Capacity and Load Sharing in Dual-Mode Mobile Networks

Author: Juha Peura

Supervisor: Prof. Patric stergrd
Instructor: M.Sc. Jarkko Laari, DNA Finland Oy
Agenda

Background
Objectives of the thesis
Capacity
Load sharing
Conclusions
 Background

The amount packet data in mobile networks

have increased dramatically
Operators have to guarantee quality of service
New solutions needed for traffic handling
 Objectives of the thesis

What are the main performance bottlenecks in

todays mobile networks?
Is it possible to ease the situation with load sharing
algorithms?
 Capacity channel elements

Channel element is a measure of node B hardware resources

Separate CE pools for UL/DL, common to all sectors
One 12.2 kbps speech service uses one channel element
HSUPA takes up to 32 CEs, non-serving cells
reserves also CEs
CEs are a capacity bottleneck in uplink direction
Many RAX-boards have 64 CEs
Suggested minimum is 128 CEs
 Capacity Iub transmission

Symmetric bit pipe between base station and RNC

3GPP have specified two transport methods: ATM and IP
Implemented using so called E1s
Maximum throughput of one E1 is 2 Mbps
For speech traffic one E1 has been sufficient
Fast packet connections need multiple E1s
Transmission is a capacity bottleneck in downlink
Base station buffers data from Iub
Future choice Ethernet/IP transmission
 Capacity HSDPA

HSDPA uses the power margin left over from R99 services
HSDPA throughput depends on achievable Signal-to-
interference and noise ratio (SINR)
Power allocated for HSDPA effects the throughput largely
Throughput[Mbps] = 0.0039 x SINR^2 + 0.0476 x SINR + 0.1421

PHS DSCH
SINR SF16
(1 ) Pown Pother Pnoise
 Load sharing

Enhances performance by pooling together resources

Inter Frequency Load Sharing
- Traffic sharing between WCDMA carriers
Directed Retry to GSM
- Speech traffic diverted from WCDMA to GSM
 Directed Retry to GSM

Why?

3G most beneficial for PS data users

3G UEs are becoming more common and
coverage improves constantly
-> free capacity to GSM
More resources for data users
Balances load between networks
No additional investments
 Directed Retry to GSM - limitations

Only applicable to speech traffic

Coverage of UMTS and GSM cells should be same
Overloading of GSM network possible
Should not be used if GSM -> UMTS
handovers are in use (ping-pong effect)
GSM target cell quality not guaranteed (blind ISHO)
-> call drops
Increased signaling, mobiles not reachable during
LA updates
Configuration to entire network can be laborious
3G users may wonder why they are in GSM
 Directed Retry to GSM - principles

Redirection decission based on cell load

(used downlink carrier power)
After cell load exeeds specified sharing threshold, speech calls
are diverted to GSM network
Sharing fraction parameter specifies the percentage of directed calls
while the cell load is above the sharing threshold
Released power can be allocated for PS users
Sharing parameters can be assigned independently to each cell
Cell load (downlink carrier power)

max carrier power

capacity reserved for HSDPA
this load directed to GSM

sharing threshold

time

Directed Retry active

 Load sharing - traffic profiles

speech

packet
 Load sharing - measurements

Functionality and different parameters were first

tested in a single cell
Larger scale test in live network for a three week period
20 most loaded cells were chosen for the measurement
Feature was tested with radical parameters to really find
out how load sharing performed
A set of key performance indicators (KPI) was defined to
assess the effects of the feature
DR-success ratio, Speech setup success rate, dropped calls,
admission number, lack of CEs, speech traffic (Erl), PS traffic .
Network counters were used to gather information
about the functionality
Raw data was filtered and manipulated for final results
 Load sharing - results

Directed Retry to GSM worked well in overall

Total of 93117 speech call redirection attempts, 86033
were succesful
DR-success rate was 92 %, with carefull cell selection
> 95 % success rate possible
 Load sharing results UMTS

KPI DR - FALSE DR - TRUE Difference

Speech setup success rate 99,63 29,29 -71 %

Dropped calls percentage 0,36 0,53 48 %
Speech traffic (Erl) 1,12 0,39 -65 %
PS R99 traffic (Erl) 1,86 2,06 11 %
PS R99 setup success rate 94,41 98,96 5%
PS R99 retainability 94,14 97,97 4%
HS traffic (Erl) 0,72 0,79 10 %
HS User Thu DL (kbps) 139,24 158,21 14 %
HS User Thu UL (kbps) 33,38 42,58 28 %
HS setup success rate 97,32 97,65 0%
HS completion success rate 79,35 76,36 -4 %
CS speech payload (kbits) 240 706 657 99 813 954 -59 %
HSDPA RAB attempts 153 603 164 147 7%
HS drop % 17,13 20,06 17 %
Admission number 2 949 1 504 -49 %
Failed after admission 3 013 2 789 -7 %
NG user down-switches 15 733 8 057 -49 %
UL hardware lack 2 351 817 -65 %
Load sharing results GSM

KPI DR - FALSE DR - TRUE Difference

TCH attempts 623 921 820 990 32 %

TCH H_Block % 0,06 0,02 -62 %
TCH T_Block % 0,73 1,66 129 %
TCH RF_Loss % 0,14 0,23 60 %
TCH traffic (Erl) 2,67 3,26 22 %
 Conclusions

Transmission, CEs and HSDPA power allocation

can form a capacity bottleneck
Load sharing between UMTS and GSM works reliably,
if configured well
Performance of PS users can be enhanced with
Directed Retry to GSM, at least a little
3G traffic still relatively low, it is questionable if
load sharing is needed at this point.
 Future research

Load sharing between UMTS carriers

more sophisticated feature than Directed Retry to GSM
between UMTS2100 and UMTS900
two way directions taking into account cell load
applicable to all services

Service based handover

THANK YOU !