TECHNICAL PAPER

Title: Authors: Date: Publication/Venue: The Impacts of Antenna Azimuth and Tilt Installation Accuracy on UMTS Network Performance Esmael Dinan, Ph.D., Aleksey A. KurochkinBechtel Corporation January 2006 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
AbstractInconsistencies 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

ntenna azimuth and downtilt are two important optimization parameters in universal mobile telecommunications system (UMTS) networks. Optimization of these two parameters can significantly improve system performance. However, new networks sometimes use inefficient optimization techniques and implement default values. Furthermore, inconsistencies in setting these parameters during installation vary the network coverage and capacity. This paper presents the results of a quantitative study that investigated the effect of these parameters on UMTS network performance. Many techniques are used to measure antenna azimuth and tilt during installation. The accuracy in setting up the azimuth and tilt depends on the antenna installation processes and human and instrumentation errors. Inefficient implementation and rigging processes may also cause azimuth or tilt errors. The overall accuracy is within 10 degrees using most traditional techniques. Usually, antenna azimuth errors are independent for antennas belonging to different sectors. New processes and instruments may reduce these errors by several degrees, reduce randomness in antenna orientations, and bring errors consistently within the set tolerance. This paper investigates the effects of azimuth and tilt inaccuracies on network coverage and performance and considers the three main UMTS network system quality parameters: service

coverage, the ratio of chip energy to interference (Ec/Io), and soft handoff areas. Two exercises are defined. A variety of errors are introduced for all antennas, and a simulation is performed for each case. At the end, the results are compared and analyzed. Consistent use of the new antenna installation processes is promoted to limit the impact of inconsistencies. Suggestions are also provided on acceptable installation error limits for use as a baseline to develop implementation processes.

ANTENNA AZIMUTH AND TILT SETTINGS AND INCONSISTENCIES

ntenna azimuth and tilt errors (Figure 1) are randomly distributed among the sites and sectors. For the purpose of this paper, azimuth error is measured as the absolute difference between the actual azimuth installed in the field and the designed azimuth, as illustrated in Figure 1a. In this definition, all azimuth errors are positive. Tilt errors can be positive or negativeuptilt errors are considered negative, while downtilt errors are considered positive, as shown in Figure 1b. An antenna installation technician sets up the azimuth using a compass and alignment tool. On the top of the tower, the technician can use several mechanisms to install the antenna. However, the technicians capabilities are restricted by uncomfortable climbing status, limited time, limited available tools, and

Esmael Dinan, PhD

ehdinan@bechtel.com

Aleksey A. Kurochkin
aakuroch@bechtel.com

2006 Bechtel Corporation. All rights reserved.

ABBREVIATIONS, ACRONYMS, AND TERMS Ec/Io GPS KPI QoS RF RSCP UMTS ratio of chip energy to interference global positioning system key performance indicator quality of service radio frequency received signal code power universal mobile telecommunications system

The accuracy in setting up the azimuth and tilt depends on the antenna installation processes and human and instrumentation errors.

environmental factors. An example of an installation mechanism using landmarks and an optical alignment tool is shown in Figure 2. This figure shows two pre-specified landmarks for the technician to use from the top of the tower. In this example, the respective angles between the antenna aim point and Landmarks A and B are set to 40 degrees (counterclockwise) and 25 degrees (clockwise) from aim point to target. Once the alignment is set, antenna tilt is adjusted using a mechanical tilt bracket. Antenna tilt errors are caused by imperfect vertical adjustment of the antenna support structure.
Designed Tilt

Positive Error

Negative Error

Positive Error Field Azimuth

Designed Azimuth

(a)

(b)

Figure 1. Antenna Azimuth and Tilt Errors (a) Azimuth Error; (b) Tilt Error

Target A True North Optical Alignment Tool

f O fse tA ng le

50 Actual Bearing

40

Antenna Aim Point

O f fse

-25

t An

90 Specified Antenna Azimuth

gle

Target B

115 Actual Bearing

Antenna Support Structure

Figure 2. Example of an Antenna Azimuth Setup and Installation

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 mechanisms 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

his paper examines two example network clustersone with 20 sites and one with 42 sitesthat 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 = Field Azimuth

Error =

Error = Field Azimuth

Error =

Designed Azimuth

Designed Azimuth

Error =

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

 Optimize all antenna azimuths and tilts using recursive optimization algorithms (This design will be considered to be the baseline design.) Execute the simulation and record the statistics for the above scenarios and error parameters Analyze the data and compile the final graphs A standard default site configuration was considered. Cell sites included in the test cluster had the following configuration parameters: Antenna radiation center heights in the range of 20 to 25 meters Node B transmission power = 20 watts Pilot power = 2 watts Traffic load = 50 percent, uniform distribution Total antenna feeder loss = 3 dB Frequency = 2,150 MHz (downlink) Two example projects were created in the planning and optimization tools using the above configuration parameters. Other UMTS system parameters were set to default values. In the baseline design, antenna azimuth and tilt configurations were optimized for maximum overall performance of the test cluster. Therefore, changes in these parameters would result in reduced network performance. Antenna azimuth and tilt were optimized using an automated recursive optimization tool (Radioplan GmbHs Wireless Network System [WiNeS]). The tool prediction parameters and path loss matrix were tuned using drive test data. For the baseline design, a simulation was performed, including coverage, interference, and soft handoff analysis.
Single Site Coverage Versus Antenna Azimuth Error
100
RSCP < 86 dBm

UMTS network performance sensitivity to azimuth and tilt error increases as beamwidth is reduced.

In the next step, a series of simulations were performed to investigate the effect of azimuth and tilt errors on network performance. For both Scenarios A and B, a variety of errors were introduced for all the antennas. These errors were randomly distributed among the cells. For each error set, the simulation was executed repeatedly until a steady, consistent result was achieved. Then the performance statistics, including coverage, interference, and soft handoff area were calculated and compared. Performance statistics were recorded and then analyzed to produce the final graphs. The exercises described above were performed multiple times, each using a different antenna type. The results help provide an understanding of the effect of antenna types on the performance graphs and conclusions. Overall behavior is consistent with antennas having the same horizontal and vertical beamwidth. UMTS network performance sensitivity to azimuth and tilt error increases as beamwidth is reduced. The relationship between error type and beamwidth is as follows: Horizontal beamwidth Azimuth error Vertical beamwidth Tilt error Simulation results presented in this paper were performed with antennas that have 65-degree horizontal beamwidth and 7-degree vertical beamwidth, which is considered to be a typical antenna type in most UMTS networks.

SIMULATION RESULTS

imulation results are presented in Figures 5, 6, and 7. Figure 5 considers a simple single site

Single Site Coverage Versus Antenna Tilt Error

105
RSCP < 86 dBm

99.5

100

Normalized Coverage Area

Normalized Coverage Area

99 98.5 98 97.5 97 96.5 96 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

95 90 85 80 75 70 3

Average Antenna Azimuth Error (a)

Average Antenna Tilt Error (b)

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

Bechtel Telecommunications Technical Journal

Coverage Gap Versus Antenna Azimuth Error

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
RSCP < 86 dBm, A RSCP < 86 dBm, B RSCP < 92 dBm, A RSCP < 92 dBm, B

Coverage Gap Versus Antenna Tilt Error

16 14
RSCP < 86 dBm RSCP < 92 dBm

Increase in Coverage Gap (Percentage)

Increase in Coverage Gap (Percentage)

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 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

4.5 2.5

QoS Gap Versus Antenna Tilt Error Increase in Service Quality Gap (Percentage)
Ec /Io < 12 dB Ec /Io < 13 dB

Increase in Service Quality Gap (Percentage)

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

Ec /Io < 12 dB, A Ec /Io < 12 dB, B Ec /Io < 13 dB, A Ec /Io < 13 dB, B

1.5

0.5

10

15

20

25

30

0.5 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

10 1

Soft Handoff Area Versus Antenna Tilt Error Increase in Soft Handoff Area (Percentage)
SHO Margin = 3 dB SHO Margin = 5 dB

Increase in Soft Handoff Area (Percentage)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0

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

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 3

10

15

20

25

30

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

Coverage Gap Versus Antenna Azimuth Error

2 1.8
RSCP < 86 dBm, A RSCP < 86 dBm, B RSCP < 92 dBm, A RSCP < 92 dBm, B

Coverage Gap Versus Antenna Tilt Error

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
RSCP < 86 dBm RSCP < 92 dBm

Increase in Coverage Gap (Percentage)

1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0

Increase in Coverage Gap (Percentage)

10

15

20

25

30

1 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

4.5 4

QoS Gap Versus Antenna Tilt Error Increase in Service Quality Gap (Percentage)
Ec /Io < 12 dB Ec /Io < 13 dB

Increase in Service Quality Gap (Percentage)

4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0

Ec /Io < 12 dB, A Ec /Io < 12 dB, B Ec /Io < 13 dB, A Ec /Io < 13 dB, B

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

10

15

20

25

30

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

8 1
SHO Margin = 5 dB, A SHO Margin = 5 dB, B SHO Margin = 3 dB, A SHO Margin = 3 dB, B

Soft Handoff Area Versus Antenna Tilt Error

SHO Margin = 3 dB SHO Margin = 5 dB

Increase in Soft Handoff Area (Percentage)

Increase in Soft Handoff Area (Percentage)

15 20 25 30

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 3

10

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

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 sites 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 inconsistencies in antenna azimuth and tilt settings. A higher QoS and fewer QoS gaps is desirable when implementing a UMTS network.

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 call drop rate, and a higher soft handoff area results in inefficient use of radio resources and excessive interference. Careful investigation of the results of the graphs in Figures 6 and 7 leads to the following conclusions: Antenna Azimuth: Network performance 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.

Azimuth error in the range of 6 to 8 degrees is tolerable, depending on the installation scenario and initial coverage area.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

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

January 2006 Volume 4, Number 1

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 and configuration may interfere with this recommendation. If Scenario B installation techniques can be applied to the site, simpler methods (instead of the more expensive methods) have the same effect on network performance. Considering these conclusions, the following UMTS network implementation standard can be practically recommended for antenna azimuth and tilt tolerances: 1. For the Scenario A technique: Azimuth 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.

BIOGRAPHIES Esmael Dinan, a senior RF technologist with Bechtel Telecommunications, has been instrumental in many aspects of the business units 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 communications 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 implementation. 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.

Both coverage and quality gaps increase by up to 100 percent with 3 degrees of tilt error. Tilt setting tolerance of 0.5 degrees is recommended.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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] [2] Six Sigma PIP TI-81, Report and Data Analysis, Bechtel Telecommunications, 2005. E. Dinan, UMTS RF Network Optimization Process, Document Number 3DP-T04G-50009, Bechtel Telecommunications Network Planning Department, 2005.

Bechtel Telecommunications Technical Journal