TECHNICAL PAPER

Title: The Impacts of Antenna Azimuth and Tilt Installation Accuracy on

UMTS Network Performance

Authors: Esmael Dinan, Ph.D., Aleksey A. Kurochkin—Bechtel Corporation

Date: January 2006

Publication/Venue: Bechtel Telecommunications Technical Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1

©2006 Bechtel Corporation. All rights reserved.
THE IMPACTS OF ANTENNA AZIMUTH
AND TILT INSTALLATION ACCURACY ON
UMTS NETWORK PERFORMANCE

Issue Date: January 2006

Abstract—Inconsistencies in setting up antenna azimuth and tilt during installation may reduce overall
network performance. However, the degree of quality degradation depends on the amount of the discrepancy
between the designed and installed parameters. The paper investigates the effect of these errors on UMTS
RF KPIs, including coverage, signal quality (Ec /Io), and soft-handoff areas. Two examples are studied that
include real measurement data. The studies show the effect of azimuth and tilt installation inaccuracies on
UMTS network quality.

INTRODUCTION coverage, the ratio of chip energy to interference

Esmael Dinan, PhD
ehdinan@bechtel.com
Aleksey A. Kurochkin
aakuroch@bechtel.com
(Ec/Io), and soft handoff areas. Two exercises
A ntenna azimuth and downtilt are two
important optimization parameters in
universal mobile telecommunications system
are defined. A variety of errors are introduced
for all antennas, and a simulation is performed
(UMTS) networks. Optimization of these two for each case. At the end, the results are
parameters can significantly improve system compared and analyzed. Consistent use of the
performance. However, new networks sometimes new antenna installation processes is promoted to
use inefficient optimization techniques and limit the impact of inconsistencies. Suggestions
implement default values. Furthermore, incon- are also provided on acceptable installation
sistencies in setting these parameters during error limits for use as a baseline to develop
installation vary the network coverage and implementation processes.
capacity. This paper presents the results of a
quantitative study that investigated the effect of
these parameters on UMTS network performance. ANTENNA AZIMUTH AND TILT SETTINGS AND
INCONSISTENCIES
Many techniques are used to measure antenna
azimuth and tilt during installation. The accuracy
in setting up the azimuth and tilt depends on
A ntenna azimuth and tilt errors (Figure 1) are
randomly distributed among the sites and
sectors. For the purpose of this paper, azimuth
the antenna installation processes and human
error is measured as the absolute difference
and instrumentation errors. Inefficient imple-
between the actual azimuth installed in the field
mentation and rigging processes may also cause
and the designed azimuth, as illustrated in
azimuth or tilt errors. The overall accuracy is
Figure 1a. In this definition, all azimuth errors
within ±10 degrees using most traditional
are positive. Tilt errors can be positive or
techniques. Usually, antenna azimuth errors are
negative—uptilt errors are considered negative,
independent for antennas belonging to different
while downtilt errors are considered positive, as
sectors. New processes and instruments may
shown in Figure 1b.
reduce these errors by several degrees, reduce
randomness in antenna orientations, and bring An antenna installation technician sets up the
errors consistently within the set tolerance. azimuth using a compass and alignment tool. On
the top of the tower, the technician can use
This paper investigates the effects of azimuth and
several mechanisms to install the antenna.
tilt inaccuracies on network coverage and
However, the technician’s capabilities are
performance and considers the three main UMTS
restricted by uncomfortable climbing status,
network system quality parameters: service
limited time, limited available tools, and

© 2006 Bechtel Corporation. All rights reserved. 1

 environmental factors. An example of an
ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND TERMS installation mechanism using landmarks and an
Ec/Io ratio of chip energy to optical alignment tool is shown in Figure 2. This
interference figure shows two pre-specified landmarks for the
GPS global positioning system technician to use from the top of the tower. In
KPI key performance indicator this example, the respective angles between
QoS quality of service the antenna aim point and Landmarks A and B
are set to 40 degrees (counterclockwise) and
RF radio frequency
–25 degrees (clockwise) from aim point to target.
RSCP received signal code power
Once the alignment is set, antenna tilt is adjusted
UMTS universal mobile
using a mechanical tilt bracket. Antenna tilt errors
telecommunications system
are caused by imperfect vertical adjustment of the
antenna support structure.
The accuracy in
setting up the Designed Tilt

azimuth and tilt

Negative
depends on Error
Positive
the antenna Error

installation
processes and
human and Positive Error
Field Azimuth
instrumentation
errors.
Designed Azimuth

(a) (b)

Figure 1. Antenna Azimuth and Tilt Errors

(a) Azimuth Error; (b) Tilt Error

Target A
True North

Optical
50° Actual Bearing
Alignment Tool
le
ng
tA
f fse
°O
40
Antenna Aim Point

-25 90° Specified Antenna

°O Azimuth
f fse
t An
gle
Target B

115° Actual Bearing

Antenna Support Structure

Figure 2. Example of an Antenna Azimuth Setup and Installation

2 Bechtel Telecommunications Technical Journal

Using the Six Sigma process improvement
methodology, Bechtel initiated a task force to
measure antenna installation accuracies [1]. The
implementation team analyzed the data related
to repeatability and reproducibility of different
antenna azimuth adjustment mechanisms. The
results demonstrated up to 10 degrees of error in
simple global positioning system (GPS)-based
adjustment methods. More advanced mecha-
nisms can provide accuracies within 5 degrees
with 95 percent probability of confidence.
Figure 3 illustrates another element used in the
study that is the subject of this paper: the
correlation of errors between sectors of the same
site. Scenario A illustrates the traditional
technique of pointing antennas individually,
leading to independent error in each sector.
This paper proposes using a technique that
offers a consistent error or the same error for
antennas belonging to the same site. In this
technique, shown in Scenario B, the azimuths of
the second and third antennas are adjusted
relative to the azimuth of the first-installed
antenna. This paper shows that this scenario,
offered by recent installation techniques,
provides better network performance than the
traditional method.
SIMULATION MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS
T his paper examines two example network
clusters—one with 20 sites and one with
42 sites—that were simulated using planning and
optimization tools. These clusters are shown in
Figure 4. The simulation results help to analyze
the effect of azimuth and tilt settings on some
aspects of network performance. The following
tasks were included in the study:
• Select cluster areas, antenna types, default
site configuration, and system parameters
• Develop simulation scenarios, objectives,
and plans
• Develop project setup in the planning and
optimization tools and configure all the
parameters

Error = γ Error = ∝ Error = ∝ Error = ∝

Field Azimuth Field Azimuth

Designed Azimuth Designed Azimuth

Error = β Error = ∝

Scenario A Scenario B

Figure 3. Correlation of Errors Between Sectors of the Same Site

Scenario A – Traditional Azimuth Setting; Scenario B – Proposed Azimuth Setting

(a) (b)

Figure 4. Cluster Area Elevation Map

(a) 20 UMTS Sites – Traffic and Coverage Relevant Area: 17.17 km2
(b) 42 UMTS Sites – Traffic and Coverage Relevant Area: 26.14 km2

January 2006 • Volume 4, Number 1 3

 • Optimize all antenna azimuths and tilts using In the next step, a series of simulations were
recursive optimization algorithms (This performed to investigate the effect of azimuth
design will be considered to be the baseline and tilt errors on network performance. For both
design.) Scenarios A and B, a variety of errors were
• Execute the simulation and record the introduced for all the antennas. These errors were
statistics for the above scenarios and error randomly distributed among the cells. For each
parameters error set, the simulation was executed repeatedly
until a steady, consistent result was achieved.
• Analyze the data and compile the final Then the performance statistics, including
graphs coverage, interference, and soft handoff area
A standard default site configuration was were calculated and compared. Performance
considered. Cell sites included in the test cluster statistics were recorded and then analyzed to
UMTS network had the following configuration parameters: produce the final graphs.
performance
• Antenna radiation center heights in the The exercises described above were performed
sensitivity to range of 20 to 25 meters multiple times, each using a different antenna
azimuth and tilt type. The results help provide an understanding
• Node B transmission power = 20 watts
error increases of the effect of antenna types on the performance
• Pilot power = 2 watts graphs and conclusions. Overall behavior is
as beamwidth
• Traffic load = 50 percent, uniform distribution consistent with antennas having the same
is reduced. horizontal and vertical beamwidth. UMTS
• Total antenna feeder loss = 3 dB
network performance sensitivity to azimuth and
• Frequency = 2,150 MHz (downlink) tilt error increases as beamwidth is reduced. The
Two example projects were created in the relationship between error type and beamwidth
planning and optimization tools using the above is as follows:
configuration parameters. Other UMTS system • Horizontal beamwidth ↔ Azimuth error
parameters were set to default values. In the
baseline design, antenna azimuth and tilt • Vertical beamwidth ↔ Tilt error
configurations were optimized for maximum Simulation results presented in this paper were
overall performance of the test cluster. Therefore, performed with antennas that have 65-degree
changes in these parameters would result in horizontal beamwidth and 7-degree vertical
reduced network performance. Antenna azimuth beamwidth, which is considered to be a typical
and tilt were optimized using an automated antenna type in most UMTS networks.
recursive optimization tool (Radioplan GmbH’s
Wireless Network System [WiNeS]). The tool
prediction parameters and path loss matrix were SIMULATION RESULTS
tuned using drive test data. For the baseline
design, a simulation was performed, including
coverage, interference, and soft handoff analysis.
S imulation results are presented in Figures 5, 6,
and 7. Figure 5 considers a simple single site

Single Site Coverage Versus Antenna Azimuth Error Single Site Coverage Versus Antenna Tilt Error
100 105
RSCP < –86 dBm RSCP < –86 dBm

99.5 100
Normalized Coverage Area

99
Normalized Coverage Area

95
98.5
90
98
85
97.5
80
97

96.5 75

96 70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Average Antenna Azimuth Error Average Antenna Tilt Error
(a) (b)

Figure 5. Network Performance Versus Antenna Azimuth and Tilt Installation Error in a Single-Site Configuration
(a) Azimuth Error; (b) Tilt Error

4 Bechtel Telecommunications Technical Journal

 Coverage Gap Versus Antenna Azimuth Error Coverage Gap Versus Antenna Tilt Error
7 16
RSCP < –86 dBm, A RSCP < –86 dBm
RSCP < –86 dBm, B 14 RSCP < –92 dBm
6

Increase in Coverage Gap (Percentage)

Increase in Coverage Gap (Percentage)

RSCP < –92 dBm, A

RSCP < –92 dBm, B 12
5
10
4 8

3 6

4
2
2
1
0

0 –2
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Average Antenna Azimuth Error Average Antenna Tilt Error

(a) Area with RSCP < –86 dBm = 12.32%, Area with RSCP < –92 dBm = 4.80%

QoS Gap Versus Antenna Azimuth Error QoS Gap Versus Antenna Tilt Error
4.5 2.5
Ec /Io < –12 dB, A Ec /Io < –12 dB
Increase in Service Quality Gap (Percentage)
Increase in Service Quality Gap (Percentage)

4 Ec /Io < –12 dB, B Ec /Io < –13 dB

Ec /Io < –13 dB, A 2
Ec /Io < –13 dB, B
3.5

3 1.5

2.5
1
2

1.5 0.5

1
0
0.5

0 –0.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Average Antenna Azimuth Error Average Antenna Tilt Error

b) Area with Ec /Io < –12 dB = 4.0%, Area with Ec /Io < –13 dB = 1.01%

Soft Handoff Area Versus Antenna Azimuth Error Soft Handoff Area Versus Antenna Tilt Error
10 1
SHO Margin = 3 dB
9 SHO Margin = 5 dB, A SHO Margin = 5 dB
Increase in Soft Handoff Area (Percentage)
Increase in Soft Handoff Area (Percentage)

SHO Margin = 5 dB, B 0

SHO Margin = 3 dB, A
8
SHO Margin = 3 dB, B
7 –1

6
–2
5
–3
4

3 –4
2
–5
1

0 –6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Average Antenna Azimuth Error Average Antenna Tilt Error

(c) Soft Handoff Area = 28.05% (Soft Handoff Margin = 5 dB),

Soft Handoff Area = 17.58% (Soft Handoff Margin = 3 dB)

Figure 6. Performance Graphs for 42-Site Cluster

January 2006 • Volume 4, Number 1 5

 Coverage Gap Versus Antenna Azimuth Error Coverage Gap Versus Antenna Tilt Error
2 7
– RSCP < –86 dBm
RSCP < –86 dBm, A
1.8 RSCP < –92 dBm
RSCP < –86 dBm, B 6

Increase in Coverage Gap (Percentage)

Increase in Coverage Gap (Percentage)

RSCP < –92 dBm, A
1.6 RSCP < –92 dBm, B
5
1.4
4
1.2

1 3

0.8 2
0.6
1
0.4
0
0.2

0 –1
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Average Antenna Azimuth Error Average Antenna Tilt Error

(a) Area with RSCP < –86 dBm = 5.76%, Area with RSCP < –92 dBm = 2.0%

QoS Gap Versus Antenna Azimuth Error QoS Gap Versus Antenna Tilt Error
4.5 4
Ec /Io < –12 dB, A Ec /Io < –12 dB
4
Increase in Service Quality Gap (Percentage)

Increase in Service Quality Gap (Percentage)

Ec /Io < –12 dB, B 3.5 Ec /Io < –13 dB
Ec /Io < –13 dB, A
3.5 Ec /Io < –13 dB, B
3
3
2.5
2.5
2
2
1.5
1.5
1
1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Average Antenna Azimuth Error Average Antenna Tilt Error

(b) Area with Ec /Io < –12 dB = 4.42%, Area with Ec /Io < –13 dB = 0.94%

Soft Handoff Area Versus Antenna Azimuth Error Soft Handoff Area Versus Antenna Tilt Error
8 1
SHO Margin = 5 dB, A
SHO Margin = 5 dB, B SHO Margin = 3 dB
7
Increase in Soft Handoff Area (Percentage)

Increase in Soft Handoff Area (Percentage)

SHO Margin = 3 dB, A 0 SHO Margin = 5 dB

SHO Margin = 3 dB, B
6
–1
5
–2
4
–3
3

–4
2

1 –5

0 –6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 –3 –2 –1 0 1 2 3
Average Antenna Azimuth Error Average Antenna Tilt Error

(c) Soft Handoff Area = 36.34% (Soft Handoff Margin = 5 dB),

Soft Handoff Area = 23.0% (Soft Handoff Margin = 3 dB)

Figure 7. Performance Graphs for 20-Site Cluster

6 Bechtel Telecommunications Technical Journal

configuration to provide an initial reference result
for comparison purposes. In this example no
interference or inter-cell soft handoff areas exist;
only coverage plots are shown. Only Scenario A
was considered because in Scenario B all the site’s
antennas were rotated with the same azimuth
error; therefore, overall coverage performance
did not change.
As illustrated in Figure 5a, coverage shrinks
when azimuth error increases. Coverage is
reduced by 4 percent when there is a 30-degree
error in azimuth setting. The coverage area has an
almost inverse linear relationship with azimuth
error. Figure 5b shows that coverage is also very
sensitive to downtilt errors. Coverage changes up
to 29 percent when downtilt error varies in the
range of –3 to +3 degrees. This example shows a
system with no interference and inter-cell soft
handoff coverage. To study and capture real
network performance behavior, multiple sites
are needed.
Figure 6 shows the results for a 20-site cluster,
and Figure 7 shows the results for a 42-site
cluster. These provide realistic examples in
performance graphs.
Azimuth errors in the range of 0 to 30 degrees
were considered for both Scenarios A and B. Tilt
errors varied between –3 and +3 degrees. The
areas are represented as the percentage of the
cluster area. The performance graphs are
categorized by coverage area, coverage quality,
and soft handoff area.
Coverage Area
Coverage area is measured in reference to
received signal code power (RSCP). Two
definitions were considered for coverage gap: the
area with less than –86 dBm RSCP and the area
with less than –92 dBm RSCP. Figures 6a and 7a
show the variations in coverage gaps when there
are inconsistencies in antenna azimuth and tilt
settings. A higher coverage percentage and
fewer coverage gaps is desirable when
implementing a UMTS network.
Coverage Quality
Quality of service (QoS) or coverage quality is
measured by Ec/Io. Two definitions were
considered for QoS gap: the area with Ec/Io less
than –12 dB and the area with Ec/Io less than
–13 dB. Figures 6b and 7b show the variations in
areas with QoS gaps when there are incon-
sistencies in antenna azimuth and tilt settings. A
higher QoS and fewer QoS gaps is desirable when
implementing a UMTS network.
January 2006 • Volume 4, Number 1
Soft Handoff Area
Soft handoff area is defined as the area covered
by more than one sector belonging to different
Node Bs. Two different settings were considered
for soft handoff threshold. Performance graphs
are shown for soft handoff areas when the soft
handoff margin is 3 dB and 5 dB. Figures 6c and
7c show the variations in soft handoff areas when
there are inconsistencies in antenna azimuth and
tilt settings. It is desirable to achieve the target
soft handoff area recommended by the service
operator when implementing a UMTS network.
A smaller soft handoff area results in increased Azimuth error
call drop rate, and a higher soft handoff area in the range of
results in inefficient use of radio resources and
6 to 8 degrees
excessive interference.
is tolerable,
Careful investigation of the results of the graphs
depending on
in Figures 6 and 7 leads to the following
conclusions: the installation
scenario and initial
• Antenna Azimuth: Network performance
coverage area.
variations depend on antenna azimuth error
variations and the installation process.
Overall degradation in Scenario B is 40 to 60
percent less than in Scenario A. Therefore,
the same error in all sectors is preferable.
Azimuth error in the range of 6 to 8 degrees
is tolerable, depending on the installation
scenario and initial coverage area.
Performance degrades noticeably if the error
is greater than 10 degrees. Soft handoff
areas are the least sensitive to azimuth
error. The coverage gap is 30 percent
greater with 30 degrees of error in antenna
azimuth. A comparison of the coverage
graphs in Figures 6 and 7 shows that when
the coverage/quality gap is smaller, its
sensitivity to error is higher.
• Antenna Tilt: Both coverage and quality
performances are very sensitive to antenna
tilt variations. There is up to a 100 percent
increase in coverage and quality gaps with
±3 degrees of tilt error. Soft handoff areas are
the least sensitive to tilt error. The graphs in
Figures 6c and 7c show less than a 10 percent
variation in soft handoff area with ±3 degrees
of tilt error.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
B oth the 20- and 42-site examples produce
consistent network performance behavior
and lead to the same conclusions. If equal errors
are introduced to cell site sectors, there is less
network performance degradation (Scenario A),
compared with random errors (Scenario B). For
7
 practical purposes, azimuth error in the range
of 6 to 8 degrees is tolerable for network
performance. Performance degradation is
noticeable if the azimuth error is greater than
10 degrees. Network performance is almost ten
times more sensitive to antenna tilt variations,
compared with azimuth variations. Both
coverage and quality gaps increase by up to
100 percent with ±3 degrees of tilt error.
If possible, only one antenna should be oriented
and the other antenna azimuths set in reference
to that one (Scenario B). However, rooftop size
Both coverage
and configuration may interfere with this
and quality gaps
recommendation. If Scenario B installation
increase by up techniques can be applied to the site, simpler
to 100 percent methods (instead of the more expensive methods)
with ±3 degrees have the same effect on network performance.
of tilt error. Considering these conclusions, the following
UMTS network implementation standard can be
Tilt setting
practically recommended for antenna azimuth
tolerance of
and tilt tolerances:
±0.5 degrees
1. For the Scenario A technique: Azimuth
is recommended.
setting tolerance of ±6 degrees
2. For the Scenario B technique: Azimuth
setting tolerance of ±8 degrees
3. For both scenarios: Tilt setting tolerance of
±0.5 degrees
The cluster with more sites experiences less
network quality degradation due to azimuth and
tilt errors. However, this could be a subject for
further studies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
T he authors would like to thank Lacy Kiser
from the Bechtel Six Sigma Team and Jeff
Bryson from the Bechtel Construction Team for
the valuable data and information they provided.
Special thanks go to Radioplan GmbH for
providing WiNeS software for this study.
REFERENCES
[1] Six Sigma PIP TI-81, Report and Data Analysis,
Bechtel Telecommunications, 2005.
[2] E. Dinan, “UMTS RF Network Optimization
Process,” Document Number 3DP-T04G-50009,
Bechtel Telecommunications Network Planning
Department, 2005.
8 Bechtel Telecommunications Technical Journal
BIOGRAPHIES
Esmael Dinan, a senior
RF technologist with Bechtel
Telecommunications, has
been instrumental in many
aspects of the business unit’s
research activities and
the Cingular RF engineering
project. He has designed
and engineered an RF
engineering data management system, developed
Cingular project RF engineering processes and
procedures, designed UMTS networks, and
verified and tested Dupont cryogenic TMA
performance.
Before joining Bechtel in 2002, Dr. Dinan
was product manager for the GMPLS control
plane of the RAYStar DWDM optical switch
at Movaz Networks, and lead network
architect at MCI. He has conducted research
and development on access methods and
performance modeling of 3G wireless commu-
nications and high-speed optical networks.
Dr. Dinan received his PhD in Electrical
Engineering from George Mason University,
Fairfax, Virginia, and is a registered Professional
Engineer in Maryland. He has authored more
than 25 conference papers and journal articles
and has filed a patent on a novel signaling
mechanism developed for 3G cellular networks.
He is a member of the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers.
Aleksey Kurochkin is
currently senior director,
Site Development and
Engineering, in the Bechtel
Telecommunications
Technology group, a group
that he originated. He is
experienced in international
telecommunications
business management and network imple-
mentation. Before joining Bechtel, he worked
at Hughes Network Systems, where he built
an efficient multi-product team focused on
RF planning and system engineering. His
engineering and marketing background has
given him both theoretical and hands-on
knowledge of most wireless technologies.
Aleksey has an MSEE/CS degree in Automatic
Telecommunications from Moscow Technical
University of Communications and Informatics,
Russia.