Coverage Verification

TWS
Simon Cavenett
Telecom Wireless Solutions Inc. 1999 Wireless Engineering Comforum Dallas, 1 Nov 1999
TWS
Link Budgets A link budget is determined for an isolated cell Based on assumptions and equipment specifications Is used to derive a coverage design Is not a direct measure of system coverage or quality
2
scavenett@tws-inc.com
TWS
Frequency
MHz
850.00
Re ve rs e Link Budge t Analys is
RF Channel Bandwidth MHz Data Rate (9.6/14.40) Kbps Des preading P roces s ing Gain dB
Link Budgets
cdmaOne example
Coverage design purposes Single cell basis
Thermal Nois e P ower Dens ity, KT dBm/Hz Vendor BTS Nois e Figure dB BTS Nois e Floor dBm Revers e Link Eb/No target dB Minimum C/I (= Eb/No - P roces s ing Gain) dB BTS Receiver "S ens itivity" (= Nois e Floor + Minimum C/I) dBm Mobile EIRP (as s ume 0dBi antenna gain) dBm Average BTS Antenna Gain for S ys tem dBi Average BTS Antenna Type for S ys tem Average BTS Receive Feeder Los s (incl. Jumpers & connectors ) dB Max. Allowable Los s (50%P s , No Load) dB Body/Head Los s Margin dB Building/Vehicle P enetration Los s Margin dB Coverage Relibility Criteria at Cell Edge % S tandard Deviation dB Total Margins minus S oft Handoff Gain dB Maximum Allowable P ath Los s (Unloaded S ys tem) dB Average Cell Revers e Link Load % Load Fluctuation Margin dB Maximum Allowable P ath Los s dB Pilot Power dBm Prediction Tool Coverage Thresholds (50% Reverse Load) dBm
1.2288 P le as antville Ce llular 14kB/s 14.40 cdmaOne 800MHz Overlay 19.31 No v-99 Dens e Light Urban Urban S uburban Highway Rural -174.00 -174.00 -174.00 -174.00 -174.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 -107.11 -107.11 -107.11 -107.11 -107.11 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 -12.31 -12.31 -12.31 -12.31 -12.31 -119.42 -119.42 -119.42 -119.42 -119.42 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 23.00 15.20 15.20 15.20 12.20 12.20 90-s ector 90-s ector 90-s ector omni omni 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 155.62 155.62 155.62 152.62 152.62 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 16.00 12.00 9.00 7.00 0.00 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 20.68 16.68 13.68 11.68 4.68 134.94 138.94 141.94 140.94 147.94 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 131.43 135.43 138.43 137.43 144.43 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 -84 -88 -91 -93 -100 Dens e Light Urban Urban S uburban Highway Rural
Notes: Use default Pilot Power (at BTS output) = +34dBm (2.51 W) Use default Paging Power = 75% of Pilot = 2.51*0.75 = 1.88 W (+32.7dBm) Use default Sync Power = 10% of Pilot = 2.51*0.10 = 0.25 W (+24dBm) Assume average feeder & connector losses = 2dB Therefore EiRP to use equals 34 - feeder loss + antenna_gain ( = 35 -3 + 17 = 49dBm for 17dBi antenna) Coverage Reliability (Probablity) used as 75% Cell Edge, 90% Cell Area for all morphologies Antenna Model DB874H83 DB810 ALP-11011 PD-10017 Antenna Type sector omni sector omni Antenna Gain dBd 12.5 10.0 10.7 10.0 Pilot Power dBm 34.0 34.0 34.0 34.0 Feeder Loss (incl. Jumpers and connectors) dBm 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Prediction Tool Sector TX EIRP dBm 46.65 44.15 44.85 44.15 Antenna Model SA-13 ALP-8013-n Antenna Type sector sector Antenna Gain dBd 13.0 12.5 Pilot Power dBm 34.0 34.0 Feeder Loss (incl. Jumpers and connectors) dBm 2.0 2.0 Prediction Tool Sector TX EIRP dBm 47.15 46.65
PD 1110 omni 9.0 34.0 2.0 43.15
TWS
Cell Edge Reliability Probability that the RF signal strength measured on a circular contour at the cell edge will meet or exceed a desired threshold
TWS
Cell Area Reliability (Availability) Probability that the RF signal will meet or exceed a threshold after integrating the contour probabilities over the entire area of the cell
TWS
Cell Area Reliability (Availability)

Area reliability determined from edge reliability
105 100
% Cell Area Reliability
95 90 85 80 75 70 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % Cell Edge Reliability
NOTE: This plot is for a slope of 35 dB/decade and standard deviation of 8 dB
TWS

Area reliability determined from edge reliability
1
CELL EDGE RELIABILTY
0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70
AREA RELIABILITY
0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50
10/B
Decreasing Radius, R
7
0.95
TWS

= standard deviation of lognormal shadowing (e.g., 8dB) B = path loss slope (e.g., 35db/decade) From curves, 75% cell edge reliability corresponds to about 90% Area Reliability Increasing required cell edge reliability forces increased fade margin for link budget Forces decreased cell radius for design
Reference: Reudink, D., Properties of Mobile Propagation above 400MHz, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technology, Vol VT-23, pp. 143-160, Nov. 1974
TWS
CELL INTERIOR
RSL (dBm)
Cell Radius = R = 10
y x y B= x
CELL RADIUS MEAN PATH LOSS
-(PTHRESH + FM-A)/B
Note that the Cell Radius is defined explicitly in terms of the quality of coverage Cell Edge Reliability, F(z)
z -t2
PTHRESH
F(z)= - R + R
R FADE = FM=z MARGIN
1 2
dt
1 km
log10 r Typical Fade Margins: =8 dB 0.675=for F(z)=75% => FM = 5.4 dB 1.282=for F(z)=90% => FM = 10.2 dB
TWS
log10(Cell Radius)
Lower Margins Rural
Dense Urban
log10R
Area Reliability
Fu 100%
10
TWS
QoS Considerations Link Budget is for isolated cell Does not predict system performance Design Tool QoS determinants in link Budget do not match measured QoS for a system System is typically cellular Multiple cells overlapping to form coverage QoS for single (isolated) cell is not objective However, system required QoS thresholds are normally used for Link Budget purposes.
11
TWS
Early Systems Pre AMPS Even early AMPS deployments Few sites or cells Relative antenna height often > 100m Interference & Re-Use Issues were lower priority Knowing where cell edge lay was relatively unimportant as long as target area was covered Generally, more coverage was a good thing
12
TWS
2G Systems Multiple sites in cellular layout Relative antenna height usually < 100m Interference and Re-Use important Capacity requirements Cell overlap required for handoff Knowledge and control of cell edge important Excessive overlap causes capacity trade-off and QoS trade-offs
13
TWS
3G Systems Legacy 2G sites must be used where possible

Shifting trend to co-location (common) sites
Primarily for business purposes Allows venture to focus on core competencies Focus of investment funds toward maximizing deployment Outsourcing of site ownership and management American Tower Crown Castle Divine Towers
Relative antenna height << 100m

Capacity requirements Community/environmental pressure More micro and pico sized BTS systems and technology Increasing demand for customised coverage solutions
14
TWS
3G Systems Increasing demand for wireline-like performance

Wireless loop services (in lieu of wireline) 90% area availability insufficient 99% or better desired to be comparable
Providing higher area reliabilities (availabilities) is the biggest challenge Coverage must be provided from at least one single cell to any indivudual target sample
Must be above minimum thresholds Else optimization is of no assistance
15
TWS
Designs for deployment Prior to system build, predictive models are assumption and estimate based Morphology classifications Clutter loss assumptions Very simplistic gross assumptions used Terrain data accuracy Land Use data accuracy Infrastructure specifications and assumptions Simple propagation model usually used Cost-231 Okumura Hata For macro cells, multipath far-field model used Near field and high equal mulipath environments may not be well modelled (dense urban) Above clutter relative antenna height often assumed 16
TWS
Designs for Deployment Usually predictive model tuning is performed Not all sites may be tested Often a set of typical tuned models according to morphology are produced In error unless environment is similar for all as classified Accuracy of tuned models depends on amount and quality of measured data collected Project and real world constraints may limit the data sets Data collection methods may have been flawed
17
TWS
QoS Requirements Verification is done on operational system Predictive tools prior to deployment at best estimate not simulate resultant system performance Direct measurements FER RSSI RxQual Interference Ratios (e.g., Eb/No) Link setup/access and drops
18
TWS
QoS Requirements Verification is done on operational system Confirmation is necessary from both sides System measurements via operational measurements and metrics Field based performance from within the target coverage area System only data can never truly represent coverage reliability Non-coverage spots are not represented Events occurring outside target coverage boundary (e.g., user experiences spot with no coverage so system cannot be aware of this) included (e.g., link drop as user travels outside coverage area of system)
19
TWS
QoS Requirements The Quandary Area Reliability requirements are normally specified for system wide But for design purposes, this is applied to single cell algorithms In the real world, events happen in the user space not across the entire system The user experiences performance in a very small sample of the system area An area-wide performance threshold, by definition, does not directly and equally apply to sample spaces
20
TWS
QoS Requirements Area Reliability 90% area reliability threshold allows 10% area to be below the threshold This 10% vary in distribution across the target coverage area An area-based quality requirement does not directly equal a time-based quality requirement 90% by area does not equal 90% of the time in any one location in the area !
21
TWS
QoS Impacts for 3G Increasing demand for wireless systems to provide wireline reliabilities and availabilities Wireline performance is normally specified as temporal not spatial e.g., 99% availability of dial-tone when off-hook e.g., 99.995% availability of data routes Wireless performance is normally specified as spatial not temporal Mobility and WLL Systems e.g., 90% area reliability or better e.g.. 2% FER average by area e.g., 2% link drop by area
22
TWS
QoS Impacts for 3G For 3G systems, focus shifts to packet data rather than voice. Packet Data Different QoS requirements according to data type Voice Video Data (files, web pages, email) Latency Packet Errors / Discards / Re-transmits Bandwidth / Data Rates Dynamic rates and allocations
23
TWS
QoS Impacts for 3G Area based reliability QoS criteria fit less well More temporal-based criteria apply
24
TWS
Conclusions Current 2G QoS Criteria and Measurement Methods insufficient Voice no longer the primary information transmitted Data Types and dynamic rates require a set of QoS criteria rather than a one size fits all Area-based criteria have less relevance to actual performance Time-based criteria more relevance to actual performance Ubiquitous coverage across entire target coverage area is demanded Push for wireline performance equivalence expect more blurring of distinctions and expectations Transmission technology required to be more transparent to the end user and applications.
25
TWS
26

Coverage Verification

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coverage Verification

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TWS

Re ve rs e Link Budge t Analys is

PD 1110 omni 9.0 34.0 2.0 43.15

Cell Area Reliability (Availability)

% Cell Area Reliability

95 90 85 80 75 70 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % Cell Edge Reliability

NOTE: This plot is for a slope of 35 dB/decade and standard deviation of 8 dB

Cell Area Reliability (Availability)

0.9 0.85 0.8 0.75 0.7 0.65 0.6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50

Cell Area Reliability (Availability)

Lower Margins Rural

3G Systems Legacy 2G sites must be used where possible

Relative antenna height << 100m

3G Systems Increasing demand for wireline-like performance

You might also like