28 CHAPTER 4 BS PLACEMENT USING MNSGA-IE 41 BS PLACEMENT IMPLEMENTATION It is required to fix maximum number of antennas N in the given area for the implementation of BS placement. The design variables are (x, y) coordinates of antenna location, transmitted power P,, height fis and tilt of antenna BS,«. For each antenna, five variables are to be determined. Therefore, for an N-antenna BS placement, 5xN variables need to be determined. As antenna with zero power is also included in representation, it is possible to determine optimum number of antennas required for the given specifications by MNSGA-I algorithm, The typical chromosome representation for N=3 is given in Figure 4.1. Xi fyi [Par | BScar | oss | %2 [2 | Po | Sica | Mose [2 [vs | Pes | BSc | oss ~ > + ++ BS, Variables BS; Variables Figure 4.1 Chromosome representations of design variables BS; Variables In Figure 4.1, (x, y) coordinates and heights (increment of 1 meter) are represented as real variables. Since the values of transmitted power and tilt are discrete, these are represented as integer variables. The lower and upper bound values of design variables are given in Table 4.129 All elements of chromosomes of the population are randomly initialized within the search space specified by their lower and upper bounds of individual parameters. RTPs are fixed in the given area by discretization under hexagonal structure. Installation of BS is done randomly by selecting (x, y) coordinates in the chromosome. Table 4.1 Lower bound and upper bound of design variables Design variables Lower bound Upper Bound x coordinate (m) 0 15000 y coordinate (m) 0 15000 Power (Watts) Six discrete levels [0 63 125 251 501 1000] height of antenna (m) 30 100 Tilt of antenna (degrees) “15° 0 The calculations of path loss, angle of incidence and antenna diagram loss help us to find Field Strength (FS) at each RTP with respect to each BS. In order to determine the coverage of each BS, traffic handling capacity of BS is calculated. Traffic demand, handover and overlap constraints violations are determined for the selected BS parameters such as locations, power, height and tilt of antennas. Algorithm itself indicates antenna violation error, if the number of antennas selected by algorithm with non-zero power is less than the minimum number of required antennas. 42 BS SIMULATION PARAMETERS In order to validate the proposed multi-objective BS placement model, EMOA algorithms are applied on synthetic test system, The area is discretized as hexagonal structure with equal distance. The number of RTP for the selected system is calculated. The simulations are carried out with calculated traffic demand for both algorithms. Since BS locations for each chromosome are different, the coverage pattern varies which in turn changes30 the number of STPs. The selection of TTP and assignment of Erlang value are determined. The parameter settings used (Rappaport 2001) for antenna is given in Table 4.2. Table 4.2 Antenna parameters used for field strength calculations Descriptions Parameter Value Frequency kk 300 MHz Alpha @ 60% Receiver sensitivity Si “9006 ‘Antenna gain / Toss (omni) Gand Lome [11577 (aby Maximum Traffic handling capacity Tox B Height of mobile station Tin Zmneter 43 MODIFIED NSGA-II (MNSGA-I1) Though NSGA-II (Deb, K et al 2002) algorithm encompasses advanced concepts like elitism, fast non-dominated sorting and diversity maintenance along the Pareto-optimal front, it still falls short of maintaining lateral diversity and maintaining uniform distribution of non-dominated solutions. Emphasis on lateral diversity is necessary to evade too much exploitation than exploration and hence to have better convergence of search algorithm, Uniform distribution of non-dominated solutions is necessary to cover the entire Pareto-front. To overcome shortcomings of NSGA-II, Deb K (2001) proposed an improved concept called CE which can maintain the diversity of non-dominated front laterally and Biao Luo, B et al (2008) proposed DCD to improve distribution of non-dominated solutions. NSGA-II algorithm is termed as MNSGA-II with the incorporation of CE and DCD. CE and DCD concepts are explained below.31 4.3.1 Controlled Elitism In NSGA-II, although the crowding distance operator ensures diversity along the non-dominated front, lateral diversity will be lost. When this happens, the search slows down, because there may be a lack of diversity in the particular decision variables that are left to push the search towards better regions of optimality. Thus, in order to ensure better convergence, a search algorithm may need diversity in both aspects - along the Pareto-optimal front and lateral to the Pareto-optimal front are shown in Figure 4.2 \ Front | Diversity along font f Pareto Optimal front Figure 4.2 Controlled elitism procedure In certain complex issues, the absence of a lateral diversity- preserving operator such as mutation causes too much exploitation of the currently-best non-dominated solutions. In order to counteract this excessive selection pressure, an adequate exploration by means of the search operators must be used. Achieving a proper balance out of these two issues is not possible with the uncontrolled elitism used in NSGA-II. Deb K et al (2002) suggested a CE mechanism for NSGA-II which will control the extent of exploitation rather than controlling the extent of exploration.32 In this approach, algorithm restricts the number of individuals in the current best non-dominated front adaptively and maintains a predefined distribution of number of individuals in each front. A geometric distribution is employed for this purpose as shown in Equation (4.1), rXN, 4.1) where Nj is the maximum number of allowed individuals in the i” front and r (<1) is the reduction rate. Although the parameter r is user-defined, the procedure is adaptive, as follows. First, the population R,=P,U QO, jg sorted for non-domination. Let K be the number of non-dominated front in the combined population (of size 2N). According to the geometric distribution, the maximum number of individual allowed in the i" front (i = 1, 2,...,.K) in the new population of size N; is given in Equation (4.2), (4.2) Since r< 1, the maximum allowable number of individuals in the first front is the highest. The reduction rate r of controlled elitism is important in maintaining the correct balance between exploitation and exploration. If r is, small, the extent of exploration is large and vice versa. Based on the applications, the best obtained value of r is selected. Thereafter, each front is allowed to have an exponentially reducing number of solutions. Although Equation (4.2) denotes the maximum allowable number of individuals Nj in each front 7 in a population, there may not exist exactly 1 individuals in such a front, To resolve this issue, a procedure is adopted starting from the first, front. First, the number of individuals (N") in the first front is counted. If33 Ne » only solutions by using the crowded tournament selection are chosen. In this way, exactly solutions that are residing in a less crowded region are selected. On the other hand, if Nf N, DCD based strategy is used to remove M-N individuals from non-dominated set. The summary of DCD algorithm is given below: Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: 4.3.4 Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: Step 5: Step 6: ee Calculate individual’s DCD in the Q, based on Equation (3.19). 1, |2.|< then go to step 5, else go to step 2. Sort the nondominated set, Q, based on DCD. Remove the individual which has the lowest DCD value in the Q,. 1 |@,| and continue. N, stop the population maintenance, otherwise go to step 2 MNSGA-II Algorithm Choose population size Np, crossover and mutation probability, crossover and mutation index, maximum number of generations and control variable limits. Generate a random initial population P° within control variable bounds. Set the generation count g= 0. For each individual in P*, evaluate the objective function and constraint violatio Create offspring population O,.; from P,,, by using the crowded tournament selection, SBX crossover and polynomial mutation operators. Perform nondominated sorting to combined population, R, and identify different fronts PF= 1,2,3...ete. Applying CE concept, restricts the number of individuals in the current best nondominated front adaptively and maintains a predefined distribution of number of individuals in each front. The r value is chosen as 0.55.37 Step 7: If the size of nondominated set Mis greater than the population size N, then remove the MLN individuals from nondominated set by using DCD based strategy, else go to step 4. Step 8: If g-maximum generation count, stop the process. Otherwise, increment generation count (¢-s*!)and go to step 3. The non-dominated individuals in P* are the Pareto-optimal front. 44 EMOA SIMULATION PARAMETERS The parameters used for NSGA-II and MNSGA-II algorithms are given in Table 4.3 Table 4.3 NSGA-II and MNSGA-II parameters Descriptions NSGA-IT MNSGA-IT Maximum Function evaluations 30000 30000 (Fevalmax) Population size (Nj) 300 300 Crossover probability (P.) 08 08 Crossover distribution index (7j.) 2 2 Mutation distribution index (7j,) 10 10 Controlled elitism constant (7) Not applicable 035 45 STATIC TRAFFIC DEMAND CALCULATIONS The selection probability of TTP is based on the distance calculations from the center of the area. The STP residing close to centre has a brighter chance to be considered as TTP. The Selection Probability Quotient Value (SPQV) is calculated for each and every STP Equation (4.6). Based on the calculated SPQV, the probability of TTP is decided as shown in Table 4.4. The generation and comparison of random values with this quotient value assign the traffic demand value for TTP. This method gives equal opportunity to all TTP despite its location in the covered area.Distance between center of the area and STP 38 spgv = — 46) Distance between center of the area and furthest STP Table 4.4 Assigning of traffic demand value SPQV | Probability for | Random number | Traffic demand TIP generations value 0.00 1.00 0.4851 1.00 0,00-0.05 0.95 0.9318 0.95 0.05-0.10 0.90 0.4660 0.90 0.10-0 0.85 0.8462 0.85 0.15-0.20 0.80 0. 0.80 0.25-0.30 0.75 0.2026 0.75 0.30-0 0.70 0.6721 0.70 0.35-0.40 0.65 0.8381 0.00 040-045 0.0196 0.60 045-050 0.6813 0.00 0.50-0 0.3795 0.50 0.55-0.60 045 08318 0.00 0.60-0 0.40 0.5028 0.00 0.65-0.70 035 0.7095 0.00 0.70-0.75 030 0.4289 0.00 0.75-0.80 0.25 0.3046 0.20 0.80-0.85 0.20 0.1897 0.00 0.85-0.90 015 0.1434 015 0,90-0.95 0.10 0.0822 0.10 0.95-1.00 0.00 0.7625 0.00 The Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6 illustrate the calculation of distance between STP and center of the area as well as sel ion probability of TTP.39 STP =(X,, Y.) d=((%-X)? 4 (YY)? Center Area (Xs, Ys) Figure 4.5 Calculation of distance between STP and center area Figure 4.6 Representations of STP and TTP 4.6 SIMULATION RESULTS In order to validate the proposed multi-objective BS placement model, NSGA-II and MNSGA-II algorithms are applied on 15x15 Km? area BS installation synthetic test system. The area is discretized as hexagonal structure with 300m, The number of RTP for the selected system is 2822. The simulations are carried out with fixed static traffic demand for both algorithms. Since BS locations for each chromosome are different, the coverage pattern varies which in turn changes the number of STPs. By comparing SPQV and uniformly generated random number, the selection of TTP and the assignment of Erlang value are determined. Necessary coding for the simulations is developed using MATLAB 7.3 software. As per the traffic40 handling capacity, minimum number of BS required to satisfy traffic demand is 15 Afier several simulations with varying number of BS from 15 to 23, it is found that MNSGA-II and NSGA-II produce optimum performances with 18 and 19 BS respectively. Algorithm will select only optimum number of BS with nonzero power for maximizing coverage and minimizing cost after satisfying constraints. Hence, the maximum number of BS is fixed at 20 for all the simulations, The overlap constraint is fixed at 60%. To satisfy handover, constraint signals from four BSs are considered. 4.6.1 OPTIMIZATION OF BS COORDINATES NSGA-II and MNSGA-II algorithms are applied to the synthetic test system with maximization of coverage and minimization of cost as objectives with parameter settings as given in Table 4.3. Design variables (power, height and tilt) with non-zero BS powers for the extreme solutions are obtained using NSGA-II and MNSGA-II algorithms and are given in Table 4.5. The unit of (x, y) coordinates and height of the antenna are in meters. Power is measured in watts .Tilt is measured in degree. The number of non-zero BS selected in NSGA-II and MNSGA-II is less than maximum, number of BS calculated based on the traffic demand. Table 4.5 confirms that MNSGA-II selects lower levels in the power, height and tilt to obtain maximum coverage with low cost. Almost the coordinates selected by both the algorithms are very near.I-VOSNIV I-VDSN wip .05]y So[quLtea udjsap Jo suostvdwoy sf 9142 4.6.2 Performance Comparisons of EMOA For a fixed traffic demand, NSGA-II and MNSGA-II give different STP, TTP and Erlang values due to their own algorithms diversity maintenance after satisfying the overlap and handover inequality constraints with varying BS locations. As shown in Table 4.6, MNSGA-II exhibits appreciable increase in coverage percentage without relative increase in the cost. Table 4.6 Comparison of two EMOA in test points . 7 ‘Actual - rt toner “Cm cu Comma i lselected| ‘”” Max coverage |2384]1249] 647.25] 19 | 85.47 |304 NSGAII | Solution 14040 Min Cost eee lo 161]1286]650.25] 19 | 76.51 |28.0 Solution Max sca. | eoveraee [2462]1188]639.90] 18 | 87.88 29.2 MINEO solution 15120 Min Cost eee lq54|1226] 637.90] 19 | 73.00 |27.2 Solution 4.6.3 Effect of Maximum Number of Function Evaluations When implementing evolutionary algorithms, users not only need to determine the appropriate encoding schemes, and evolutionary operators but also need to choose suitable parameter settings to ensure the success of the algorithm. In general, the performances of EMOAs are improved by increasing the number of function evaluations and/or changing the algorithm parameters. In this work, population size and other parameters are fixed after making sufficient number of simulations4B Then, the effect of maximum function evaluations (Fevalmax) is studied by fixing other parameters. To study the effect of function evaluations on the performance of MNSGA-II and NSGA-II algorithms for BS location identification, simulations are carried out for two different settings of Fevalmax namely 50,000 and 100,000 by keeping population size at 500. The results obtained are given in Table 4.7. MNSGA- II gives better performance than NSGA- II in terms of optimized coverage and minimum cost after satisfying handover, overlap, and traffic demand constraints. Table 4.7 Effect of Fevalmax Algorithm Fevalmax Coverage (%) | Cost NSGA- Ii 30,000 85.47 304 MNSGA - IT 30,000 87.88 29.2 NSGA- Ii 100,000 8731 29.2 MNSGA - IT 100,000 90.50 24 The obtained Pareto fronts with coverage percentage in x axis and cost in Y axis in Figure 4.7 clearly indicate the role of DCD with controlled elitism, The horizontal diversity along with lateral diversity is well maintained in MNSGA- II with the help of DCD and controlled elitism. Despite increase in maximum function evaluations with fixed population size of 500, NSGA- II is not able to maintain the diversity and convergence in the Pareto front as shown in Figure 4.8 4.6.4 Effect of Population Size The effect of population size is studied by fixing other parameters. To study the effect of population size on the performance of MNSGA-II and NSGA-II algorithms for BS location identification, simulations are carried out for two different settings of population size namely 500 and 1000 by keeping function evaluation fixed at 100,000. The results obtained are given in44 Table 4.8. MNSGA- II gives better performance than NSGA- II in terms of optimized coverage and minimum cost after satisfying handover, overlap, and traffic demand constraints. 305; > scat sof NSGAM ° ° 2as| ° 00 ° 4 2s] ° % ° 4 5 zas| ° . ° + ° + 2 ° * + ars| . . a a a a a a a coverage ure 4.7 Pareto Fronts th 50,000 Fevalmax © wNscan © Nsca' cost Figure 4.8 Pareto fronts with 100,000 Fevalmax45 Table 4.8 Effect of Population Size (Ny) Algorithm Population Size (Np) | Coverage (%) | cost NSGA - II 500 87.31 29.2 MNSGA - II 500 90.50 28.4 NSGA - II 1000 87.8 29.4 MNSGA - II 1000 91.47 30.4 308 + + 80). scan * 29s} © NSGAIL ‘ ° + 2» ° ‘ . o + z ° 3s gt 28 + + ° asp * o° ° n ° ° Se eo Coverage Figure 4.9 Pareto fronts with Np=1000 The obtained Pareto fronts in Figure 4.9 clearly indicate the role MNSGA-H. Despite increase in maximum population size with fixed function evaluations, MNSGA- II is able to maintain the diversity and convergence in the Pareto front as shown in Figure 4.9. It becomes necessary to establish the performances of the proposed algorithm in comparison with the existing through performance metrics (Deb K and Jain $ 2002). Set coverage Metric (C-Metric) as suggested by 63. Zitzler E et al (2001) is a multiobjective performance metric to get an idea about the relative spread of solutions between two pareto-fronts. The C-Metric is used between MNSGA-II and NSGA-II to indicate the proportion46 of solutions in NSGA-II which are weakly dominated by solutions of MNSGA-II. C-Metric is calculated between Pareto fronts MNSGA-II and NSGA-II which are given in Table 4.9. Table 4.9 Comparison of Pareto fronts using C Metric Description C-Means Value C (MNSGA-II, NSGA-ID) 0.90 C (NSGA-II, MNSGA-II) 0.80 C (MNSGA-II, NSGA-II) of 0.9 indicates that 90% of obtained nondominated solutions in MNSGA-II algorithm dominate all the nondominated solutions in NSGA-II. In contrast, only 80% of obtained nondominated solutions in NSGA-II algorithm dominate all the nondominated solutions in MNSGA-II. Hence, it is very clear that CE and DCD play a major role in getting improved performance in MNSGA-IL 4.6.5 Effect of Overlap To determine the effect of overlap on the obtained nondominated solutions, a series of experiments with different values of ~ are conducted. a, varied from 10% to 100 % in steps of 10%. For each setting, NSGA-II and MNSGA-II are applied to determine Pareto front. The Pareto front obtained by using MNSGA-II and NSGA-I algorithms for various values of ais given in Figures 4.10 and 4.11 respectively. For clarity, Pareto fronts with 40 %, 60%, 80% and 100 % variations in g, are given in Figures. Both the algorithms maintain diversity of Pareto fronts for the value of « at 50% and 60%. The NSGA- II algorithm produces Pareto front for various values of except 50% and 60% with constraint errors. However, the increasing of in MNSGA- II does not have any effect in diversity of Pareto front.47 coverage Figure 4.10 Effect of increasing overlap in MNSGA- II The best results obtained with respect to coverage of various values of «are given in Table 4.10. For smaller values of g, it is very difficult to satisfy the overlap and handover constraints. Moreover, for higher values oft, the coverage values do not increase proportionately, but the value of handover constraint errors increase. The derived results using standard settings show that the constraints play a very dominant role in the optimization of BS placement. All the constraints are tightly coupled and interdependent. The increase of percentage helps us achieve more coverage as shown in Table 4.10. Higher value increases the overlap error and handover error without any significant improvement in the coverage as shown in Table 4.10.m5 48 ¥ o . a ° ° + si ° ° 3 Soo ° ° a ec) ° ¢ 3 ao ° ? a ° ° ° ° z ‘ 3a ° ° a ° : ns : . a ° xs ee orgs Figure 4.11 Effect of increas g overlap in NSGA- II Table 4.10 Effect of increasing «, percentage in NSGA-II and MNSGA-II (%) error | ror area(Km')| (%) error | ror area (Km) Actually, variations in the number of BS from 15 to 23 in steps of 1, simulations are carried out for BS placement using MNSGA-IL. The results are reported in Table 4.11. From simulations, it is found that 18 BS produces optimum performance. Even if the number of BS is greater than 18, the algorithm will select only 18 nonzero powers BS. Hence, effectively it considers only 18 BS. In other words, the algorithm automatically selects49 optimum number of BS required for maximizing coverage and minimizing cost afier satisfying constraints. Table 4.11 Effect of increasing number of BS No. of BS with] Coverage Overlay Handover nonzero power (%) BS | cost | oor error 15 15 62.9 [262 0 30 16 16 68 [270 0 2.0 17 17 745 [278 0 10 18 18 871 [288 0 0 19 18 872__ [298 0 0 20 18 878 [292 0 0 2 18 850__| 29.8 0 0 22 18 88.25 | 30.2 0 0 2 18 Wa1__| 304 0 0 4.6.6 Effect of Handover Normally, the user should receive at least four good sensitive signals from BSs. This is one of the difficult constraints to satisfy BS optimization. To test the effect of handover constraint on the obtained solutions, a separate simulation experiment has been conducted. In this experiment, the number of BS required to satisfy the handover constraint is taken as 2, 3 and 4. For each setting, NSGA-II and MNSGA-II are applied The Pareto fronts using NSGA-II and MNSGA-II algorithms for each setting are given in Figures 4.12 and 4.13 respectively. It is very apparent that both the algorithms find it difficult to satisfy the handover constraint. EMOAs are able to find better Pareto fronts with lesser number of BS nals to satisfy handover constraint.50 2s * BTS2 ° 2) ¢ srs3 + © Brsé ° + ms ° ° ° + 2 ° * z ° + 8 os ° + ° + ° + * a + ‘ x * 25 * * 2 “0 75 o 5 30 35 700 coverage Figure 4.12 Effect of handover in MNSGA- IT Fy B12 = gts} ° & ase * 8 8 ¢ o i ° ? a 9 8 ‘ Zu : : i 2 - t * ? i ? 2s + : .? 2 5 cy 5 cy 3 700 igure 4.13 Effect of handover in NSGA- II The best results obtained with respect to coverage are given in Table 4.12. It is very clear that as the number of the BSs signals considered for handover constraint increases, the coverage decreases as well as the cost increases.51 Table 4.12 Effect of handover constraint ‘Number of BS using NSGA TI MNSGATI for handover Coverage (%) | Cost | Coverage (%) | Cost 2 R76 27.0 99.0 27.25 3 94.0 29.6 94.9 29.0 4 35.0 304 88.0 24 4.7 CONCLUSIONS In this chapter, MNSGA-I is applied for determining all the design parameters such as site coordinates(x, y), transmitting power, height and tilt angle of BS location identification. The maximization of service coverage and minimization of cost are considered as objectives by satisfying inequality constraints such as handover, traffic demand and overlap. To improve the diversity and uniformity of obtained non-dominated solutions controlled elitism and DCD operators are introduced in NSGA-II The coverage percentage is indirectly proportional to the number of antennas involved in the handover constraint. The simulation results reveal that the MNSGA-II is more suitable for real-world BS placement. The MNSGA-II could be experimented to find out the best BS locations under GSM technology after considering the real environmental characteristies.