SPOTS PROBLEM ANALYSIS

1. SURABAYA INNER 1

1.1. DROP CALL RATE 1.1.1 Gading Fajar ; Problem Description

Drop call rate often occurred when MSs served by Gading Fajar_2.

Figure 1. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA downlink Gading Fajar_2

TCH Loss Distribution Gading Fajar_2

Inter RLF Other T200 T_MSRFPCI DM_resp Seq_error 1.43% 0.00% 0.00% 5.71% 8.57% 40.00% 44.29%

RTF 0.00% HAF 0.00% Dist. 0.00% Intra 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

Figure 2. TCH loss distribution Gading Fajar_2

Analysis

From figure above, we can know the coverage for Gading Fajar_2 is too far. Ms can be served by this cell with TA=20 (10 km) but RXLEV under -95dBm.This situation give the big portion for drop call occur. Many TCH loss that caused by RLF. From Antenna adjustment and tuning database is needed to solve this problem.

Recommendation Check antenna orientation and tilting if possible. Tuning database to fix value. Check relation to neighbour sites. Problem Description

1.1.2 Driyorejo ;
Low performance of drop call rate for Driyorejo_3.

Figure 3. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA downlink Driyorejo_3

TCH Loss Distribution Driyorejo_3

Other RLF T200 Seq_error DM_resp 0.00% T_MSRFPCI 0.00% RTF 0.00% HAF 0.00% Dist. 0.00% Intra 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 1.75% 7.02% 19.30% 21.05%

Figure 4. TCH loss distribution Driyorejo_3

Analysis
Many TCH loss are caused by its far coverage. From TCH loss distribution, we can see that the main problem for drop is by other cause. This may be cause because inter cell inter bsc handover fail. Tuning database to fix value may help to solve this problem.

Recommendation Tuning adjacent parameter. Check antenna orientation and tilting if its possible.

1.2. HOSR 1.2.1 Menganti Kedamaian ; Problem Description

Low HOSR is occurred when MSs served by Menganti Kedamaian_1 and 3.
HO Fail Distribution Menganti Kedamaian_1
US UQ DQ BC DS FUL DR Dist. 4.98% 4.74% 3.32% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 13.03% 73.93%

0.00%

Figure 5. HO fail distribution Menganti Kedamaian_1

HO Fail Distribution Menganti Kedamaian_3
US DQ UQ DS BC FUL DR Dist. 5.97% 2.99% 2.99% 1.49% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 86.57%

0.00%

Figure 6. HO fail distribution Menganti Kedamaian_3

Analysis

From figure above, we can see the most problem for handover fail is caused by uplink strength. This may be caused by too far coverage, missing adjacent or database that is not fit. Tuning database first and further investigation about adjacent can help us to improve HOSR.

Recommendation Adjust parameter : HAND, ADJC. Update adjacent if there is adjacent thats not fit. Adjust antenna if there is suspected overcoverage.

1.3. SDSR 1.3.1 Wonokoyo ; Problem Description

SDSR Wonokoyo_1
90.00% 86.53% 85.00% 89.95%

80.00%

80.65%

75.00% 73.52% 71.54% 70.00% 67.24% 65.00% 2/1/06 2/2/06 2/3/06 2/4/06 2/5/06 2/6/06 2/7/06 69.45%

Figure 7. SDSR Wonokoyo_1

Analysis

This site is located in SFH 1 x 1 area. The main problem in this area may be caused by overshoot from another site that interfere frequency Wonokoyo_1. Check site and drivetest first to know whether there is any overcoverage from another sites.

Recommendation Adjust antenna Wonokoyo_1 or another site that overcoverage to the area that should be covered by Wonokoyo_1.
There is two locked sites in cluster Surabaya Inner 1 because of low performance: Kedung Peluk and Lebo Sidoarjo.

1.4. Locked Sites

2.

SURABAYA OUTER 2

2.1. DROP CALL RATE 2.1.1 Solokuro ; Problem Description

No traffic handled by Solokuro sector 2 while using TCH channel.

Figure 8. Low Level Downlink by Solokuro_2

Solokuro RETO_2 TCH Drop Call

17.00% 15.00% 13.00% 11.00% 9.00% 7.00% 5.00% 3.00% 1.00%
3.95% 13.77% 12.79% 15.42% 10.47% 9.88% 7.87% 9.23%

Figure 9. Solokuro_2 TCH Drop Call Rate

Analysis

Site Solokuro_2 has low power at near area, and cannot handle traffic. TCH Channels are already created in database, probability there is hardware problem due to low power CU or defect in other module.

Recommendation Measure CU power for Solokuro_2. Change hardware thats suspected fail. Problem Description

2.1.2 Tikung ;
High TCH drop call performed by Tikung_3.

Figure 10. Over Coverage by Tikung_3

Analysis

Tikung is categorized as rural area, the terrain contour is flat. High TCH Blocking and drop call probably caused by its coverage and parameters related to adjacent. Improvement of HOSR may reduced drop call. Tikung_3 has low power in surrounding, hardware is need to be checked whether there are alarms or flickers.

Figure 11. Tikung Area

Tikung_3 TCH Drop Call

6.00% 5.00% 4.00% 2.43% 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 2.98% 5.09%

Figure 12. TCH drop rate Tikung_3

Recommendation Downtilt antenna all sectors for Tikung_1. Update adjacent parameters for Tikung 1,2 and 3. Check hardware alarm and flicker for Tikung_3.

2.02%

2.10%

3.45%

3.63%

4.34%

2.1.3 Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah ; Problem Description

High TCH drop call and TCH Blocking performed by Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_1,2 and 3.

Figure 13. Over Coverage by Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_1

Figure 14. Over Coverage by Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_2

Figure 15. Over Coverage by Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_3

Ds Melirang_1 TCH Drop Call

1.53%

1.70% 1.60% 1.50%

1.16% 1.23%

1.40% 1.30% 1.10% 1.00%

1.04% 1.10%

1.20%

Figure 16. Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_1 TCH Drop Call Rate

1.28%

1.33%

1.38%

Ds Melirang_2 TCH Drop Call

2.44%
1.72%

2.70% 2.50%
2.01%

1.70% 1.50%

Figure 17. Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_2 TCH Drop Call Rate

Ds Melirang_3 TCH Drop Call

2.00% 1.80%
1.34% 1.29% 1.32%

1.61%

1.90%

1.65%

1.80%

2.10%

2.02%
1.54%

2.30%

1.60%
1.09%

2.57%

1.40% 1.20% 1.00% 0.80%

Figure 18. Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_3 TCH Drop Call Rate

Analysis

Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah is categorized as rural area, the terrain contour is flat. High TCH Blocking and drop call probably caused by its coverage and parameters related to adjacent.

0.90%

1.26%

Figure 19. Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah Area

Recommendation Downtilt antenna all sectors for Ds Melirang. Update adjacent parameters for Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah.

2.2. HOSR 2.2.1 Solokuro ; Problem Description

Low HOSR by Solokuro_2.

Figure 20. Low Level Downlink by Solokuro_2

Figure 21. Solokuro_2 Area

Solokuro RETO_2 HOSR

80.00% 75.00%
62.38% 62.63% 62.99% 75.00% 76.62%

68.75%

70.00% 65.00% 60.00% 55.00% 50.00%

Figure 22. Solokuro_2 HOSR

Analysis

Site Solokuro_2 has low power at near area, and cannot handover to its neighbour. probability there is hardware problem due to low power CU or defect in other module.

Recommendation Measure CU power for Solokuro_2. Change hardware thats suspected fail. Adjust database set ADJC.

52.76%

64.63%

2.2.2 Laren ; Problem Description

High TCH drop call performed by Laren_1. Low HOSR for both sectors.

Figure 23. Coverage by Laren_1

Figure 24. Coverage by Laren_2

Figure 25. Adjacent for Laren_1

Figure 26. Adjacent for Laren_2

Laren_1 HOSR
75.00% 74.00%
71.07% 71.06% 71.02% 73.96%

72.82%

73.00% 72.00%
69.14%

71.00% 70.00% 69.00%

Figure 27. Laren_1 HOSR

71.47%

Laren_2 HOSR
80.00%
76.11% 78.48% 78.93%

77.00%
73.92%

75.00% 74.00% 73.00%

73.40%

Figure 28. Laren_2 HOSR

Analysis

Laren is categorized as rural area, the terrain contour is flat. High TCH drop call on sector 1 is probably caused by handover failure to its neighbour (Solokuro_2) which is still under repairement. To improve HOSR for Laren_2, there are necessary to create adjacent to Sekaran_3, Sungai Lebak_1 and Sungai Lebak_3.

Recommendation Repair Solokuro_2 to improve HOSR for Laren_1. Create adjacent from Laren_2 to Sekaran_3, Sungai Lebak_1 and Sungai Lebak_3. Adjust database related to adjacent for Laren_1 and Laren_2.

73.83%

76.00%

75.87%

78.00%

76.79%

79.00%

71.91%

2.2.3 Pucuk ; Problem Description

Low HOSR perform by Pucuk_1.

Figure 29. Pucuk_1 Scan CTRX

Figure 30. Pucuk_1 Area

83.33%

91.67%

Pucuk_1 HOSR
83.33% 75.00% 69.23%

90.00% 85.00% 80.00% 75.00% 70.00% 65.00% 60.00%

77.78%

Figure 31. Pucuk_1 HOSR

Analysis

Pucuk_1 is located on flat area, there is adjacent to Sukodadi as figure above. Sukodadi is located about 6 kilometers. From ScanCTRX we can see that Pucuk_1 only serves until TA 2, about 1 kilometer. Antenna Tilting is needed to improve the coverage for Pucuk_1 or place antenna on higher position.

Recommendation Uptilt antenna for Pucuk_1. Make antenna position higher for Pucuk_1.

62.50%

2.3. SDSR 2.3.1 Karang Geneng ; Problem Description

Low SDSR performed by Karang Geneng_1.

Figure 32. Coverage by Karang Geneng_1

Figure 33. Adjacent Necessary for Karang Geneng_1

Karang Geneng_1 SDSR

94.56% 93.61% 92.31%

100.00% 95.00% 90.00%

92.58%

93.75%

76.99%

85.00% 80.00% 75.00% 70.00%

81.37%

Figure 34. SDSR Karang Geneng_1

Analysis
Karang Geneng is categorized as rural area, the terrain contour is flat. Low SDSR probably caused by its neighbour (Solokuro_2) which is still under repairement, then Karang Geneng is overshooting pass Solokuro. There is necessary to create adjacent to Brondong Gresik_2, in case MS move through the road on Karang Geneng_1 direction.

Recommendation Measure CU power for Solokuro_2, make sure the sites hardware is normal. Create adjacent from Karang Geneng_1 to Brondong Gresik_2. Check DUVSWR Karang Geneng_1.

73.12%

2.3.2 Dawar Blandong ; Problem Description

Low SDSR performed by Dawar Blandong_1.

Figure 35. ScanTRX Dawar Blandong_1

Figure 36. Dawar Blandong area

98.64%

98.48%

98.12%

98.39%

Dawar Blandong_1 SDSR

97.27%

100.00% 95.00% 90.00%

80.00% 75.00% 70.00%

Figure 37. SDSR Dawar Blandong_1

; ;

Analysis

Dawar Blandong is located on flat area. Low SDSR may caused by overshoot from sector 1. Adjust antenna tilting may increase SDSR.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting for Dawar Blandong_1. Create adjacent to Balong Panggang_2, Balong_Panggang_3 and Benjeng_3. Problem Description

2.3.3 STO Kandangan ;

Low SDSR by STO Kandangan sector 3 due to quality vs level downlink by STO Kandangan sector 3 TRX 1.

Figure 38. STO Kandangan_3 area

76.65%

76.82%

85.00%

84.52%

STO Kandangan_3 SDSR

97.81%

97.75%

98.01%

98.55%

98.00% 96.00% 94.00% 92.00% 90.00% 88.00% 84.00% 86.00%

94.74%

96.32%

97.15%

Figure 39. STO Kandangan_3 SDSR

Analysis

STO Kandangan located in dense population area, the level for downlink should be high because there are many buildings surrounding this area. Adjust antenna tilting and orientation may increase SDSR.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting and orientation for STO Kandangan_3. Check hardware flicker.

86.74%

3.

Jember

3.1. DROP CALL RATE 3.1.1 Sukorambi ; Problem Description

Sukorambi_1 has high TCH Drop Rate problem.

Figure 40. Correlation between RXLev and TA of Sukorambi_1

TCH Loss Distribution Sukorambi_1
Inter RLF T200 HAF DM_resp T_MSRFPCI Seq_error RTF Dist. Other Intra 3.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 23.33% 20.00% 53.33%

Figure 41. Graph of TCH Loss distribution Sukorambi_1

Analysis
From figures above, we can find that Sukorambi_1 probably has low TCH Drop Rate due to unfit database parameter.

Recommendation Database tuning. Problem Description

Tegalampel_3 has high TCH Drop Rate problem.

3.1.2 Tegalampel ;

Figure 42. Correlation between RxLev and TA of Tegalampel_3

TCH Loss Distribution Tegalampel_3
Inter RLF T200 Intra HAF Other DM_resp T_MSRFPCI Seq_error RTF Dist. 2.94% 1.76% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 9.41% 31.76% 53.53%

Figure 43. Graph of TCH Loss distribution Tegalampel_3

Analysis

From figures above, we can find that Tegalampel_3 probably has low TCH Drop Rate due to unfit database parameter.

Recommendation Database tuning. Problem Description

Giri_3 has high TCH Drop Rate problem.

3.1.3 Giri ;

Figure 44. Correlation between RxLev and TA of Giri_3

TCH Loss Distribution Giri_3
T200 RLF Inter Intra DM_resp 1.89% 0.00% 15.09% 41.51% 41.51%

T_MSRFPCI 0.00% Seq_error 0.00%

RTF 0.00% HAF 0.00% Dist. 0.00% Other 0.00% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Figure 45. Graph of TCH Loss distribution Giri_3

; ;

Analysis

From figures above, we can find that Tegalampel_3 probably has low TCH Drop Rate due to unfit database parameter.

Recommendation Database tuning. Problem Description

Sumber ex Sumberasih_2 has poor coverage.

3.1.4 Sumber ex Sumberasih ;

Figure 46. Correlation between RxLev and TA of Sumber ex Sumberasih_2

Figure 47. Sumber ex Sumberasih_2 area

; ;

Analysis

From Batrana CTRX and from map, we can find that Sumber ex Sumberasih_2 has high terrain contour.

Recommendation Adjust Antenna tilting and orientation. Problem Description

3.1.5 Krejengan ;

TCH Drop Krejengan 1

RLF Inter T_MSRFPCI HAF Intra DM_resp T200 Seq_error RTF Dist. Other 15.65% 0.43% 0.43% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 83.48%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Figure 48. TCH drop distribution Krejengan_1

Figure 49. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA Krejengan_1

TCH Drop Krejengan 2

RLF Inter T200 HAF Intra DM_resp T_MSRFPCI Seq_error RTF Dist. Other 1.69% 1.69% 0.85% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 33.05% 62.71%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Figure 50. TCH drop distribution Krejengan_2

Figure 51. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA Krejengan_2

TCH Drop Krejengan 3

RLF Inter HAF DM_resp T200 T_MSRFPCI Seq_error RTF Dist. Other Intra 8.08% 4.04% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 87.88%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Figure 52. TCH drop distribution Krejengan_3

Figure 53. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA Krejengan_3

Analysis

From figure above, we can see that for Krejengan all sectors have same problem with RLF. This is caused by overcoverage to another site that make drop call often occurred here.

Recommendation Database tuning. Antenna tilting.

3.1.6 STO Benculuk ; Problem Description

TCH Drop STO Benculuk 3

RLF Inter T200 HAF T_MSRFPCI Intra DM_resp Seq_error RTF Dist. Other 0.72% 0.36% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 12.19% 12.19% 74.55%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Figure 54. TCH drop distribution STO Benculuk_3

Figure 55. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA STO Benculuk_3

Figure 56. Possibly interference between STO Benculuk_3 with Srono_2

Analysis

There are problem with STO Benculuk sector 3 site. The most cause TCH Drop at STO Benculuk can be shown that the problem is Radio Link Failure (74.55 %). The main problem is interference STO Benculuk sector 3 with Srono site sector 2 (use frequency 55).

Recommendation Retune frequency. Problem Description

3.1.7 RS Hidayatullah DCS ;

TCH Drop RS Hidayatullah DCS 3

RLF T200 Inter HAF Intra DM_resp T_MSRFPCI Seq_error RTF Dist. Other 8.78% 5.61% 0.73% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 84.88%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Figure 57. TCH drop distribution RS Hidayatullah DCS_3

Figure 58. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA RS Hidayatullah DCS_3

Analysis
There are problem with RS Hidayatullah DCS sector 3 site. The most cause TCH Drop at RS Hidayatullah DCS can be shown that the problem is Radio Link Failure (84.88 %). The main problem at RS Hidayatullah is Hardware Problem.

Recommendation Check hardware problem.

3.2. HOSR 3.2.1 Jatiroto ; Problem Description

HOSR Jatiroto 1
0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 59. HOSR Jatiroto_1

HOSR Jatiroto 3
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 60. HOSR Jatiroto_3

Analysis

There are problem with Jatiroto sector 1 and 3 site. The HOSR below 50 % fom 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning Problem Description

HOSR Sumber Baru 1

3.2.2 Sumber Baru ;

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 61. HOSR Sumber Baru_1

Analysis

There are problem with Sumber Baru sector 1 site. The HOSR below 55 % over 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning Problem Description

HOSR Jember 4 2

3.2.3 Jember 4 ;

0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 62. HOSR Jember 4_2

Figure 63. Unfit adjacent between Jember 4_2 with Tempurejo_1

Analysis

There are problem with Jember 4 sector 2 site. The HOSR below 60 % over 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality. There is unfit adjacent between Jember 4_2 and Tempurejo_1.

Recommendation Database tuning. Update adjacent. Adjust antenna. Problem Description

3.2.4 Sempol-Puncak Ijen ;

HOSR Sempol-Puncak Ijen 3

1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 64. HOSR Sempol-Puncak Ijen_3

Analysis
There are problem with Sempol-Puncak Ijen sector 3 site. The HOSR drop to below 60 % over 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning.

3.2.5 Kuripan ; Problem Description

HOSR Kuripan 2
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 65. HOSR Kuripan_2

Analysis
There are problem with Kuripan sector 2 site. The HOSR below 80 % over 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning. Problem Description

3.2.6 Yosowilangun ;

HOSR Yosowilangun 2
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 66. HOSR Yosowilangun_2

Analysis

There are problem with Yosowilangun sector 2 site. The HOSR below 70 % over 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning. Problem Description

3.2.7 Sukorambi ;

HOSR Sukorambi 3
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 67. HOSR Sukorambi_3

Figure 68. Unfit adjacent between Sukorambi_3 with Jember Bukit_3 and Combat Panti Jember_1

Analysis

There are problem with Sukorambi sector 3 site. The HOSR below 70 % over 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning. Update adjacent. Problem Description

3.2.8 Sukapura ;

HOSR Sukapura 1
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 69. HOSR Sukapura_1

Figure 70. Unfit adjacent at Sukapura_1

Recommendation Database tuning. Update adjacent. Problem Description

3.2.9 Krejengan ;

HOSR Krejengan 1
1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 71. HOSR Krejengan_1

Figure 72. Unfit adjacent at Krejengan_1

Analysis

There are problem with Krejengan sector 1 site. The HOSR below 50 % fom 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning. Update adjacent.

3.3. SDSR 3.3.1 Sukorambi ; Problem Description

Sukorambi_1 has low SDSR problem.

Figure 73. Correlation between RXLev and RxQual of Sukorambi_1

SDSR of Sukorambi_1
84.00% 83.00% 81.91% 82.00% 81.00% 80.00% 79.00% 78.00% 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006 80.34% 81.54% 81.02% 81.02% 81.19%

83.15%

Figure 74. Graph of SDSR Sukorambi_1

Analysis

From figures above, we can find that Sukorambi_1 probably have interference problem from another surrounding site. Do the drive test to make sure that there is no interference at Sukorambi_1 direction.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting and orientation either Sukorambi_1 or other surrounding sites. Problem Description

3.3.2 Sumber Baru ;

Sumber Baru has poor quality downlink.

Figure 75. Correlation between RxLev and RxQual of Sumber Baru_1

Figure 76. Sumber Baru_1 area

; ;

Analysis

From Batrana CTRX and map, we can find that Sumber Baru_1 probably have poor quality downlink due to high terrain contour.

Recommendation Adjust Antenna tilting and orientation. Problem Description

Sukorambi_3 has low SDSR problem.

3.3.3 Sukorambi ;

Figure 77. Sukorambi_3 area

SDSR of Sukorambi_3
87.50% 87.00% 86.37% 86.50% 86.00% 85.50% 85.00% 84.50% 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006 85.71% 85.69% 85.33% 85.78% 87.14%

84.59%

Figure 78. Graph of SDSR Sukorambi_3

Analysis

From figures above, we can find that Sukorambi_3 probably has interference problem from surrounding sites. Do the drive test to make sure that Sukorambi_3 has no over coverage from surrounding sites.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting and orientation either Sukorambi_3 or other surrounding site. Problem Description

3.3.4 Grati ;
Grati_2 has poor coverage.

Figure 79. Correlation between RxLev and TA of Grati_2

Figure 80. Grati_2 area

; ;

Analysis

From Batrana CTRX and from map, we can find that Grati_2 has over coverage to Lumbang Pasuruan ex Ds Selorejo_1.

Recommendation Antenna tilting. Problem Description

Puger_3 has poor coverage.

3.3.5 Puger ;

Figure 81. Correlation between RxLev and TA of Puger_3

Figure 82. Puger_3 area

; ;

Analysis

From Batrana CTRX and map, we can find that Puger_3 probably has poor coverage to Gumukmas ex Rajapoloh Tanggul_2.

Recommendation Antenna tilting. Problem Description

Banyu Anyar_2 has poor coverage problem.

3.3.6 Banyu Anyar ;

Figure 83. Correlation between RxLev and TA of Banyu Anyar_2

Figure 84. Banyu Anyar_2 area

; ;

Analysis

From Batrana CTRX and map, we can find that Banyu Anyar_2 has over coverage to Letjes_1.

Recommendation Antenna Tilting. Problem Description

Jember 3 (Mangli)_3 has low SDSR problem.

3.3.7 Jember 3 (Mangli) ;

Figure 85. Correlation between RxLev and RxQual of Jember 3 (Mangli)_3

SDSR of Jember 3 (mangli)_3

87.50% 87.00% 86.50% 86.00% 86.00% 85.50% 85.00% 2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006 85.33% 85.90% 86.02%

87.14%

86.17% 85.80%

Figure 86. Graph of SDSR Jember 3 (Mangli)_3

Analysis

From figures above, we can find that Jember 3 (Mangli)_3 probably have interference problem from another surrounding site. Do the drive test to make sure that there is no interference at Jember 3 (Mangli)_3 direction.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting and orientation either Jember 3 (Mangli)_3 or other surrounding sites.