WhitePaper

Passive vs Active In-Building

Systems in a GSM Network
By Derek Paton
LGC Wireless, Inc.
July 2004

Contents

Introduction

It is frequently assumed that when small to medium-sized buildings are considered for a dedicated in-building solution, passive (coaxial cable-based) systems
will always be less expensive than active (solutions using active electronics exclusively). This paper examines both active and passive solutions for a typical 6 floor
office building, identifying different design approaches which enable a fair comparison to be made between both solutions.

Scenario
Passive Solution
Active Solution
Performance Analysis
Economic Analysis
Summary

2540 Junction Ave. San Jose, CA 95134

Ph: (408) 952-2400 Fax: (408) 952-2410
www.lgcwireless.com
CONFIDENTIAL

Introduction

Scenario

The building used for this comparison is a 6 floor office building of typical construction. The building has dimensions of 30 meters high, 30 meters wide and 80
meters long and it is assumed the in-building system will be fed by a bi-directional
amplifier (BDA) which uses an urban macro site as its donor. The urban site is
used as the DCS 1800 wireless operator does not want to use capacity of nearby
macro sites in the busy downtown area. The signal strength from the donor site is
-65 dBm on the rooftop and the required signal strength inside the building is -80
dBM. There are 2 carriers on this sector feeding the BDA.

page 2 of 6

WhitePaper

Passive Solution

The passive solution would consist of 2 antennas per floor connected via LDF 2.50 and splitters / couplers to a high
gain / high power BDA. A diagram of this system is as follows:

The above system would have a typical loss to each antenna of approx 18 dB, allowing for coax loss, connector loss
and splitting losses.
A typical link budget for a passive solution would be as follows:

Signal from donor site

Donor Antenna Gain
Cable losses to BDA
Signal Into BDA
Maximum BDA gain
Output from BDA
Power into each antenna

-65 dBm
12 dBi
3 dB
-56 dBm
80 dB
+ 24 dBm
+ 6 dBm

Using a Path Loss Slope (PLS) of 34 the following coverage can be expected in this building when using a passive
solution:

2540 Junction Ave. San Jose, CA 95134 Ph: (408) 952-2400 Fax: (408) 952-2410 www.lgcwireless.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Date 8/2/04

2004 LGC Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved.

White Paper

page 3 of 6

Active Solution

The active solution in this building is assumed to be the LGC Accel system. The following is the system architecture
diagram for this solution. It consists of an Accel Hub and 6 remote Access Units (RAUs), one per floor.

The system would have a typical loss to each antenna of approximately 0 dB as the Accel system has zero loss to each
Remote Access Unit (RAU). This is due to the presence of amplifiers in the RAU and the use of CAT5 cabling exclusively (no coax). The Accel system allows CAT 5 cable runs of up to 110 meters and 170 meters using an optional
CAT 5 Extender unit.

2540 Junction Ave. San Jose, CA 95134 Ph: (408) 952-2400 Fax: (408) 952-2410 www.lgcwireless.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Date 8/2/04

2004 LGC Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved.

page 4 of 6

WhitePaper

A typical link budget for the Accel solution would be as follows:

Signal from donor site

Donor Antenna Gain
Cable losses to BDA
Signal Into BDA
Maximum BDA gain *
Output from BDA
Gain set in Accel Hub
Power into each antenna

-65 dBm
12 dBi
3 dB
-56 dBm
60 dB
+ 4 dBm
10 dB
+ 14 dBm

Using a PLS of 34 the following coverage can be expected in this building when using Accel:

2540 Junction Ave. San Jose, CA 95134 Ph: (408) 952-2400 Fax: (408) 952-2410 www.lgcwireless.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Date 8/2/04

2004 LGC Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved.

page 5 of 6

WhitePaper

Performance Analysis

It can be seen that the downlink coverage of the active (Accel) system is better and because of this higher power only
1 antenna per floor is required, compared to 2 antennas per floor for the passive system.
This table gives some comparison between the 2 systems with regards to performance characteristics using a scale of
0-100, 100 being good and 0 being poor.

Service / Equipment
Alarms
Remote control and
OMC integration
System design
Re engineering for
WCDMA

Passive
0
0

Active
100
100

25
25

100
100

Obviously, the active system offers very clear performance advantages over a passive solution. These advantages
translate into economic benefits in terms of savings in the areas of design cost, maintenance, and the ability to accommodate future needs. Overall, life cycle costs of the active solution are significantly lower than that of the passive system.

Economic Analysis

This table looks at the costs of both systems using a scale of 0-100 to measure the cost. 0 represents low cost and 100
represents high cost. This scale is being used as a relative cost measurement, since actual costs cannot be accurately
assigned due to variables primarily introduced by the location of the building as well as constraints due to the type of
businesses within the building.
Row 1 looks at the cost of labor to install both systems. Passive here scores 100 demonstrating the extra time it takes
to install coaxial cables compared to installing CAT 5 cables. Overall, the cost of installing a passive system is typically more than twice that of installing an active system.
Row 2 of the table looks at the cost of the BDA to drive an in-building system. When driving a coaxial cable system
a high gain / output power BDA is typically required to get the EIRP at each antenna. When driving an Accel or Unison system a low gain / output power BDA can be used due to the gain inherent in the Hub. This allows the cost of the
BDA to be kept low and thus substantial savings can be realized. Typically the cost of the BDA required to drive a
Unison system can be 60% lower than a BDA to drive a passive system.
Row 3 looks at equipment costs for the distribution system. Passive systems are typically less expensive as the only
costs are for the cable, connectors and splitters. The active system has generally higher cost components due to the
electronics.
Row 4 looks at design cost. An Accel or Unison system can be designed very quickly as the power at each antenna is
always a known quantity (due to the fact the system is zero loss) as opposed to the passive system where all the cable
lengths need to be determined before the power at each antenna can be calculated. This may require site visits to
determine where cables can be installed, adding to the project cost.

2540 Junction Ave. San Jose, CA 95134 Ph: (408) 952-2400 Fax: (408) 952-2410 www.lgcwireless.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Date 8/2/04

2004 LGC Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved.

page 6 of 6

WhitePaper

Service / Equipment
Cost of labour to install
system including antennas
BDA cost
Equipment including all
cables, connectors and
active equipment
System Design

Passive
100

Active
40

100
30

30
100

100

20

Again, the active system offers some very clear economic advantages vs. a passive solution in the areas of system
design, installation cost, and cost of ancillary equipment (such as the BDA and passive antennas). It is recognized that
in some instances, the lower equipment cost of the passive solution may outweigh the economic benefits of the
active system, but the superior performance of the active system must also be factored into the analysis.

Summary

In conclusion, while the use of a coaxial-based solution for in-building coverage may appear to be the obvious choice
for relatively small installations, a closer examination may ultimately yield a different conclusion. Even in small
installations, the capabilities of an active in-building system such as LGCs Accel or Unison systems may yield significant performance and economic advantages when compared with passive.

2540 Junction Ave. San Jose, CA 95134 Ph: (408) 952-2400 Fax: (408) 952-2410 www.lgcwireless.com
CONFIDENTIAL
Date 8/2/04

2004 LGC Wireless, Inc. All rights reserved.