Comparison of Asset and Atoll

Cellular Planning tools for LTE

Network Planning

Hormoz Parsian 85014K

Department of Communication and Networking
Supervisor: Prof. Jyri Hämäläinen
Instructor: Dr. Kimmo Mäkeläinen
This Master’s thesis was conducted at
Nokia Siemens Networks
5/22/2012 1
Outline of the work:
• Introduction
 Background
 Research question
 Methodology
• Propagation Models
 Hata Models
 Standard Propagation Models in the Tools
 Deriving Equivalent Parameters
• Coverage Analysis
 Coverage Analysis with original constant term in Atoll propagation model
 Coverage Analysis with optimum constant term in Atoll propagation model
• Interference Analysis
 Analysis of Number of Covering Cells in Asset
 Interference Analysis for Outdoor Users
 Interference Analysis for Indoor Users
• Capacity Analysis
 Capacity Analysis of LTE services
 Capacity Analysis for MIMO modes
 Capacity Analysis of Scheduling Algorithms
• Conclusions and Future Works

5/22/2012 2
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
 Planning results of the first tool have to be reproduced in the second one

5/22/2012 3
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 4
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 5
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 Okumura-
Hata models
• Hata model is derived from Okumura’s 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 6
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 7
Propagation Models
• Standard Propagation Models (SPM):
• SPM in Asset is presented below:

𝒑𝒂𝒕𝒉𝒍𝒐𝒔𝒔
𝑳𝑱𝑲 𝒅𝑩 = 𝑨 + 𝑩 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝒅 + 𝑪𝒎

Where:

𝑨 = 𝒌𝟏 + 𝒌𝟑 𝑯𝑴𝑺 + 𝒌𝟒 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝑯𝑴𝑺 + 𝒌𝟓 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝑯𝒆𝒇𝒇

𝑩 = 𝒌𝟐 + 𝒌𝟔 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝑯𝒆𝒇𝒇

𝑪𝒎 = 𝒌𝟕 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔 + 𝑪𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔

• In Asset distances between BS and MS are in kilometers.

5/22/2012 8
Propagation Models
• Standard Propagation Models (SPM):
• SPM in Atoll is presented below:

𝑳𝒅𝑩 𝒅𝑩 = 𝑨 + 𝑩 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝒅 + 𝑪𝒎

Where

𝑨 = 𝑲𝟏 + 𝑲𝟑 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝑯𝑻𝑿𝒆𝒇𝒇 + 𝑲𝟔 𝑯𝑹𝑿𝒆𝒇𝒇 + 𝑲𝟕 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝑯𝑹𝑿𝒆𝒇𝒇

𝑩 = 𝑲𝟐 + 𝑲𝟓 𝐥𝐨𝐠 𝟏𝟎 𝑯𝑻𝑿𝒆𝒇𝒇

𝑪𝒎 = 𝑲𝟒 𝑫𝒊𝒇𝒇𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑳𝒐𝒔𝒔 + 𝑲𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 𝒇 𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓 + 𝑲𝒉𝒊𝒍𝒍,𝑳𝑶𝑺

• 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 9
Propagation models
• Deriving Equivalent Parameters
• 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:

Asset coefficients Atoll coefficients Asset coefficients Atoll coefficients

k5 = -13.88 K5 = k6 = -6.55
k1= 158.92 dB K1= k1 – 3k2 = 24.22

k6 = -6.55 K6 = k 3 = 0
k2 = 44.9 K2 = k2 = 44.9

k7 = 0.8 K7 = k 4 = 0
k3 = 0 K3 = k5 – 3k6 = 5.83

-- Kclutter = 1
k4 = 0 K4 = k7 = 0.8
-- Khill.LOS = 0

5/22/2012 10
Propagation Models
• Deriving Equivalent Parameters
• 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
• Deriving Equivalent Parameters
• 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) % 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
5/22/2012 13
-125.00 <= x < -120.00 0.262 0.268
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).

RS EPRE Interval (dBm) % Coverage Area in % Coverage Area in RS EPRE Interval (dBm) % Coverage Area in % Coverage Area in
Asset (k1= 158.92 Atoll (K1= 22.82 dB) Asset (k1= 158.92 dB) Atoll (K1= 22.82 dB)
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 Atoll’s.
Asset coefficients Atoll coefficients
k1= 158.92 K1= k1 – 3k2 – (1.4)= 24.22
However, such differences do not
k2 = 44.9 K2 = k2 = 44.9
lead to significant differences in
k3 = 0 K3 = k5 – 3k6 = 5.83 interference and capacity
k4 = 0 K4 = k7 = 0.8 analysis. Thus original
k5 = -13.88 K5 = k6 = -6.55 propagation models derived in
k6 = -6.55 K6 = k3 = 0 previous chapter would be used
k7 = 0.8 K7 = k4 = 0 for further analysis
-- Kclutter = 1
-- Khill.LOS = 0

5/22/2012 17
Interference Analysis
• 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
Interference Analysis
• Analysis of Number of Covering Cells in Asset
• 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 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 20
Interval (dB)

-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

5/22/2012 19
Interference Analysis
• Analysis of Number of Covering Cells in Asset

5/22/2012 20
Interference Analysis
• 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%.
DLRS SINR Asset Atoll DLRS Difference
DLRS SINR Asset DLRS SINR Atoll DLRS SINR Difference 10<=x<15 18.23 11.85 6.38
Interval (dB) distribution distribution 5<=x<10 26.83 22.08 4.75
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 21
Interference Analysis
• Interference Analysis for Outdoor Users (DLRS)

• 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
Interference Analysis
• Interference Analysis for Outdoor Users (DLRS)
• 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.
• 𝑫𝑳𝑹𝑺 𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑹 𝑨𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒍 = 𝑪𝑫𝑳𝑹𝑺 𝑫𝑳𝑹𝑺 𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑹 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒕

• 𝑪𝑫𝑳𝑹𝑺
𝒅𝑩 = −𝟑. 𝟎𝟗 𝒅𝑩

• Table and plot next page represent DLRS SINR of the tools when the
conversion factor in incorporated.

5/22/2012 23
Interference Analysis
• Interference Analysis for Outdoor Users (DLRS)
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
• 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.

• 𝑻𝑪𝑯 𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑹 𝑨𝒕𝒐𝒍𝒍 = 𝑪𝑻𝑪𝑯 𝑻𝑪𝑯 𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑹 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒕

• 𝑪𝑻𝑪𝑯
𝒅𝑩 = −𝟑. 𝟐𝟕 𝒅𝑩

This plot represents the DL TCH SINR

distributions of the tools after
incorporating the conversion factor in
Asset.

5/22/2012 25
Interference Analysis
• 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, 𝑪𝑻𝑪𝑯
𝒅𝑩 = −𝟑. 𝟐𝟕 𝒅𝑩 , 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
5/22/2012 27
V3 20
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
Highest and lowest bearer (DL) LTE_01 and LTE_12
5/22/2012 Highest and lowest bearer (UL) LTE_01 and LTE_12 28
Capacity Analysis
• Capacity Analysis by Investigating LTE Services
• 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
• Capacity Analysis by Investigating LTE Services
• 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

Highest and lowest bearer (DL) LTE_DL_12 and LTE_DL_1

Highest and lowest bearer (UL) 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
Total peak RLC throughput of network DL 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
Asset.
5/22/2012 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
• Capacity Analysis by Investigating MIMO Modes
• Modified SINR requirements for bearers in Asset are obtained from
following formula:

𝑫𝒍,𝒓𝒆𝒒,𝑺𝑴 𝑫𝒍,𝒓𝒆𝒒 𝑫𝒍,𝑺𝑴 𝒐𝒇𝒇𝒔𝒆𝒕

𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑹𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒓 = 𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑹𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒓 + 𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑹𝑫𝒍,𝑺𝑴
𝒃𝒆𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒓
𝒅𝒆𝒍𝒕𝒂
+ 𝑺𝑰𝑵𝑹𝒄𝒍𝒖𝒕𝒕𝒆𝒓

• In the original Asset parameters for LTE downlink bearers, the SU-MIMO
𝐷𝑙,𝑆𝑀 𝑑𝑒𝑙𝑡𝑎
SINR Delta values, 𝑆𝐼𝑁𝑅𝑏𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑟 , were given with the wrong sign. This
error was corrected in Asset.

5/22/2012 32
Capacity Analysis
• Capacity Analysis by Investigating MIMO Modes
• 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
• Capacity Analysis by Investigating Scheduling Methods
• 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
• Capacity Analysis by Investigating Scheduling Methods
• 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
Total peak RLC throughput of network DL 1913199.47 1162241.99 750958.48 64.61
(kbps)
5/22/2012 36
Capacity Analysis
• Capacity Analysis by Investigating Scheduling Methods
• 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