LAA-LTE and WiFi based Smart Grid Metering
Infrastructure in 3.5 GHz Band
Imtiaz Parvez∗ , Tanwir Khan∗ , Arif I. Sarwat∗1 and Zakaria Parvez

arXiv:1711.05219v1 [] 14 Nov 2017

∗

†

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33174
†
Department of Operation, Electricity Generation Company of Bangladesh.
Email: {iparv001,tkhan016,asarwat}@fiu.edu, zakaria.parvez@egcb.com.bd

Abstract—Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) of smart
grid requires bidirectional communication for transferring data
to billing center, for which WiFi is an attractive choice. However,
WiFi operates in the unlicensed bands and LTE needs to offload
data in the same unlicensed band. Recent release of 3.5 GHz
(also termed as citizen broadband radio service (CBRS)) can be
an attractive shared band where LTE and WiFi can coexist. In
our study, we propose a fixed duty cycled LTE-U and WiFi based
smart grid metering infrastructure where smart meter uses WiFi
and data collector (termed as Access Point (AP)) of smart meters
uses LTE for transferring data. We investigate the coexistence
performance of LTE-WiFi in the 3.5 GHz band using a time
division duplexing (TDD)-LTE confederated by WiFi along with
FTP traffic model for system level simulation. The simulation
results demonstrate a good neighboring coexistence between LTE
and WiFi resulting a candidate AMI architecture for smart grid
in the 3.5 GHz band.
Index Terms—AMI, CBRS, cognitive radio, dynamic spectrum
access, smart grid communication, Internet of Things (IoT), LTEU, licensed assisted access (LAA), smart meter, WiFi, 3.5 GHz.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In energy and power sector, smart grid is the evolution of
power system from one-way to two-way power system employing state-of-art approaches for intercommunication among
its entities, and cutting edge techniques for delivering of
electricity to the consumers with intensified efficiency and
control mechanism [1]–[3]. The role of advanced metering
infrastructure (AMI) is very crucial in the smart grid system
as it forms the communication bridge between the consumer
smart meters and metering data management service (MDMS)
of smart grid for transferring consumption data using wireless
communication [4]–[6]. The popular communication standard
for AMI is WiFi, and Zigbee which utilizes unlicensed bands
such as 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5 GHz [7]. In the unlicensed
band, smart meters might need to share channel with other
technologies such as LTE-unlicensed (LTE-U) and ZigBee.
Long-Term Evolution (LTE) is the standard for the nationwide broadband communications for the past several years
[1], [8]. With the development in technology, LTE needs
to support machine-to-machine (M2M) communication along
with increased personal mobile communication. Furthermore,
as the requirement of LTE data rate increases exponentially,
scarcity of spectrum becomes a critical issue. One solution
that could be promising that sharing of the spectrum among
This research was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under the grant RIPS-1441223 and CAREER-0952977.
∗1 Corresponding author

different wireless technologies, but this kind of coexistence
mechanisms has its own implementation barriers. In particular,
unlicensed spectrum can be utilized along with licensed band.
To support this approach, there has also been research works
by 3GPP standardization group on license assisted access
(LAA) of LTE/ LTE-U in the unlicensed spectrum [9].
WiFi is a popular communication standard for short range
communication. It uses a distributed coordination function
(DCF) as its default channel access mode which employs
carrier sensing and a four-way handshaking [10]. The DCF
mode in WiFi uses the clear channel assessment (CCA)
procedure for transmitting the packets. The CCA consists of
carrier sensing and energy detection mechanisms to detect the
medium whether it is busy or not. So if the level of interference
is more than a particular CCA threshold, WiFi nodes will
postpone transmission for a random period of time which is
called the back-off procedure to avoid packet collision. This
possibility may arise due to the transmission of coexisted LTE
network.
The LTE technology, on the other hand, is more systematic
and flexible. In case of coexisted LTE and WiFi system
in the same band, the primal hindrance is that while WiFi
utilizes the OFDM transmission with collision sensed multiple
access/collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) protocol, the LTE
employs OFDMA channel access technique through which simultaneous low data rate transmission can happen from several
UEs with proper frequency and time allocation [11]. Unlike
WiFi, LTE does not implement the carrier sensing detection
before transmitting the packets. To make the transmission
possible it reserves channels for simultaneous transmission.
In typical scenarios of coexistence, the WiFi transmission
is most likely to be blocked by LTE transmission. To facilitate
co-existence between LTE-U/LAA and WiFi in the same
band, mainly three techniques have been proposed in the
literature - 1) Dynamic channel selection, 2) Listen Before
Talk (LBT) and 3) Co-existence gaps. In [12], Qualcom
presents an effective channel selection policy depending on
interference level. Based on interference at the equipment and
network side measured before and during the operation, LTEU/LAA changes the frequency. In [13], carrier aggregation
from licensed to unlicensed band is proposed with LBT using
request-to-send (RTS) and clear-to-send (CTS) prior to original
LTE transmission. LBT is mandatory for data offloading in
unlicensed band in Europe and Japan. On the other hand, LBT
is optional in USA and China market. In [14], blank subframe
in LTE transmission frame is reserved for WiFi transmission

Smart meter
Mobile phone
WiFi
LTE

Cells

WiFi/LTE integrated
antenna

MDMS

Fig. 1: Cell layout for AMI of smart grid.

while LTE remained silent during this time. Similar method
is proposed in [15] where n of 5 sub-frames of LTE-U/LAA
has been kept reserved for WiFi transmission.
In [10], the performance of coexisted system in indoor hotspot scenario is investigated utilizing a semi-static system level
simulator. The results indicated that the performance of WiFi
degraded substantially when operated simultaneously with
LTE, whereas LTE’s performance degraded slightly. Similar
results was found in the study of coexistence of LTE and
ZigBee [16], where ZigBee performance get more effected.
In [17], usage of WiFi and LTE is emphasized recommending
WiFi for high density areas (i.e. urban areas) and LTE for low
density areas (i.e. rural areas). In [18], meter data communication with help of a hybrid WiFi/LTE architecture is presented,
where WiFi is connected at the bottom layer of LTE. However,
the coexistence of WiFi and LTE is not investigated in this
study.
The US federal communications commission (FCC) released 3550-3700 MHz band (also termed as citizen broadband
radio service (CBRS)) for shared board band use [19], [20].
Based on the guideline, the users are grouped into 3 categories:
incumbent access (IA) users (tier-1), prioritized access license
(PAL) users (tier-2), and general authorized access (GAA)
users (tier-3). GAA users has to use the CBRS spectrum
providing privilege to IA and PAL users. In some areas [21]
where there will be no IA and PAL activity, 150 MHz can
be used by GAA users. On the other hand, at least 80 MHz
will be usable for GAA users in vicinity of PAL activity and
IA exclusion zone. This huge band provides free and clean
channel for wireless communications such as metering data
communication of smart grid [22]–[24]. In our study, LTE
and WiFi share the CBRS spectrum as GAA users.
In this paper, we proposed LTE and WiFi based AMI
for smart grid. In our frame work, smart meters use WiFi
to transmit data to data collector/Access point (AP). Data
collector collects data from a cluster of meters and send

the data to MDMS using LTE. Based on this scenario, we
study the performance of coexisted LTE and WiFi in the
3.5 GHz band for AMI communication and usual mobile
human-to-human (H2H) communication. We consider a duty
cycle based time division duplexing (TDD)-LTE and WiFi for
system level simulation on a collocated network layout. LTE
system transmits a fixed duty cycle of a period, and on the
other hand, WiFi transmits for the rest of the period. The
simulation results demonstrate good neighboring coexistence
between LTE and WiFi without significantly hampering each
other’s performance. Since large amount of clean and free
bandwidth is available in CBRS band, coexisted LTE-WiFi
based AMI in the CBRS band can be a promising solution for
smart grid.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II,
system model for the coexistence of LTE/WiFi in 3.5 GHz is
presented. Section III demonstrates the simulation results in
the smart scenario. Finally, concluding remarks are presented
in Section IV.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
Let us consider, a collocated LTE-U and WiFi network
scenario where LTE-U and WiFi coexists in the 3.5 GHz
band as illustrated in Fig. 1. In our proposed framework,
smart meters use WiFi and APs of smart meters use LTEU for transferring data. Additionally, collocated WiFi AP and
LTE BS are integrated. The data of a cluster of meters is
collected by a WiFi AP, and then forwarded to integrated LTE
BS. Finally LTE BS transmits data to MDMS. The protocol
mapping of various entities of WiFi system and LTE network
is illustrated in Fig. 2. The PHY layer of smart meter is
connected with the PHY layer of WiFi AP. On the other hand,
The IP layers of WiFi AP and LTE BS are connected in our
model. The communication among LTE BS, EPC and MDMS
are based on standard LTE system architecture [1].
Let us consider, the sets of WiFi APs (i.e. data collector),
LTE-U BS, WiFi STAs (i.e. smart meter) and LTE-U UE (i.e.

Smart
meter

Integrated LTE BS/WiFi AP
WiFi AP

LTE BS

APP

APP

TCP/
UDP

TCP/
UDP

IP

IP

LLC

LLC

GTP

RLC

APP

MAC

MAC

UDP

MAC

TCP/
UDP

TCP/
UDP

PHY

PHY

IP

PHY

IP

IP

EPC

PDPC

MDMS
IP

APP

Fig. 2: Protocol mapping between different entities of WiFi and LTE network. (AP: access point; EPC= Evolved packet core;
APP= application; UDP= user datagram protocol; TCP= transmission control protocol; LLC= logic link control; IP= Internet
protocol; PHY= physical; MAC= medium access control; GTP= GPRS tunneling protocol; RLC= radio link control; PDPC=
packet Data Convergence Protocol)
MDMS and other UEs) are given by Sw , Sl , Uwi and Ulj
respectively. The transmission power of WiFi AP i, LTE BS
j, meter/WiFi STA l and LTE-U UE/MDMS m are pir , pjr , plr
and pm
r .
The channel gain values from WiFi STA/meter x to WiFi
AP j, from LTE UE a to WiFi AP j, from LTE-U BS i to
WiFi AP j and LTE-U BS b(i 6= b) to WiFi j are hxj,r , haj,r ,
hij,r and hbj,r respectively.
The signal-to-noise (SINR) of WiFi AP j during the data
reception from meter/WiFi STA x on the resource block r is
SINRxj,r = P

hxj,r pjr
haj,r par +

P

hij,r pir +

P

hbj,r pbr + σ 2

,

(1)

where σ 2 is noise variance. The good SINR value ensures
high throughput and low SINR results in reduced throughput
performance.
The number of successful received bits at WiFi AP j from
the WiFi STA x, NB is
X
NBx = BT
log2 (1 + SINRxj,r ),
(2)
where BPis the bandwidth and T is the transmission time such
that T= r. The number of received bit depends on SINR
value.
The up link (UL) capacity of WiFi STA/meter x is
Cx =

NBx
,
Ttx + Twait

(3)

where Ttx and Twait are the transmission and wait time of
WiFi, respectively.

For both LTE and WiFi traffic arrival rate λ, the distribution
function of delay between two packets (d) is
f (d) = λeλd .

(4)

The higher the value of λ, the more is the number of packet
on queue for transmission.
III. S YSTEM PARAMETERS AND S IMULATION R ESULTS
To evaluate the performance, a collocated 7 cell architecture
is considered as shown in Fig. 1. We used the Matlab based
simulator which was build based on 3GPP standard and was
used in [10], [25]. In each cell, for each integrated WiFi
AP/LTE-U BS, 10 smart meters (WiFi STAs) and 10 LTE UEs
are drooped at random locations. It is noted that one of 10 LTE
UEs is to be considered as MDMS. The traffic arrival rates
for LTE-U and WiFi are considered as λLT E = λW iF i = 2.5.
The PHY and MAC layers of LTE and IEEE 802.11n (WiFi)
are implemented in the simulation environment. In each transmission time interval (TTI), only one UE is scheduled for
the DL transmission and the SINR information is sent to the
corresponding BS.
Also based on the number of LTE-U UEs waiting and
requesting for the UL transmission during one subframe, bandwidth is equally shared among themselves. The simulation
parameter for LTE simulation has been summarized in TABLE
I. The parameter value were selected based on 3GPP LTE
standard [9].
For WiFi, channel access mechanism CSMA/CA with clear
channel assessment assessment (CCA) and enhanced distributed channel access (EDCA) is implemented. WiFi STAs
having packets on queue competes for channel access. However, transmission or reception is started only after reception
of beacon. The WiFi STA sends packets when it sense that the

channel is idle. Otherwise, the transmission is ceased and the
next transmission will be attempted after a random back off
period. The WiFi parameter in our simulation are summarized
in the TABLE II. The parameter value were selected based on
study presented in [10], [22], [26].
A physical (PHY) layer abstraction is utilized for shannon
capacity calculations of WiFi and LTE-U at the 4µs granularity
of WiFi OFDM symbol period of obtaining the number of successfully received bits. FTP Traffic Model-2 [27] is commonly
employed for either WiFi and LTE-U. In our simulation, we
used 60% and 80% duty cycle of 50 ms transmission time for
LTE. Therefore, WiFi will transmit 40% and 20% duty cycle
of the 50 ms period.
The throughput performance of coexisted LTE and WiFi in
the smart grid scenario is illustrated in Fig. 3. Referred to
Fig. 3(a), for 60% duty cycle of LTE-U, the capacity of LTE
is 36.3 Mbps and the capacity of WiFi is 36.1 Mpbs. If we
increase the duty cycle of LTE-U to 80%, the LTE capacity is
improved to 38.6 Mbps while the capacity of WiFi is decreased
to 31.2 Mbps. This is illustrated in Fig. 3(b). The throughput
degrade in WiFi is due to the increased transmission backoff
on extended transmission time of LTE.
As illustrated in Fig. 4(a), for 60% duty cycle of LTE,
the SINR distribution of WiFi is better than that of LTE.
However, for 80% duty cycle of LTE, SINR distribution of
LTE is improved sightly whereas the SINR distribution of
WiFi remained almost same. This is reflected in Fig. 4(b).
The justification of using 60% and 80% duty for LTE is
that LTE will be used not only for meter data communication
to MDMS, but also it will be used for human-to-human communication (i.e. personal mobile communication). Therefore,
TABLE I: LTE MAC/PHY Parameters.
Parameter
Frequency band
Bandwidth
Down link transmission (Tx) Power
LTE-U UE velocity
Uplink transmission (Tx) Power
Duration of frame
Scheduling
P0
TTI
Packet arrival rate (λ)

Value
3.5 GHz
20 MHz
20 dBm
0 ms
PL Based TPC
10 ms
Round Robin
-106 dBm
1 ms
2.5

TABLE II: WiFi MAC/PHY Parameters.
Parameter
Frequency band
Bandwidth
Downlink/Uplink transmission (Tx) power
WiFi STA/meter velocity
Access category
MAC protocol
Threshold of CCA sensing
Threshold of CCA Energy detection
Number of service bits in PPDU
Number of tail bits in PPDU
Contention window size
Noise figure
Beacon interval
Beacon OFDM symbol detection threshold
Beacon error ratio threshold
Packet arrival rate (λ)

Value
3.5 GHz
20 MHz
23 dBm
0 ms
Best Effort
EDCA
-82 dBm
-65 dBm
16 bits
12 bits
U (0, 31)
6
100 ms
10 dB
15
2.5

we provide more access to LTE transmission. However, more
time (i.e. duty cycle) can be allocated for WiFi transmission
based on the number of smart meters.
IV. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we proposed a LTE and WiFi based metering
infrastructure in the 3.5 GHz band. In our architecture, meter
uses WiFi whereas AP uses LTE for transferring data. LTE
transmits for a fixed duty cycle of a period, whereas WiFi
transmits in the rest of the period. However, the duty cycle
can be manipulated based on the number of smart meters. The
promising simulation results demonstrate that good neighborhood spectrum sharing can be possible without harming each
other’s performance. Moreover, the 3.5 GHz band has large
clean and free bandwidth for data communication. Therefore,
3.5 GHz band sharing by LTE and WiFi can be a promising
candidate communication architecture for metering infrastructure of smart grid.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. F. Molisch, 3GPP LongTerm Evolution. Wiley-IEEE Press,
2011, pp. 665–698. [Online]. Available: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/
articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=5635449
[2] I. Parvez, M. Jamei, A. Sundararajan, and A. I. Sarwat, “RSS based
loop-free compass routing protocol for data communication in advanced
metering infrastructure (AMI) of Smart Grid,” in 2014 IEEE Symposium
on Computational Intelligence Applications in Smart Grid (CIASG), Dec
2014, pp. 1–6.
[3] I. Parvez, A. I. Sarwat, J. Pinto, Z. Parvez, and M. A. Khandaker, “A
gossip algorithm based clock synchronization scheme for smart grid
applications,” CoRR, vol. abs/1707.08216, 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1707.08216
[4] I. Parvez, A. Islam, and F. Kaleem, “A key management-based twolevel encryption method for ami,” in 2014 IEEE PES General Meeting
— Conference Exposition, July 2014, pp. 1–5.
[5] I. Parvez, A. I. Sarwat, L. Wei, and A. Sundararajan, “Securing metering
infrastructure of smart grid: A machine learning and localization based
key management approach,” Energies, vol. 9, no. 9, 2016.
[6] I. Parvez, F. Abdul, and A. I. Sarwat, “A location based key management
system for advanced metering infrastructure of smart grid,” in 2016 IEEE
Green Technologies Conference (GreenTech), April 2016, pp. 62–67.
[7] I. Parvez, A. Sundararajan, and A. I. Sarwat, “Frequency band for HAN
and NAN communication in Smart Grid,” in Proc. IEEE Symp. on Comp.
Intel. App. in Smart Grid (CIASG), Dec 2014, pp. 1–5.
[8] I. Parvez, A. Rahmati, I. Güvenç, A. I. Sarwat, and H. Dai, “A Survey
on Low Latency Towards 5G: RAN, Core Network and Caching
Solutions,” CoRR, vol. abs/1708.02562, 2017. [Online]. Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02562
[9] 3GPP, “Study on Licensed-Assisted Access using LTE,” RP-141397,
Tech. Rep., Sep. 2014.
[10] N. Rupasinghe and İ. Güvenç, “Licensed-assisted access for WiFi-LTE
coexistence in the unlicensed spectrum,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Work.(GC
Wkshps). IEEE, 2014, pp. 894–899.
[11] F. Chaves, A. Cavalcante, E. Almeida, F. Abinader Jr, R. Vieira,
S. Choudhury, and K. Doppler, “LTE/Wi-Fi coexistence: Challenges
and mechanisms,” in 2013, XXXI SIMPOSIO BRASILEIRO DE
TELECOMUNICACOES–SBrT2013, 2013.
[12] Qualcomm, “Qualcomm Research LTE in Unlicensed Spectrum: Harmonious Coexistence with WiFi,” 3GPP RAN1 standard contribution,
Tech. Rep., Jun. 2014.
[13] R. Ratasuk, M. A. Uusitalo, N. Mangalvedhe, A. Sorri, S. Iraji, C. Wijting, and A. Ghosh, “License-exempt LTE deployment in heterogeneous
network,” in Int. Symp. on Wireless Commun. Sys., Paris, France, Aug.
2012, pp. 246–250.
[14] E. Almeida, A. M. Cavalcante, R. C. D. Paiva, F. S. Chaves, F. M.
Abinader, R. D. Vieira, S. Choudhury, E. Tuomaala, and K. Doppler,
“Enabling LTE/WiFi coexistence by LTE blank subframe allocation,” in
Proc.IEEE Int. Conf., Budapest, Hungary, Jun. 2013, pp. 5083–5088.

4

x 10

7

4
Down link (DL)
Up link (UL)
Total (DL+UL)

3

3

2.5

2.5

2
1.5

1.5
1

0.5

0.5

1
LTE

Down Link (DL)
Up Link (UL)
Total (DL+UL)

2

1

0

7

3.5

Capacity (b/s)

Capacity (b/s)

3.5

x 10

0

2
WiFi

1
LTE

2
WiFi

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3: Throughput performance of coexisted LTE/WiFi system (a) Throughput at 60% duty cycle (b) Throughput at 80%
duty cycle
1

1
0.9

DL
UL
DL
UL

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.1

0
-60

-40

LTEDL
LTEUL
WIFIDL
WIFIUL

0.9

CDF

CDF

0.8

LTE
LTE
WiFi
WiFi

-20

0
SINR

20

40

60

0
-60

(a)

-40

-20

0
SINR

20

40

60

(b)

Fig. 4: SINR distribution of coexisted LTE/WiFi system (a) SINR distribution at 60% duty cycle (b) SINR distribution at
80% duty cycle
[15] T. Nihtil, V. Tykhomyrov, O. Alanen, M. A. Uusitalo, A. Sorri,
M. Moisio, S. Iraji, R. Ratasuk, and N. Mangalvedhe, “System performance of LTE and IEEE 802.11 coexisting on a shared frequency band,”
in Proc. IEEE Wireless Commun. and Net. Conf.(WCNC), Shanghai,
China, Apr. 2013, pp. 1038–1043.
[16] I. Parvez, N. Islam, N. Rupasinghe, A. I. Sarwat, and . Gven, “LAAbased LTE and ZigBee coexistence for unlicensed-band smart grid
communications,” in Proc. IEEE SoutheastCon conf., March 2016, pp.
1–6.
[17] F. Granelli, D. Domeniconi, N. L. S. D. Fonseca, and B. Tsetsgee, “On
the usage of wifi and lte for the smart grid,” in 2014 7th International
Conference on Ubi-Media Computing and Workshops, July 2014, pp.
1–5.
[18] F. Koohifar, N. Saputro, I. Guvenc, and K. Akkaya, “Hybrid wifi/lte aggregation architecture for smart meter communications,” in
2015 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid Communications
(SmartGridComm), Nov 2015, pp. 575–580.
[19] FCC, “Amendment of the Commissions Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band,” Report and Order and
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Apr. 2015.
[20] L.
Stefani,
“The
FCC
Raises
the
Curtain
on
the
Citizens
Broadband
Radio
Service,”
CommLawBlog
Article,
May
2015.
[Online].
Available:
http://www.
commlawblog.com/2015/05/articles/unlicensed-operations-and-emer/
the-fcc-raises-the-curtain-on-the-citizens-broadband-radio-service/
[21] G. Locke and L. E. Strickling, “An assessment of the near-term viability

[22]
[23]
[24]

[25]
[26]

[27]

of accommodating wireless broadband systems in the 1675-1710 MHz,
1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, and 4200-4220 MHz, 4380-4400
MHz bands,” Report, Oct. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://www.ntia.
doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fasttrackevaluation11152010.pdf
I. Parvez, M. Sriyananda, İ. Güvenç, M. Bennis, and A. Sarwat,
“Cbrs spectrum sharing between lte-u and wifi: A multiarmed bandit
approach,” Mobile Information Systems, vol. 2016, 2016.
I. Parvez, N. Chotikorn, and A. I. Sarwat, “Average quantized consensus
building by gossip algorithm using 16 bit quantization and efficient data
transfer method.”
Y. Mekonnen, M. Haque, I. Parvez, A. H. Moghadasi, and A. I. Sarwat,
“LTE and wi-fi coexistence in unlicensed spectrum with application
to smart grid: A review,” CoRR, vol. abs/1708.09005, 2017. [Online].
Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.09005
I. Parvez, N. Islam, N. Rupasinghe, A. I. Sarwat, and . Gven, “LAAbased LTE and ZigBee coexistence for unlicensed-band smart grid
communications,” in SoutheastCon 2016, March 2016, pp. 1–6.
M. G. S. Sriyananda, I. Parvez, I. Gvene, M. Bennis, and A. I. Sarwat,
“Multi-armed bandit for LTE-U and WiFi coexistence in unlicensed
bands,” in 2016 IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference, April 2016, pp. 1–6.
3GPP, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Further
advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects (Release 9),” 3GPP
Technical Report, Tech. Rep., Mar. 2010.

