See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277956804

On the impact of network load on LTE network

downlink performance

Conference Paper · June 2015

CITATION READS

1 316

3 authors, including:

Milutin Davidovic Igor Tomic

Ericsson, Serbia Ericsson
2 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION 9 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Igor Tomic
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 11 October 2016
 On the impact of network load on LTE network
downlink performance
Milutin S. Davidović, Sanja M. Bjeković and Igor A. Tomić, Ericsson d.o.o
Abstract—Throughput is one of the main network
performance indicators, as it is of the most importance for end
user experience. In this paper, analysis of correlation between
downlink throughput and level of signal, measured as Reference
Signal Received Power (RSRP) in LTE network will be
performed. Furthermore, the impact of network load on
downlink throughput in LTE network will be analyzed.
Index Terms—Long Term Evolution (LTE), Signal to
Interference plus Noise Ratio (SINR), Reference Signal Received
Power (RSRP), Interference factor (F-factor), downlink
throughput, network load, performance, User Equipment (UE),
Reference Signal (RS), Resource Block (RB), MIMO
(Multiple-Input/Multiple-Output).
I. INTRODUCTION
s smartphones and tablets became mostly used access
A devices, we are witnesses that mobile traffic is last few
years experiencing a fundamental shift from being
mainly voice-centric to data-centric or, to be more precise it
can be said even application-centric. Also, in all-
communicated world and Internet of things, mobile network
users are not even humans only [5], [6].
This shift in mobile traffic is creating new challenges for
operators who are now faced with users’ expectations for
instantaneous, reliable access applications where ever they
are. At the same time, operators are under challenge not just to
provide high quality of user experience, but it must be also
cost efficient solution. For 2G/3G operators, logical next step
in 3GPP evolution path is implementation of LTE technology,
which provides superb experience.
In such scenario, the definition of “providing coverage” has
fundamentally changed. While it was long ago possibility for
user to establish speech connection, in today’s application-
centric mobile world, it is not just a matter of question if you
can establish connection. With very demanding applications
(i.e. HD video), good coverage means also certain level of
connection quality is guaranteed, in order to have application
working fluently.
In response to these challenges, a new approach to network
performance called application coverage is introduced as an
Milutin S. Davidović, Ericsson d.o.o, Milentija Popovica 5a, 11070,
Belgrade, Serbia (e-mail: milutin.davidovic@ericsson.com),
Sanja M. Bjeković, Ericsson d.o.o, Milentija Popovica 5a, 11070,
Belgrade, Serbia (e-mail: sanja.bjekovic@ericsson.com),
Igor A. Tomić, Ericsson d.o.o, Milentija Popovica 5a, 11070,
Belgrade, Serbia (e-mail: igor.tomic@ericsson.com).
indicator of the user experience. Application coverage is the
probability that the network will deliver sufficient
performance to run a particular application at a quality level
acceptable to the user.
Having in mind application demands (e.g. apps that involve
streaming media, such as music and video), quality is usually
measured through downlink throughput rates and latency.
In this paper we will focus on throughput.
Our goal, through this document is to estimate how
throughput depends of UE position in the cell (distance from
the antenna/cell edge) and network load (expansion of work
done in [8], [9] for HSDPA networks, this time for LTE).
II. DOWNLINK THROUGHPUT
Downlink throughput is mainly driven by interference.
Interference depends on several factors, but two main are
quality of radio network design (depending mainly on site
selection, antenna choice and tilting, implementation of some
advanced radio functionalities and result of other RF
optimization activities) and network load (amount of traffic in
the network).
For the first one, already commonly accepted good measure
is the interference factor ( ). It is defined as
∑
(1)
where ∑ is the summation of all s
detected by UE except the which represents
(Reference Signal Received Power) of the serving cell
(should be the best one detected). Interference factor is
calculated for each bin, and quality of radio design is average
.
Network load is defined as percentage of used Resource
Blocks (RB), as defined in [10]. What it will be assumed in
calculations is that network load is evenly distributed among
cells, where a set of different values will be used to simulate
traffic growth in future (5 % - matching approximately
Reference Signals RS’s only, as well as other load values for
growing traffic, such as: 10 %, 20 %, 50 %).
According to (1), depends on .
Furthermore, high correlation between and best
server can be expected. This is logical, as
actually measures dominancy of best server, and typically
there is good dominance close to antenna where is
good, while dominance is worse far from antenna, when
decreases and interference coming from neighboring
cells increases. Speaking about overall noise power, relevant powers that
At the same time, as already stated, is measure will be taken in consideration are thermal noise power
of quality of radio design, which is highly impacted by sites ( ) and noise power added by UE ( . Therefore,
density (site to site distance). Also, in networks with good overall noise power is
radio design it is desired to avoid antennas positioned at high
height, as they are causing overshooting, which is radio . (4)
propagation to areas where it is not desired to have certain cell
presence. Typical corrective measure to optimize RF design in Thermal noise power is defined as
order to achieve best server dominance is antenna tilting. Fig.
1 presents results of simulation, showing dependence of (dBm) (5)
on antenna distance, for networks with different
average antenna tilts implemented (from zero to eight where is thermal noise power density (-174 dBm for
degrees). As can be seen on Fig. 1, adding tilts improves noise bandwidth [ ] of 1 Hz). In our case, we observe
, as it decreases its value (ideally is zero). Reference Signal (RS) which is one subcarrier in LTE, so
bandwidth of interest is = 15 kHz. According to that,
= -132.24 dBm value will be taken in calculation.
To define noise added by UE we must know noise figure of
UE ( ). We can safely assume 7 dB. Now, from the
definition of noise figure of a device

(6)

overall noise power can be calculated as

( (7)

As it was already remarked, useful signal is actually

coming from the serving cell.
Finally, referring to (2), (3), (4) and (7) now can be
defined as:

∑ (
. (8)
Fig. 1. as a function of for different average antenna tilts

If we divide denominator and numerator by ,

Having in mind all said, as a first step will be
we will have:
modelled as function of . It will be done through
process of measurement in the field and averaging value for
different segments. ∑ ( )
. (9)
Next step is to link to . We will start
from the definition of
Looking back at (1), can be noticed as one of the
(2) numerator factors of the previous relation (9). After
replacement, we get the final relation for our calculation:
where is useful signal (in our case that is actually
( )
(10)
), is interference coming from other
Reference Signals (RS) and is overall noise power.
Interference coming from other cells is actually a
where is of the monitored cell (the
summation of all s detected by UE except the
serving one), network load is already assumed, while other
. Taking in calculation network load it is
parameters have already been defined and can be calculated.
defined as
will be presented, as discussed, through
derived function of (1), where correlation will be
∑ . (3) modelled based on drive test logs analysis and
post-processing, where will be extracted for
It will be assumed that network load is equal in all cells (in every sample/bin in the drive test. In such way we will have
the following equations it will be used just as ).
signature of RF design quality incorporated in further
calculations.
It is important to mention few facts about network
configuration and settings. In this particular case, antenna
configuration was MIMO 2x2 and used channel bandwidth
was 15 MHz.
Now, when the relation between and is
created, can be mapped for every measured.
Then, there is good correlation (theoretical, but confirmed in
practice as well) between Downlink Throughput and . It
will lead us to Downlink Throughput estimation, where
simulator was used, one for the channel model EPA5 with
15 MHz of bandwidth. Finally, empirical curve Downlink
Throughput vs. RSRP will be generated and analyzed.

III. CALCULATION AND RESULTS

Fig. 3. Average downlink as a function of range
This chapter describes the calculation process based on the
measurement results obtained in the drive test. At the end, the
Looking at the Fig. 3, it can be concluded that the original
final results will be shown.
(blue line) is behaving similarly in the most of
The first step, as discussed in previous chapter, was making
the ranges except in range from -65 dBm to -55 dBm.
the correlation between and , according to
Since only this part is diverging from the rest, it can be
the (1). It is important to pay attention to that all parameters
assumed that the reason of this deviation is probably
needed for this relation, and also (2), were calculated in
insufficient number of samples in this range.
decibels, not in watts, so recalculation in watts was made
Furthermore, this can be confirmed by taking a deep look at
before placing them into the relation. Following graph (Fig. 2)
the Fig 2. Bearing this in mind, this part of the curve was
presents the result of this step, in form of scatter – to
extrapolated (red line).
understand level of correlation, standard deviation and
As derived correlation between and was
introduced mistake in further averaging process.
obtained from real field measurements, it should be stressed
that drive test campaign was done for operator who is in the
first phase of deployment of LTE. In other words, changes in
modeled correlation and all future related results can be
expected as networks become more mature, and density of
LTE sites increases.

TABLE I
WITHIN RANGES DEPENDING ON THE NETWORK LOAD ( )

range [dB]
[dBm]
[-130,-125) -2.59505 -2.89747 -3.44561 -4.76733
[-125,-120) 1.167384 0.020646 -1.63513 -4.53769
[-120,-115) 6.067268 5.138658 3.724119 1.090231
[-115,-110) 10.52465 9.29315 7.550201 4.55794
[-110,-105) 14.44424 12.7537 10.59235 7.215437
[-105,-100) 17.57553 15.37665 12.83705 9.166675
[-100,-95) 18.15161 15.41714 12.55161 8.661447
Fig. 2. as a function of [-95,-90) 20.47858 17.61515 14.68019 10.74663
[-90,-85) 20.48568 17.52136 14.53424 10.56881
As it can be seen on the scatter presented in figure 1, there [-85,-80) 21.68078 18.68957 15.68885 11.7152
is correlation, but far from ideal, meaning that certain degree [-80,-75) 23.69743 20.69673 17.69123 13.71472
of variation can be expected in realistic throughputs from [-75,-70) 24.55193 21.54533 18.53687 14.55858
estimated later in calculations. [-70,-65) 24.55698 21.54785 18.53814 14.55909
However, as we need as function of in [-65,-60) 26.01957 23.00978 19.99974 16.0205
[-60,-55) 28.23854 25.22851 22.21835 18.23903
form of a curve, not a scatter, the next logical step is to
[-55,-50) 34.25058 31.24063 28.2305 24.2512
average these results over certain bands. Next figure (Fig. 3)
presents the average within the different
According to (2) from chapter II and considering the results
ranges, with a step of 5 dB.
for the average within the ranges, the
 results were obtained for the networks in different
network load circumstances. IV. CONCLUSION
As it was mentioned before, the network load values taken In this paper, relation between level of LTE signal,
in calculation are 5 %, 10 %, 20 % and 50 %. The network measured as Reference Signal Received Power ( ) and
with the load around 5 to 10 % (common and control expected downlink throughput in LTE network with 15 MHz
channels) is considered as an unloaded network. Table I and MIMO 2x2 deployment was modeled, in different
presents the results of this calculation part. network load circumstances. As intermediate step,
The next step is to map these s to downlink was modeled for different signal levels, based on
throughput. This was done using the throughput calculator real measurements from the field. Results of modeling allows
already implemented for this purpose by setting the us to predict user experience at certain distance to eNodeB
configuration as the one that is used in this case. antenna at different stage of network maturity/served traffic
Finally, desired relation between and downlink expressed as network load defined by amount of used
throughput for different network loads is obtained, Resource Blocks. Furthermore, results of analysis can be used
and presented numerically in Table II, and visually in by mobile operator to define areas with good/average/bad
Fig. 4. coverage based on , application throughput demands
and network status in terms of load.
TABLE II
DOWNLINK THROUGHPUT WITHIN RANGES DEPENDING ON THE
NETWORK LOAD ( ) ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors of this paper would like to express special thanks to
range Downlink throughput [kbps]
our colleague Riccardo De Bernardi from Ericsson Italy, for
[dBm] immeasurable support, guidance and assistance during
[-130,-125) 5286.42 4957.90 4511.61 3413.85 conducted work on this subject.
[-125,-120) 9965.03 8336.40 6276.86 3608.57
[-120,-115) 19379.11 17267.44 14352.46 9847.881
REFERENCES
[-115,-110) 31757.07 27976.82 23088.08 16024.25
[-110,-105) 45420.39 39257.92 31975.05 22218.22 [1] E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, J. Sköld, and P. Neming: 3G Evolution: HSPA
[-105,-100) 57578.17 48962.6 39552.47 27603.03 and LTE for Mobile Broadband, Academic Press, Oxford 2007.
[-100,-95) 59869.94 49117.72 38543.68 26140.81 [2] E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall and J. Sköld: 4G LTE/LTE-Advanced for
[-95,-90) 69091.76 57735.74 46309.86 32471.78 Mobile Broadband, Academic Press, Oxford 2011
[3] Christopher Cox, An Introduction to LTE: LTE, LTE-Advanced,
[-90,-85) 69119.64 57362.81 45757.79 31899.25
SAE and 4G Mobile Communications, John Wiley & The Sons Ltd,
[-85,-80) 73730.66 62012.55 50166.78 35667.25
New Jersey 2012
[-80,-75) 81108.99 69941.47 58038.26 42717.76 [4] N. Gospić, I. Tomić, D. Popović and D. Bogojević: Razvojmobilnih
[-75,-70) 84024.21 73216.94 61404.49 45849.86 telekomunikacija, od GSM do LTE, Univerzitet u Beogradu,
[-70,-65) 84040.74 73226.51 61409.52 45851.77 Saobraćajni fakultet, Beograd 2010.
[-65,-60) 88638.7 78669.06 67211.11 51452.32 [5] I. Tomić, S.Krčo, D.Vučković, A.Gluhak: Towards the Future Internet,
[-60,-55) 94461.86 86211.75 75755.57 60218.17 Emerging Trends from European Research - SENSEI traffic impact on
[-55,-50) 101295.2 99657.95 94443.59 83012.62 mobile wireless networks, IOS Press, 2010, p.257-268.
[6] I. Tomić, S.Krčo, D.Vučković, P.Navaratnam: SENSEI traffic modeling,
TELFOR 2009, Beograd.
[7] Kimmo Hiltunen and Riccardo De Bernardi. WCDMA downlink
capacity estimation. In Proc. of IEEE Vehicular Technology
Conference, VTC 2000 Spring, volume 2, pages 992–996, May 2000.
[8] I. Tomić, J. Stojanović and M. Dukić: On the impact of network load on
HSDPA network performance, ETRAN 2007, Herceg Novi
[9] I. Tomić, J. Stojanović: HSDPA Mobile Network Performance, ETRAN
2006, Beograd.
[10] 3GPP TS 36.211 v.12.5.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project;
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved
Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical Channels and
Modulation
[11] 3GPP TS 36.214 V12.2.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project;
Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved
Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical layer;
Measurements
[12] D.Drajić and I. Tomić: Paralelni razvoj HSPA i LTE – fizički sloj,
TELFOR 2010, invited paper, Beograd.
[13] I. Tomić, and I. Simić: „3GPP LTE Long Term Evolution – sistem
četvrte generacije“, YUINFO2009 Kopaonik 8-11 mart 2009.
Fig. 4. Downlink throughput as the function of for diff. values of