curve of PUCCH under different ACIR and 0-PUCCH

P
of PUCCH

ACIR offset=-10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90

ACIR offset=0,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90
ACIR offset=10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90
ACIR offset=20,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90
Single LTE system,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90
ACIR offset=-10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
ACIR offset=0,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
ACIR offset=10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
ACIR offset=20,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
Single LTE system,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
ACIR offset=-10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
ACIR offset=0,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
ACIR offset=10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
ACIR offset=20,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
Single LTE system,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120

0.9

ACIR offset= 0,P 0-PUCCH= -96

0.9

ACIR offset=10,P 0-PUCCH= -96

0.8

ACIR offset=20,P 0-PUCCH= -96

0.8

Single LTE system,P

0-PUCCH

= -96

0.7

ACIR offset=-10,P 0-PUCCH= -111

ACIR offset= 0,P 0-PUCCH= -111

0.7

Single LTE system,P

0-PUCCH

0.6

= -111

CDF

ACIR offset=20,P 0-PUCCH= -111

0.6

CDF

SINR CDF curve of PRACH under different ACIR and PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER

ACIR offset=-10,P 0-PUCCH= -96

ACIR offset=10,P 0-PUCCH= -111

ACIR offset=-10,P 0-PUCCH= -127

0.5

ACIR offset=10,P 0-PUCCH= -127

0-PUCCH

Preamble Power=-90

0.3

ACIR offset=20,P 0-PUCCH= -127

Single LTE system,P

Preamble Power=-106

0.4

ACIR offset= 0,P 0-PUCCH= -127

0.4

0.5

Preamble Power=-120

= -127

0.2

0.3

0.1

0.2
0

0.1
0
-50

-40

-30

-20
-10
SINR(dB)

10

20

Fig. 3 SINR CDF curve of PUCCH under different ACIR offset

and P0 PUCCH of PUCCH for PUSCH power control Set 1

0.9

SINR CDF curve of PUCCH under different ACIR and 0-PUCCH

P
of PUCCH
ACIR offset=-10,P
ACIR offset= 0,P
ACIR offset=10,P
ACIR offset=20,P

0.8

CDF

0.6

ACIR offset= 0,P

ACIR offset=10,P
ACIR offset=20,P

ACIR offset=10,P

0.4

ACIR offset=20,P

0.7

= -96

0-PUCCH

0-PUCCH

0-PUCCH
0-PUCCH

Single LTE system,P

ACIR offset= 0,P

0.8

= -96

0.6

= -111

= -111
0-PUCCH

ACIR offset=-10,P

0.5

= -96

= -96

0-PUCCH

Single LTE system,P

= -111

0-PUCCH

0-PUCCH

0.5

0.2
0.1

-35

-30

-25

-20

-15
-10
SINR(dB)

-5

10

15

30

Preamble Power=-120

Preamble Power=-106

Preamble Power=-90

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10
SINR(dB)

10

20

30

0.9
0.8
0.7
User Percentage

P0-PUCCH= -96; P0-PUSCH= -101,alpha=1.0

P0-PUCCH= -96; P0-PUSCH= -92.2,alpha=0.8

0.8

P0-PUCCH= -111; P0-PUSCH= -101,alpha=1.0

User Percentage

20

The percentage of users that could not reach -7.8dB threshold value for PRACH demodulation
1

The percentage of users that could not reach -4.4dB threshold value for PUCCH demodulation

P0-PUCCH= -111; P0-PUSCH= -92.2,alpha=0.8

P0-PUCCH= -127; P0-PUSCH= -101,alpha=1.0

0.6

0.6
PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER= -90; P

0.5

PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER= -90; P

0-PUSCH
0-PUSCH

PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER= -106; P

0.4

PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER= -106; P

PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER= -120; P
PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER= -120; P

0.3

P0-PUCCH= -127; P0-PUSCH= -92.2,alpha=0.8

= -101,alpha=1.0
= -92.2,alpha=0.8

0-PUSCH
0-PUSCH
0-PUSCH
0-PUSCH

= -101,alpha=1.0
= -92.2,alpha=0.8
= -101,alpha=1.0
= -92.2,alpha=0.8

0.2

0.4

0.1
0
-15

0.2

Fig. 5

10

Fig. 7 SINR CDF curve of PRACH under different ACIR offset

and PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER of
PUCCH for PUSCH power control Set 2

Fig. 4 SINR CDF curve of PUCCH under different ACIR offset

and P0 PUCCH of PUCCH for PUSCH power control Set 2

0
-15

0.1

= -127

0.3

0
-40

-10

0.2

= -127

0-PUCCH

-20
SINR(dB)

0.3

= -127

= -127
0-PUCCH

Single LTE system,P

-30

= -111

= -127

0-PUCCH

-40

0.4

= -111

0-PUCCH

-50

ACIR offset=-10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90

ACIR offset=0,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90
ACIR offset=10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90
ACIR offset=20,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90
Single LTE system,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-90
ACIR offset=-10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
ACIR offset=0,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
ACIR offset=10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
ACIR offset=20,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
Single LTE system,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-120
ACIR offset=-10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
ACIR offset=0,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
ACIR offset=10,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
ACIR offset=20,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106
Single LTE system,PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER=-106

0.9

= -96
0-PUCCH

ACIR offset=-10,P

0.7

0-PUCCH

0-PUCCH

-60

SINR CDF curve of PRACH under different ACIR and PREAMBLE RECEIVED TARGET POWER

CDF

-70

Fig. 6 SINR CDF curve of PRACH under different ACIR offset

and PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER of
PUCCH for PUSCH power control Set 1

-10

-5

0
5
ACIR offset (dB)

10

15

20

Fig. 8 The percentage of users that could not reach the PRACH
demodulation threshold
-10

-5

0
5
ACIR offset (dB)

10

15

20

Fig. 3, Fig. 4, Fig. 6, and Fig. 7, show the SINR CDF curve
of PUCCH and that of PRACH under different ACIR offset
and power control parameters, respectively. Fig. 5 and Fig. 8

The percentage of users that could not reach the PUCCH

demodulation threshold

195

15dB to 20dB. For PCFICH and PHICH, it is of little

possibility that 95% of the users SINR could reach the
demodulation thresholds. For ACIR offset ranges from 15dB to 20dB, there are always about 15.5% of the users
could not reach the demodulation threshold of PCFICH and
about 9% of the users could not reach the demodulation
threshold of PHICH.

show the percentage of users that could not be correctly

demodulated for PUCCH and PRACH, respectively. As for
PUCCH, it is clear that for ACIR offset ranges from -10dB
to 20dB, the median value of P0_PUCCH could ensure Set 2
that 95% of the users SINR could reach the demodulation
threshold of PUCCH. However, for Set 1, ACIR offset
should range from 0dB to 20dB to ensure that 95% of the
users could reach the threshold. When comparing Set 1 and
Set 2, Set 2 outperforms Set 1 in users SINR under the
same ACIR offset and the same P0_PUCCH .
As for PRACH, for ACIR offset ranges from -15dB to
20dB,
the
median
value
of
could
PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER
ensure Set 2 that 95% of the users SINR could reach the
demodulation threshold of PRACH. However, for Set 1, the
ACIR offset should range from 5dB to 20dB to ensure the
same situation. When comparing Set 1 and Set 2, Set 2
outperforms Set 1 in users SINR under the same ACIR
offset
and
the
same PREAMBLE_RECEIVED_TARGET_POWER .
Then we investigated the 10MHz E-UTRA uplink
interfering downlink control channels. For downlink control
channels, PBCH, PCFICH, PDCCH and PHICH, no power
control method is used. In this case, CCI interferences come
from all the base stations except the access point of the
victim UE from the victim system, while ACI comes from
the users from the aggressor system using the same Resource
Elements (REs) as the victim user does. When comparing
the CCI and the ACI that the users experiencing, the
influence of ACI is much less severe than that of CCI. The
reason is that the transmission power is much less than that
of the base stations. Therefore the ACLR of them is much
less. That is to say, the main interference should be CCI and
different ACIR offsets should have little influence to system
performance.
0.5

V.

LTE-FDD and TD-LTE cells could not adjoin each other

if they use the adjacent frequency band. Otherwise, physical
control channels could not work well. For uplink control
channels (PUCCH and PRACH) in LTE system, they should
maximize their power control parameters in order to
maintain a good performance in the actual situation. For
downlink control channels, while the interference situation
for PBCH and PDCCH seem to be tolerable, PCFICH and
PHICH are not likely to be demodulated correctly in the coexistence scenario. Certain mitigation methods should be
considered in the co-existence scenario. Also, 10MHz EUTRA downlink interfering control channels should be
further investigated as well as other geographical coexistence scenarios could be considered.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (No.2012JBM019),
National Basic Research Program of China (2012CB316000),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China
(61271305), the Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral
Program of Higher Education (20110009110001), and
National S&T Major Project (2013ZX03003004-002).
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]

The percentage of users that could not reach threshold value for demodulation
For
For
For
For

0.45
0.4

PBCH
PCFICH
PDCCH
PHICH

(demodulation threshold=-8.3dB)
(demodulation threshold=-2dB)
(demodulation threshold=-7dB)
(demodulation threshold=-3dB)

[3]

user percentage

0.35

[4]

0.3
0.25

[5]

0.2
0.15
0.1

[6]

0.05
0
-15

-10

-5

0
5
ACIR offset (dB)

10

15

CONCLUSIONS

20

The percentage of users that could not reach the downlink

control channels demodulation threshold
From the simulation results (Fig. 9) we could conclude

[7]

Fig. 9

[8]

that: For PBCH and PDCCH, 95% of the users could reach
the threshold quite well, when ACIR offset ranges from -

196

3GPP TR 36.942 V10.2.0 (2010-12) Radio Frequency (RF) system

scenarios
Miao Qingyu, Wang Wenbo, Yang Dacheng, and Wang Daqing, An
Investigation of Interference Between UTRA-TDD and FDD
System, Communication Technology Proceedings, 2000. WCC ICCT 2000. International Conference on, pp. 339- 346 vol.1.
Wang Dong and Yang Jia Wei, The Analysis of Interference and
Coexistence between TD-LTE and LTE-FDD in 2.6Hz Band,
CRAM'09, ISBN: 9787121098413.
Xiaofeng Zhong, Guo Wang, Shunliang Mei, and Jing Wang, A New
Constrained-send Mechanism to Enhance the Performance of IEEE
802.11 DCF, Journal of Harbin Institute of Technology (New Series),
Oct. 2012
Sesia, S., Toufik, I. and Baker, M. (eds) (2009) Front Matter, in LTE
- The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From Theory to Practice, John
Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Chichester, UK. pp. 181-205, 381-400, 421-456,
doi: 10.1002/9780470742891.fmatter.
Xiaofeng Zhong, Ming Zhao, Shidong Zhou, Xin Su, Jing Wang,
Content Aware Soft Real Time Media Broadcast (CASoRT),
IEEE/ACM CHINACOM2008 Conference
Sun Yin, Zhong Xiaofeng, Chang Tsung-Hui, Zhou Shidong, Wang
Jing, Chi Chong-Yung, Optimal Real-Time Spectrum Sharing
Between Cooperative Relay and Ad hoc Networks, IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, vol 60, issues 4,
page 1971~1985, Apr. 2012 (SCI)
3GPP TS 36.212 Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA); Multiplexing and channel coding