Comparison of Asset and Atoll Cellular Planning Tools For LTE Network Planning PDF

Comparison of Asset and Atoll
Cellular Planning tools for LTE

Network Planning
Hormoz Parsian 85014K
Department of Communication and Networking
Supervisor: Prof. Jyri Hmlinen

Instructor: Dr. Kimmo Mkelinen
This Masters thesis was conducted at
Nokia Siemens Networks

5/22/2012
Outline of the work:
Introduction
Propagation Models
Analysis of Number of Covering Cells in Asset

Interference Analysis for Outdoor Users
Interference Analysis for Indoor Users
Capacity Analysis
Coverage Analysis with original constant term in Atoll propagation model

Coverage Analysis with optimum constant term in Atoll propagation model
Interference Analysis
Hata Models
Standard Propagation Models in the Tools
Deriving Equivalent Parameters
Coverage Analysis
Background
Research question
Methodology
Capacity Analysis of LTE services

Capacity Analysis for MIMO modes
Capacity Analysis of Scheduling Algorithms
Conclusions and Future Works
5/22/2012
Introduction
Backgrond
Software for network planning:
Astoll of Forsk
Asset of Aircom
Planet of Mentum
Planning tool manufacturers design their tools independently of each

other
Users do not know before testing whether different planning tools
produce comparable performance estimates for a given network
Sometimes a network is planned or investigated in two different planning
tools
Companies often change from one planning tool to another
5/22/2012
Planning results of the first tool have to be reproduced in the second one
Introduction
Research Question
Comparing two planning tools, Atoll of Forsk and Asset of Aircom with
respect to LTE network planning
Not trying to find out which of the tools is better than the other one
Trying to investigate whether they provide comparable performance measures in the
test network
Tools performance can be close to each other if two investigated network

configurations and other configurations like propagation models are equal
to each other.
Finding equal parameters mean they produce same performance
estimates AND it necessary does not mean numerically equal parameters
LTE input parameters for Asset and Atoll, prepared by NSN to give equal
performance estimates
5/22/2012
Introduction
Methodology
To compare the tools different testing scenarios and network
configurations are analyzed.
Propagation Models
Number of Transmitting and receiving Antennas
Services used
MIMO configurations
Scheduling methods
Planning tools are compared in terms of three performance estimates:

Coverage
Interference
Traffic capacity
For radio propagation prediction digital map is required.

Digital map of Helsinki with 10 m resolution
5/22/2012
Propagation Models
Hata Model
All computed coverage, interference and capacity results in the cellular
network planning tools are based on losses between base stations ad
points on the digital map that computed from propagation prediction
models
Standard propagation models in Asset and Atoll are based on OkumuraHata models
Hata model is derived from Okumuras measurement reports
The reports are obtained from four different environments in and around Tokyo
The measurements are for limited parameter ranges e.g. frequency, distance and height.
In Hata model frequency, distance, base (BS) and mobile station (MS) antenna heights
are limited.
150 MHz < Frequency < 1500 MHz
1 km < Distance < 20 km
30 m < BS Antenna Height < 200 m
1 m < MS Antenna Height < 10 m
5/22/2012
Propagation Models
Hata Model
Hata model was extended to frequencies higher than 1500 MHz but less
than 2000 MHz
Also it was extended for distances between 20 km and 10 0km
5/22/2012
Propagation Models
Standard Propagation Models (SPM):
SPM in Asset is presented below:
= + +
Where:
= + + +
= +
= +
In Asset distances between BS and MS are in kilometers.
5/22/2012
Propagation Models
Standard Propagation Models (SPM):
SPM in Atoll is presented below:
= + +
Where
= + + +
= +
= + + ,
In Atoll distances between BS and MS are in meters.

Thus coefficients of the terms in models of the tools containing distance
parameter have to be modified.
5/22/2012
Propagation models
SPM in Asset is based on Okumura-Hata model.
To achieve equivalent propagation models, corresponding terms in the
tools have to be equated.
The tests are carried out at frequency of 2100 MHz.
Equivalent coefficient in the tools are given in the table:
5/22/2012
Asset coefficients
Atoll coefficients
k1= 158.92 dB
K1= k1 3k2 = 24.22
k2 = 44.9
K2 = k2 = 44.9
k3 = 0
K3 = k5 3k6 = 5.83
k4 = 0
K4 = k7 = 0.8
Asset coefficients
Atoll coefficients
k5 = -13.88
K5 = k6 = -6.55
k6 = -6.55
K6 = k 3 = 0
k7 = 0.8
K7 = k 4 = 0
--
Kclutter = 1
--
Khill.LOS = 0
10
Propagation Models
Correction Factors in Asset and Atoll
Propagation models in the tools have additional terms as correction
factors to take into account terrain height, clutter losses and diffraction
losses.
Equivalent algorithms for antenna height corrections, diffraction
corrections and clutter corrections are chosen in tools.
5/22/2012
11
Propagation Models
Verifying the derived propagation models
Derived propagation models are tested using point analysis
LTE cell coverage is determined using Reference Signal Received Power
which is reported in form of Energy Per Resource Element of Reference
Signal (RS EPRE) in the tools.
Discrete points at different distances were considered in point analysis
Systematically Asset gives 1 - 2dB higher RS EPRE values than Atoll does
Such differences in models should not cause significant errors in coverage,
interference and capacity analysis.
5/22/2012
12
Coverage Analysis
Coverage Analysis with Original Constant Term in Atoll
Equivalent propagation models and path losses do not guarantee
equivalence of coverage results.
Comparing coverage distribution of predicted RS EPRE intervals
RS EPRE range of -55 to -130 dBm in steps of -5 dB are investigated.
RS EPRE Interval (dBm)
5/22/2012
% Coverage Area in Asset (k1=
% Coverage Area in Atoll (K1=
158.92)
24.22)
-60.00 <= x < -55.00
0.000
0.0070
-65.00 <= x < -60.00
0.010
0.024
-70.00 <= x < -65.00
0.058
0.053
-75.00 <= x < -70.00
0.447
0.246
-80.00 <= x < -75.00
1.907
1.285
-85.00 <= x < -80.00
7.686
5.431
-90.00 <= x < -85.00
16.330
13.950
-95.00 <= x < -90.00
22.326
21.748
-100.00 <= x < -95.00
19.860
20.871
-105.00 <= x < -100.00
15.214
17.039
-110.00 <= x < -105.00
10.347
11.886
-115.00 <= x < -110.00
4.163
5.386
-120.00 <= x < -115.00
1.326
1.743
-125.00 <= x < -120.00
0.262
0.268
13
Coverage Analysis
Coverage Analysis with Original Constant Term in Atoll
Table in the previous page and the plot in this page indicate that RS EPRE
distributions are not similar. Systematically Asset calculates higher RS EPRE
values than Atoll.
Root Mean Square difference and maximum absolute difference are 19.9%
and 2.38% respectively
5/22/2012
14
Coverage Analysis
Coverage Analysis with Optimum Constant Term in Atoll
To achieve similar RS EPRE coverage distributions, constant term in
propagation model of Atoll is decremented in steps of 0.1 dB.
Optimal value of constant term results in minimum RMS difference
between RS EPRE distributions of the tools
Optimal value results in similar coverage distributions in the tools.
To achieve optimal value 1.4 dB is to be decremented from original
constant term in model of Atoll (K1= 22.82 dB).
% Coverage Area in
% Coverage Area in
Asset (k1= 158.92
Atoll (K1= 22.82 dB)
dB)
% Coverage Area in
% Coverage Area in
Asset (k1= 158.92 dB)
Atoll (K1= 22.82 dB)
-95.00 <= x < -90.00
22.326
22.442
-60.00 <= x < -55.00
0.000
0.012
-100.00 <= x < -95.00
19.860
20.091
-65.00 <= x < -60.00
0.010
0.028
-105.00 <= x < -100.00
15.214
15.543
-70.00 <= x < -65.00
0.058
0.070
-110.00 <= x < -105.00
10.347
10.238
-75.00 <= x < -70.00
0.447
0.426
-115.00 <= x < -110.00
4.163
3.919
-80.00 <= x < -75.00
1.907
1.935
-120.00 <= x < -115.00
1.326
1.141
-85.00 <= x < -80.00
7.686
7.662
-125.00 <= x < -120.00
0.262
0.191
-90.00
<= x < -85.00
5/22/2012
16.330
16.275
-130.00 <= x < -125.00
0.054
0.02915
Coverage Prediction
Observations from table in the previous page and the plot in this page
reveals that reduction of 1.4 dB from original constant term results in similar
coverage distributions .
It also minimizes RMS difference between the RS EPRE distributions.
Optimum value leads to Maximum absolute difference of 0.329% which is
negligible.
5/22/2012
16
Coverage Analysis
The results of the comparisons and analysis indicate that the tools
produce almost close to similar coverage RS EPRE arrays.
However, systematically Asset produces 1.2 1.4 dB higher received RS
EPRE results.
This difference can be due to minor differences in diffraction correction
and/or antenna height corrections.
Following table shows mapping of coefficients in Asset model to optimum
coefficients in Atolls.
Asset coefficients
Atoll coefficients
k1= 158.92
K1= k1 3k2 (1.4)= 24.22
k2 = 44.9
K2 = k2 = 44.9
k3 = 0
K3 = k5 3k6 = 5.83
k4 = 0
K4 = k7 = 0.8
k5 = -13.88
K5 = k6 = -6.55
k6 = -6.55
K6 = k3 = 0
k7 = 0.8
K7 = k4 = 0
--
Kclutter = 1
--
Khill.LOS = 0
5/22/2012
However, such differences do not

lead to significant differences in
interference and capacity
analysis. Thus original
propagation models derived in
previous chapter would be used
for further analysis
17
Coverage estimation is based on the assumption that the signal of the
serving station is on during the time that received power is observed.
However, the interference estimation is not based on assumption that the
interference were on 100% of time (and frequency). The interference
estimation is based on a specific loading of each interfering cell.
Cell load can be derived through Monte Carlo simulation or fixed by
network planning engineer.
For interference analysis is based on comparison of SINR arrays for
downlink Reference Signal (DLRS) and downlink Traffic Channel (DL TCH) in
Asset and Atoll.
In interference analysis, fixed load of 75% is assumed for all base stations.
SINR arrays are created and analyzed for (-10 dB to 30 dB) range and this
range is divided in steps of 5 dB .
5/22/2012
18
Theoretically, number of covering cells is very critical parameter in Monte
Carlo simulation.
But it was found that when number of covering cells was varied from 6 to
12, the differences in the SINR of the received signal were insignificant
(below 0.5 dB for most of the area).
DLRS SINR
10
11
12
20
-10 <= x < -5
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.05
-5<= x < 0
7.90
8.30
8.55
8.71
8.85
8.95
9.05
9.32
0 <= x < 5
32.69
32.72
32.79
32.82
32.81
32.80
32.77
32.71
5 <= x < 10
27.39
27.31
27.25
27.23
27.22
27.21
27.20
27.12
10 <= x < 15
18.34
18.22
18.12
18.06
17.99
17.97
17.94
17.91
15 <= x < 20
9.09
9.00
8.92
8.84
8.81
8.79
8.76
8.68
20 <= x < 25
3.79
3.67
3.62
3.59
3.57
3.54
3.53
3.51
25 <= x < 30
0.76
0.73
0.71
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.69
Interval (dB)
5/22/2012
19
5/22/2012
20
Interference Analysis for Outdoor Users (DLRS)
In Asset, reference signal pattern affects SINR calculations and
consequently interference analysis.
Downlink cell load level is set to 75%.
Simulation arrays are created without running any real simulation
snapshots.
Finally DLRS SINR arrays are calculated.
According to following table and plot, DLRS SINR distributions in Atoll and
Asset are not close to each other.
Systematically Asset calculates higher DLRS SINR values than Atoll. And
Maximum difference belongs to SINR interval of -5 to 0 dB where absolute
value of difference is 18.82%.
Asset
Atoll DLRS
Difference
10<=x<15
18.23
11.85
6.38
5<=x<10
26.83
22.08
4.75
DLRS SINR
Asset DLRS SINR
Atoll DLRS SINR
Interval (dB)
distribution
distribution
25<=x<30
0.69
0.08
0.61
0<=x<5
32.99
29.60
3.39
20<=x<25
3.57
1.50
2.07
-5<=x<0
8.88
27.70
-18.82
15<=x<20
8.76
5.22
3.54
-10<=x<-5
0.03
1.96
-1.93
5/22/2012
Difference
DLRS SINR
21
Besides reference signal power, the tools takes into account power received
from control and traffic channels for reference signal interference power
calculation.
5/22/2012
22
For reference signal interference calculations Asset considers interference
power received from a single antenna of the interferer.
Atoll considers interference power received from all transmitting antennas
of the interferer.
Thus, the difference between SINR results of Asset and Atoll is mainly
because Atoll considers number of transmitting antennas in reference
signal interference calculation while Asset does not.
For interference analysis of the tools, a conversion factor between their
SINR values has to be calculated.
= .
Table and plot next page represent DLRS SINR of the tools when the
conversion factor in incorporated.
5/22/2012
23
DLRS SINR Interval (dB)
Asset DLRS SINR
Atoll DLRS SINR
Difference
distribution
distribution
25<=x<30
0.1
0.08
0.02
20<=x<25
1.52
1.50
0.02
15<=x<20
5.3
5.22
0.08
10<=x<15
11.87
11.85
0.02
5<=x<10
21.87
22.08
-0.21
0<=x<5
29.52
29.60
-0.08
-5<=x<0
27.73
27.70
0.03
-10<=x<-5
2.09
1.96
0.13
Also when the correction factor is

taken into consideration, maximum
absolute value of difference is 0.21%
which is a very small difference,
verifying that SINR distributions are
almost identical
5/22/2012
24
Interference Analysis for Outdoor Users (DL TCH)
Same procedure is carried out for analysis of SINR distributions for DL TCH.
To compensate the difference in calculation of interference in the tools, a
conversion factor is derived.
= .
This plot represents the DL TCH SINR

distributions of the tools after
incorporating the conversion factor in
Asset.
5/22/2012
25
Interference Analysis for Indoor Users (DL TCH)
For interference analysis of indoor users, SINR results of Asset and Atoll
are compared for downlink traffic channels (DL TCH).
In case of indoor users, indoor penetration loss is included in downlink
losses in addition to path loss. For DL TCH SINR analysis same conversion
factor,
= . , is included in Asset to achieve similar distributions
in the tools.
5/22/2012
26
Capacity Analysis
Capacity analysis is the most difficult part of performance estimation in a
radio network planning tool.
Coverage and interference analysis can be carried out as straightforward
deterministic calculations.
But capacity can only be analyzed statistically by using Monte Carlo
simulation of connection of terminals to cells of the network.
The Monte Carlo simulation requires as its input realistic assumptions of
the network traffic.
Results of capacity studies are analyzed by comparing number of served
users and total peak RLC throughput.
Traffic Layers
The investigated area has uniform density of 15 users/km2. To have more
realistic image of the network, further three vectors within this area are
introduced with each vector has additional density of 5 users/km2.
Vector
User per km2
Vector
User per km2
V1
20
V1
15
V2
20
V3
20
5/22/2012
27
Capacity Analysis
Capacity Analysis by Investigating LTE Services
Service parameters affecting simulation results
Traffic type (Real time/Non real time)

Minimum Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR)
Maximum Bit Rate (MBR)
Highest and lowest bearers in downlink and uplink
For non real time services (data), Asset puts a constraint on Maximum Bit
Rate.
MBR is set to be equal to GBR for data services.
Data service in Asset is LTE service.
Data service in Atoll is peak performance service as it covers minimum and
maximum possible rates of all bearers.
Traffic Type
Non Real Time
Type
Data
GBR / MBR (DL)
1000 / 1000 kbps
Minimum throughput demand (DL)
10 kbps
GBR / MBR (UL)
1000 / 1000 kbps
Maximum throughput demand (DL)
100000 kbps
Highest and lowest bearer (DL)
LTE_DL_12 and LTE_DL_1
Minimum throughput demand (UL)
10 kbps
Highest and lowest bearer (UL)
LTE_UL_12 and LTE_UL_1
Maximum throughput demand (UL)
40000 kbps
LTE_01 and LTE_12
LTE_01 and LTE_12
5/22/2012
28
Capacity Analysis
With default services assigned to users, simulation snapshots are run.
Offered traffic, carried traffic (served users) and total peak RLC throughput
of the network are obtained from simulation reports.
Results produced by Asset and Atoll are considerably different.
Carried traffic in Atoll is more than in Asset
Network total peak RLC throughput is much higher in Atoll than in Asset. Their total peak
RLC throughput in downlink differs by 340.25%.
Simulation outputs
Asset
Atoll
difference
% difference
Offered traffic
435.10
436.23
-1.13
0.26
Carried traffic
384.35
436.13
-51.78
13.47
Total peak RLC throughput of network DL
384350
1692084.1
-1307734
340.25
(kbps)
In realistic scenarios, a packet based service has varying data rates, i.e. in reality
maximum throughput demand is not necessarily same as minimum throughput
demand.
Asset definition of non-real type of service does not represent a non-real time
service in practical cases.
5/22/2012
29
Capacity Analysis
Thus a real type of service has to be assigned to the users in Asset because
those services do not put such a constraint on Maximum Bit Rate.
In Asset, real type of service assigned to users have following parameters:
Traffic Type
Real Time
GBR / MBR (DL)
10 / 100000 kbps
GBR / MBR (UL)
10 / 40000 kbps
LTE_DL_12 and LTE_DL_1
LTE_UL_12 and LTE_UL_1
With new service assigned to users in Asset, simulation snapshots are run.
Simulation outputs
Asset
Atoll
difference
% difference
Offered traffic
435.45
432.55
2.9
0.67
Carried traffic
428.55
432.4
-3.85
0.9
1399025.89
1740693.71
-341668
24.42
(kbps)
Carried traffic in the tools are pretty comparable.

Total throughput in Atoll is 24.42% higher with respect to total throughput in
5/22/2012
Asset.
30
Capacity Analysis
Capacity Analysis by Investigating MIMO Modes
The planning tools provide adaptive switching between different antenna
configurations, resulting in considerable improvement in system
performance.
SINR requirements for bearers are adjusted in such a way that they include
effect of adaptive switching between multiplexing and diversity.
Thus in Asset, multiplexing and in Atoll SU-MIMO are selected over
adaptive switching, respectively. These modes effectively implements
switching between multiplexing and diversity.
Spatial multiplexing in Asset and SU-MIMO in Atoll are implemented
differently.
In Asset spatial multiplexing is not implemented by increasing the bearer
rate but rather by reducing an offset from SINR requirements of bearers.
In Atoll SU- MIMO is realized by multiplying bearer rate with an offset
obtained from measurements.
5/22/2012
31
Capacity Analysis
Modified SINR requirements for bearers in Asset are obtained from
following formula:
,,
= + ,
+
In the original Asset parameters for LTE downlink bearers, the SU-MIMO
,
SINR Delta values,
, were given with the wrong sign. This
error was corrected in Asset.
5/22/2012
32
Capacity Analysis
This error was corrected in Asset and simulation snapshot are run.
The results are presented in following figure.
Differences between total peak RLC throughputs and carried traffic of the
network simulated by the tools have been reduced.
Simulation outputs
Asset
Atoll
difference
% difference
Offered traffic
440.95
435.40
5.55
1.25
Carried traffic
433.25
435.35
-2.1
0.48
Total peak RLC throughput of network DL (kbps)
1531568
1740693.71
-209126
13.65
5/22/2012
33
Capacity Analysis
Capacity Analysis by Investigating Scheduling Methods
Proportional Fair (PF) is a conventional scheduling method used in cellular
planning.
It is chosen for eNodeBs in the tests.
This method distribute resources among connected users based on their
channel conditions
Asset and Atoll implement proportional fair algorithm differently.
Asset implements it according to the definition mentioned above, i.e. in
Asset users receive unused resources according to their channel
conditions.
For proportional fair, Atoll considers gains due multiuser diversity which
are functions of number of users considered for scheduling in a cell and
multiuser SINR threshold which is set manually in Atoll.
Atoll includes multiuser diversity gain (MUG) in peak RLC channel
throughput calculation of the connected users with maximum throughput
demand.
5/22/2012
34
Capacity Analysis
To reveal the differences in implementation of proportional fair algorithms
in the tools, scheduling methods are changed to Round Robin (RR).
Both of the tools implement this algorithm similarly.
Round robin method distributes unused resources equally among all
connected users.
Simulation snapshots are run. The results are presented below.
Simulation outputs
Asset
Atoll
difference
% difference
Offered traffic
435.95
433.98
1.97
0.45
Carried traffic
428.59
433.8
-5.21
1.21
Total peak RLC throughput of network DL (kbps)
1191385.20
1165339.91
26045.29
2.18
Difference between DL total peak RLC throughputs of the networks is 2.18%

which is relatively small comparing with the differences obtained when
proportional fair was selected as scheduling method in the tools.
5/22/2012
35
Capacity Analysis
To reveal effects of multiuser diversity gain (MUG) in total peak RLC
throughput of the network simulated by Atoll, two tests are carried out.
In one test, maximum multiuser gain threshold is set high enough so that
throughput of all users is magnified by corresponding MUG.
Simulation results of this test are presented in second column of following
table.
In the other test, maximum multiuser gain threshold is set low enough
which effectively disables multiuser diversity capability of proportional fair
method in Atoll and consequently throughput of users would not be
modified by MUG.
Simulation results of this test are presented in third column of following
table.
Simulation outputs
with MUG
without MUG
difference
%difference
Offered traffic
431.93
429.1
2.83
0.66
Carried traffic
431.82
429
2.82
0.66
1913199.47
1162241.99
750958.48
64.61
5/22/2012
(kbps)
36
Capacity Analysis
As it can be observed from the table, multiuser diversity has significant
effect on total peak RLC throughput of the network in Atoll.
In Atoll when MUG is applied to the users total throughput of the network
is 64.61% higher than the case when no MUG is applied to any of the
users.
Comparing throughput results when multiuser diversity is disabled with
the results when round robin is used for scheduling indicates that total
throughput in both of the cases are comparatively similar to each other.
Proportional fair scheduling in Atoll exploits fast fading characteristics of
the channel to maximize total throughput of the network.
When number of scheduled users is large, the probability that some users
are in good channel state is high and these users can be scheduled first.
in long term total cell throughput is increased by taking advantage of
fading channels. This is called multiuser diversity.
The dissimilarity in implementation of proportional fair method in Asset
and Atoll causes relatively significant difference in resulting total peak RLC
throughputs of the tools.
5/22/2012
37
Conclusions and Future Work
The first stage of comparison was derivation of equivalent propagation

models, since all computed coverage, interference and capacity results in a
cellular network planning tool are based on path losses that are computed
from a propagation prediction model.
The second stage of tool comparison was comparison of coverage prediction
results. The result of comparison was that the tools produce very similar RS
EPRE coverage arrays.
The third stage of tool comparison was comparison of interference prediction
results.
Atoll computes systematically about 3 dB lower downlink SINR levels for both
DLRS and DL TCH than Asset when two transmit antennas were used in base
stations with 75% loading.
The reason is that Atoll multiplies the received interference power by the
number of transmit antennas in the interfering cell, which Asset does not do.
Atoll also applies a cyclic prefix correction to the received interference power,
which Asset again does not do.
To compensate for these differences in computation, a conversion factor for
converting a SINR value in one tool into a SINR value in another was derived.
5/22/2012
38
Conclusions and Future Work

The last stage of tool comparison was traffic capacity comparison.
Capacity analysis requires Monte Carlo simulation, which requires traffic
layer as its input. The capacity comparison was based on number of
served terminals and total peak RLC throughput.
Aircom's implementation of a non-real-time service is such that its
maximum bit rate (MBR) demand is set equal to its minimum guaranteed
bit rate (GBR) demand.
It was also found out that the SU-MIMO SINR Delta values in the Asset
import files had wrong signs, which had to be corrected before the real
capacity comparison.
The result of capacity comparison was that Atoll showed almost 13%
higher total peak RLC throughput for the whole network than Asset.
Implementation of the proportional fair scheduling in the tools was the
likely reason for differences in the capacity estimates.
During this study, no reliable procedure for simulating equivalent capacity
estimated from the two tools was found when proportional fair scheduling
is used.
Since the proportional fair algorithm is the most commonly used
scheduling algorithm in LTE, this is a serious drawback, and further studies
on workarounds for achieving approximately comparable capacity
estimation results would be necessary.
5/22/2012
39
Thank You
Any Questions?
5/22/2012
40

Comparison of Asset and Atoll Cellular Planning Tools For LTE Network Planning PDF

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Comparison of Asset and Atoll Cellular Planning Tools For LTE Network Planning PDF

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Comparison of Asset and Atoll

Cellular Planning tools for LTE

Supervisor: Prof. Jyri Hmlinen

Nokia Siemens Networks

Outline of the work:

Analysis of Number of Covering Cells in Asset

Coverage Analysis with original constant term in Atoll propagation model

Capacity Analysis of LTE services

Conclusions and Future Works

Planning tool manufacturers design their tools independently of each

Tools performance can be close to each other if two investigated network

Planning tools are compared in terms of three performance estimates:

For radio propagation prediction digital map is required.

In Asset distances between BS and MS are in kilometers.

In Atoll distances between BS and MS are in meters.

K1= k1 3k2 = 24.22

% Coverage Area in Asset (k1=

% Coverage Area in Atoll (K1=

-60.00 <= x < -55.00

-65.00 <= x < -60.00

-70.00 <= x < -65.00

-75.00 <= x < -70.00

-80.00 <= x < -75.00

-85.00 <= x < -80.00

-90.00 <= x < -85.00

-95.00 <= x < -90.00

-100.00 <= x < -95.00

-105.00 <= x < -100.00

-110.00 <= x < -105.00

-115.00 <= x < -110.00

-120.00 <= x < -115.00

-125.00 <= x < -120.00

Asset (k1= 158.92

Atoll (K1= 22.82 dB)

RS EPRE Interval (dBm)

Asset (k1= 158.92 dB)

Atoll (K1= 22.82 dB)

-95.00 <= x < -90.00

-60.00 <= x < -55.00

-100.00 <= x < -95.00

-65.00 <= x < -60.00

-105.00 <= x < -100.00

-70.00 <= x < -65.00

-110.00 <= x < -105.00

-75.00 <= x < -70.00

-115.00 <= x < -110.00

-80.00 <= x < -75.00

-120.00 <= x < -115.00

-85.00 <= x < -80.00

-125.00 <= x < -120.00

-130.00 <= x < -125.00

K1= k1 3k2 (1.4)= 24.22

However, such differences do not

-10 <= x < -5

Asset DLRS SINR

Atoll DLRS SINR

Asset DLRS SINR

Atoll DLRS SINR

Also when the correction factor is

This plot represents the DL TCH SINR

User per km2

User per km2