3G Optimization - HSDPA Field Trial

advertisement
3G Optimization
HSDPA Field Trial
Agenda
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
HSDPA Field Trial
Live NW Details
HSDPA Optimization
Way Forward
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
2
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Agenda
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
HSDPA Field Trial
Live NW Details
HSDPA Optimization
Way Forward
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
3
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
Measurement Conditions
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
RNC & RBS P4.0.6
– HS Capable Sites (2xE1, IMA, Classes B and C mapped on shared UBR
VCs, modeled with maxHsRate = 15)
– HS Capable Sites (1xE1, no IMA, Classes B and C mapped on shared
UBR VCs, modeled with maxHsRate = 15)
– HS Capable Sites (1xE1, no IMA, Classes B and C mapped on shared
CBR VCs, modeled with maxHsRate = 15)
ƒ 1422, 6043, 1470
– Non-HS Capable Sites (1xE1, no IMA, Classes A and B mapped
separate CBR VCs)
ƒ 2405, 4683
TEMS Investigation 7.0
UEs Tested
– Option_GlobeTrotter_3G+ NOMAX_SE (004400-01-307553-0)
– Novatel_Merlin_U730_U740 U700 ( 358661-00-038084-7)
– Huawei_HW KMRC (357130-00-010342-8)
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
4
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
Measurement Area
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
External FTP Server large file continuous download in HSDPA
Re-establishment in R99 after HSDPA sessions dropped
No effect of Iub BW (1xE1 vs 2xE1) detected as maxHsRate = 15 in all
HS capable sites
No effect of ATM Traffic Descriptor (class C UBR vs CBR) detected
Possible Busy Hour impact
Throughput should be seen as indicative (not controlled environment)
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
5
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
Overall Coverage – Reference
Option
Option
Option
Option
RSCP vs Ec/No
-30
-40
-50
Pilot Pollution
RSCP [dB
-60
-70
-80
-90
-100
-110
-120
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
Ec/No [dBm]
Typical Urban
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
6
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
0
HSDPA Field Trial
Overall Results
Total Time
Idle Time [%]
fach Time [%]
sf32 Time [%]
sf16 Time [%]
sf8 Time [%]
hsdpa Time [%]
idle->hsdpa Count
idle->sf32 Count
hsdpa->idle Count
Option
1:36:41
2%
0%
5%
1%
12%
80%
10
9
10
Novatel
1:35:54
3%
0%
3%
3%
5%
86%
14
12
14
Huawei
1:42:53
3%
0%
4%
2%
5%
86%
17
13
17
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Fairly high R99 PS time due to non
HS capable sites 4683 and 2405
Re-establishments in R99 after
HSDPA drops
Ec/No degradation upon session
Session Start Throughput vs Ec/No
start
-2
1800
-3
-4
1200
1000
-5
800
-6
600
400
-7
200
Time [sec]
MAC_Sc_Th
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CQI_Av
CPICH_EcNo
Option seems to measure higher RSCP and Ec/No
Variation on DL RSSI and Ec/No are expected due to variable traffic
Possible busy-hour impact by means of cell breathing
GPEHs to verify cell breathing effect can be activated and analysed
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
7
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
5.8
5.6
5.4
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
-8
3.0
0
Ec/No [dBm
1400
2.4
90th Percentile
-56.87
-4.68
-60.08
-5.00
-60.67
-5.00
2.2
Std
9.71
1.95
9.67
2.21
10.45
2.32
1.6
Huawei
Average
-69.34
-7.02
-73.17
-7.87
-74.05
-7.75
1.2
Novatel
Median
-69.25
-6.83
-73.58
-8.00
-73.92
-7.50
0.0
Option
Measured Quantity
BS RSCP
BS EcIo
BS RSCP
BS EcIo
BS RSCP
BS EcIo
Scheduled Throughput [k
1600
HSDPA Field Trial
CQI Reported
CQI vs Ec/No
Option
CQI vs Ec/No
Novatel
4500
30
4500
4000
30
4000
25
25
3500
3500
3000
15
COunt
2500
2000
1500
10
20
2500
15
2000
1500
1000
10
1000
5
5
500
500
0
Ec/No [dB]
Count
Huawei
CQI
Count
4500
ƒ
ƒ
30
4000
25
3500
3000
20
15
CQI
2500
2000
1500
10
1000
5
500
0
0
ƒ
-32
CQI
Linear CQI against Ec/No
This type of mapping suggests
that datacards are not compliant
with 10% target BLER
CQI mapped on radio interface
quality rather than performance
-2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23 -24 -25 -27 -28 -30
Ec/No [dB]
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
-31
Ec/No [dB]
CQI vs Ec/No
Count
-30
-28
-27
-25
-24
-23
-22
-21
-20
-19
-18
-17
-16
-15
-14
-13
-12
-11
-9
0
-10
0
-9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23 -24 -25
-8
-8
-7
-7
-6
-6
-5
-5
-4
-4
-3
-3
-2
0
Count
CQI
20
CQI
Count
3000
CQI
Ericsson Confidential
8
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
CQI Reported
CQI vs RSCP
Option
CQI vs RSCP
Novatel
4500
4500
30
4000
30
4000
25
25
3500
3000
20
15
Count
2500
CQI
Count
3000
2000
1500
20
2500
15
2000
1500
10
1000
10
1000
5
5
500
500
0
0
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
-80
-85
-90
-95
0
-100 -105 -110
0
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
RSCP [dBm]
Count of Rounded_CQI_Av
Avg of Rounded_CQI_Av
ƒ
30
4000
25
3500
3000
ƒ
20
15
CQI
2500
2000
1500
10
1000
5
500
0
0
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
-75
-70
-75
Count of Rounded_CQI_Av
4500
-40
-65
-80
-85
-90
-95
-100 -105 -110 -115
RSCP [dBm]
CQI vs RSCP
Huawei
Count
CQI
3500
-80
-85
-90
-95
-100
-105
ƒ
Avg of Rounded_CQI_Av
Not so linear behaviour as seen
for Ec/No
Typical Urban behaviour as Ec/No
decreases faster as RSCP
degrades
hsQualityEstimate = CPICH_RSCP
-110
RSCP [dBm]
Count of Rounded_CQI_Av
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Avg of Rounded_CQI_Av
Ericsson Confidential
9
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
CQI Reported
Measured Quantity
CQI
CQI
CQI
Option
Novatel
Huawei
Median
19.72
19.12
19.12
Average
19.27
18.86
18.90
Std
4.01
4.17
4.50
90th Percentile
24.08
24.04
24.52
CQI Comparison
ƒ
100%
12%
90%
10%
80%
70%
8%
50%
CDF
PDF
60%
6%
ƒ
40%
4%
30%
20%
2%
10%
0%
0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
CQI
ƒ
ƒ
PDF Option CQI
PDF Novatel CQI
PDF Huawei CQI
CDF Option CQI
CDF Novatel CQI
CDF Huawei CQI
ƒ
ƒ
Very similar reported CQI
for all datacards
Very similar reported CQI for all
datacards
hsMeasurementPowerOffset = 80
seems too high, especially for
Huawei
hsMeasurementPowerOffset = 60
seems more adequate
CQI Adjustment feature is not a key issue for CQI reporting as
commercial datacards have similar CQI mapping
Further steps may include verification of RBS counters
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
10
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
CQI Reported
Option
Novatel
ƒ
Huawei
ƒ
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
11
Similar CQI reported, although
locally some differences
noticed
Wide fluctuations in space,
maybe caused by Ec/No
mapping of CQI
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
HS-DSCH BLER
Throughput vs BLER
Option
Throughput vs BLER
Novatel
3500
3000
1600
4000
1600
1400
3500
1400
1200
3000
1200
2500
1000
2000
800
1500
600
400
1000
400
200
500
200
600
Throughput [kbps]
Count
800
1500
Count
1000
2000
Throughput [kbps]
2500
1000
500
0
0
0
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1
0
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
Count
Served Throughput [kbps]
Count
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Throughput vs BLER
Huawei
4500
1600
4000
1400
3500
ƒ
1200
Count
1000
2500
800
2000
600
1500
400
1000
Throughput [kbps]
3000
ƒ
ƒ
200
500
0
0
1
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
BLER [%]
Count
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Served Throughput [kbps]
0.6
0.55
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
BLER [%]
BLER [%]
0
ƒ
Sererved Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput much affected
by BLER
All datacards far from 10% target
BLER
BLER higher than 40% is often
seen
Very low HSDPA efficiency
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Ericsson Confidential
12
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
HS-DSCH BLER
Option
Novatel
Huawei
Measured Quantity
BLER Total
BLER Retransmissions
BLER Total
BLER Retransmissions
BLER Total
BLER Retransmissions
Median
24.0%
3.8%
23.0%
5.0%
27.0%
3.9%
Average
22.8%
9.1%
22.6%
10.0%
26.9%
10.1%
Std
15.1%
13.1%
15.2%
13.6%
15.4%
15.5%
20%
100%
18%
90%
16%
80%
14%
70%
12%
60%
10%
50%
8%
40%
6%
30%
4%
20%
2%
10%
0%
0%
1.00 0.95 0.90 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.70 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00
BLER [%]
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
PDF Option BLER
PDF Novatel BLER
PDF Huawei BLER
CDF Option BLER
CDF Novatel BLER
CDF Huawei BLER
ƒ
CDF
PDF
BLER Comparison
90th Percentile
40.2%
26.7%
38.0%
26.7%
41.4%
28.0%
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Very high BLER
High HARQ efficiency as
BLER on retransmissions
is much reduced
Similar BLER distributions,
although Huawei performs slightly
worse
Nearly half of the samples above
30% BLER
CQI Adjustment highly recommended
Possible RLC and TCP timeouts thus reducing application throughputs
Inefficient use of air interface, HW and Iub resources
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
13
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
HS-DSCH BLER
Option
Novatel
ƒ
ƒ
Huawei
ƒ
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
14
Similar BLER figures
Nearby sites BLER slightly
improved
As seen previously, Huawei
performs worse than Option
and Novatel
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
Scheduling Rate
Invalid HS-SCCH vs Ec/No
Option
Novatel
5000
1
4500
0.9
4000
0.8
3500
0.7
3000
0.6
2500
0.5
2000
0.4
1500
0.3
1000
0.2
500
0.1
Invalid HS-SCCH vs Ec/No
4000
1
0.9
3500
0.8
Count
2500
0.6
2000
0.5
0.4
1500
Invalid HS-SCCH [%]
0.7
Invalid HS-SCCH [%]
Count
3000
0.3
1000
0
0.2
500
0
-3
-4
-5
-6
-7
-8
0.1
0
-9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23 -24 -25
0
-2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23 -24 -25 -27 -28 -30 -31 -32
Ec/No [dB]
Count
Huawei
Ec/No [dB]
Invalid HS-SCCH [%]
Count
Invalid HS-SCCH vs Ec/No
3500
ƒ
ƒ
1
0.9
3000
0.8
2500
0.6
Count
2000
0.5
1500
0.4
Invalid HS-SCCH [%]
0.7
ƒ
0.3
1000
0.2
500
0.1
0
0
-2 -3 -4 -5 -6 -7 -8 -9 -10 -11 -12 -13 -14 -15 -16 -17 -18 -19 -20 -21 -22 -23 -24 -25 -27 -28 -30
Ec/No [dB]
Count
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
ƒ
Scheduling Rate [%]
Fairly low scheduling rate
Scheduling rate only near 90% in
good coverage areas
Scheduling rate equals the inverse
of Invalid HS-SCCH rate
Invalid HS-SCCH may “HS-SCCH
CRC Failed” or “HS-SCCH DTX”
Scheduling Rate [%]
Ericsson Confidential
15
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
Mobility – Cell Change
Option
01:17:38
177
2.3
70
0
hsdpa Time
Cell Changes
Cell Changes / min
Cell Changes within 5sec
Ping-Pongs within 5sec
Novatel
01:22:30
135
1.6
34
3
ƒ
Huawei
01:27:59
196
2.2
69
6
ƒ
ƒ
Mobility plays a major role in
HSDPA performance
Frequent Cell Changes affect
throughput (data transfer outage)
Cell Change much dependent of:
Time Between Cell Changes
70.00%
–
–
–
100.00%
90.00%
60.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
40.00%
50.00%
30.00%
CDF [%
PDF [%
50.00%
ƒ
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
20.00%
10.00%
10.00%
Time Delta [sec]
Option PDF [%]
Novatel PDF [%]
Huawei PDF [%]
Option CDF [%]
Novatel CDF [%]
Huawei CDF [%]
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
16
More
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.00%
0.5
0.00%
ƒ
ƒ
timeToTrigger1a = 200ms
timeToTrigger1b = 320ms
timeToTrigger1c = 320ms
Novatel performs less Cell
Changes
Considerable number of
Cell Changes per min
Several Ping-Pongs
withing 5 sec
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
MAC-hs Scheduled and Served Throughput
Throughput vs CQI
Option
Throughput vs CQI
Novatel
1600
2500
1600
2500
1400
1400
2000
2000
1000
600
800
1000
600
400
Throughput [kbps]
Count
800
1000
1500
Count
1000
1500
1200
Throughput [kbps]
1200
400
500
500
200
0
200
0
27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
CQI
Count
Served Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Count
Throughput vs CQI
Huawei
ƒ
1600
2500
1400
2000
1000
Count
1500
800
1000
600
Throughput [kbps]
1200
ƒ
400
500
200
0
0
30 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
CQI
Count
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Served Throughput [kbps]
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
CQI
1
0
ƒ
Served Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput should be
seen as indicative as it may be
affected by on-going traffic
Scheduled Throughput limited by
maxHsRate = 15
Fairly high Scheduled Throughput
for low CQI values
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Ericsson Confidential
17
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
MAC-hs Scheduled and Served Throughput
Option
Novatel
Huawei
Measured Quantity
Scheduled Throughput
Served Throughput
DL Application Throughput
Scheduled Throughput
Served Throughput
DL Application Throughput
Scheduled Throughput
Served Throughput
DL Application Throughput
Median
919.41
668.45
417.02
1285.90
934.49
752.96
1264.68
869.43
579.20
Average
929.00
705.21
491.30
1201.18
915.31
710.58
1133.06
816.77
576.06
Std
483.07
414.65
315.24
441.83
385.34
354.51
511.66
421.36
367.39
90th Percentile
1609.89
1298.37
938.30
1698.96
1400.94
1146.82
1720.00
1320.39
1054.14
MAC-hs Served Throughput per Cell
ƒ
MAC-hs Served Throughput [
1600.0
1400.0
ƒ
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
ƒ
400.0
200.0
229
221
213
209
205
197
189
187
181
179
173
171
146
91
37
15
all
265
258
257
249
237
233
478
470
333
325
317
301
293
285
274
266
0.0
SC
Option_Avg MAC_Ser_Th
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Novatel_Avg MAC_Ser_Th
Ericsson Confidential
Huawei_Avg MAC_Ser_Th
18
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Fairly low Application
Throughputs
RLC and TCP
performance should be
verified
Scheduled Throughput limited
by available resources
Served Throughput limited by
Scheduled Throughput
Served Throughput affected
by BLER
Consistent throughput per cell
for all datacards against
previous results
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
MAC-hs Scheduled Throughput
Option
Novatel
ƒ
Huawei
ƒ
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
19
Scheduled Throughput may be
affected by on-going traffic
Novatel Scheduled Throughput
is clearly higher than other
datacards on the measured
timeframe
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
MAC-hs Served Throughput
Option
Novatel
ƒ
Huawei
ƒ
ƒ
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
20
Served Throughput limited by
Scheduled Throughput
Served Throughput affected by
BLER
High influence of R99 only
sites
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Field Trial
Conclusions
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
hsMeasurementPowerOffset = 80 seems too high for measured
datacards (60 is instead recommended)
Set maxHsRate according to Iub BW (e.g. 1xE1 ~ 15, 2xE1 ~ 30)
Mobility may be target of further study as less restrictive cell changes
may result in enhanced system performance
– hsHysteresis1d, hsTimeToTrigger1d
Power Control may also be target of further investigation as means of
improving scheduling rate, although validation tests should verified in a
controlled environment
– hsScchMaxCodePwr, deltaAck1, deltaAck2, deltaNack1,
deltaNack2, deltaCqi1, deltaCqi2
CQI Adjustment is highly recommended as means of using efficiently
available resources
TCP and RLC performance should be verified
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
21
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Agenda
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
HSDPA Field Trial
Live NW Details
HSDPA Optimization
Way Forward
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
22
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Live NW Details
RNC Counters
HS Cell Change Success Rate
PS Interactive HS Accessibility and Drop Rate
100
10
100%
100%
90%
90%
80%
80%
70%
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0%
0%
7
90
6
85
5
4
80
3
2
75
Retainability [%]
8
PDF [%]
1
Data Type PS R99 and HSDPA Distribution
PDF
ƒ
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
ƒ
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
12-07-2006
11-07-2006
10-07-2006
09-07-2006
08-07-2006
07-07-2006
06-07-2006
05-07-2006
04-07-2006
03-07-2006
0.0%
Date
SentData1 [%]
SentDataHs1 [%]
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
SentData2 [%]
SentDataHs2 [%]
SentData3 [%]
SentDataHs3 [%]
Ericsson Confidential
95%
100%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
HS Cell Change Success Rate [%]
80.0%
Percentage [%]
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
Pint HS Drop Rate [%]
15%
0%
Date
Pint HS Accessibility [%]
5%
13-07-2006
12-07-2006
11-07-2006
10-07-2006
09-07-2006
08-07-2006
07-07-2006
06-07-2006
05-07-2006
04-07-2006
0
03-07-2006
70
10%
Accessibility [%]
95
CDF [%]
9
ƒ
CDF
High Accessibility and
Retainability
Similar R99 PS and HSDPA traffic
type although
HS Cell Change with very high
success rate
SentData4 [%]
SentDataHs4 [%]
23
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Live NW Details
RBS Counters (05/07/2006 to 09/07/2006)
PDF
CDF
PDF
90%
100%
80%
90%
70%
80%
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
Avg UEs in Queue
10.00
9.50
9.00
8.50
8.00
7.50
7.00
6.50
6.00
5.50
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
1.50
0%
1.00
10%
0%
0.50
20%
10%
0.00
20%
CDF [%]
PDF [%]
ƒ
ƒ
70%
60%
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
95%
100%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
0%
Scheduling Ratio [%]
Average UEs in Queue Distribution
PDF
50%
PDF [%]
100%
Scheduling Ratio [%]
45%
0.00%
40%
0.00%
35%
0%
30%
10.00%
0%
25%
0.10%
20%
10%
15%
20.00%
10%
5%
30.00%
0.20%
10%
0.30%
20%
CDF [%]
30%
20%
95%
30%
90%
40.00%
85%
0.40%
80%
40%
75%
50.00%
40%
70%
0.50%
65%
50%
60%
60.00%
50%
55%
70.00%
0.60%
50%
0.70%
60%
45%
70%
60%
40%
70%
35%
80.00%
30%
0.80%
25%
80%
20%
90.00%
80%
15%
100.00%
0.90%
5%
1.00%
90%
10%
100%
90%
0%
PDF [%]
100%
CDF [%]
Scheduling Ratio Distribution
Scheduling Ratio Distribution
ƒ
ƒ
CDF
Fairly low average scheduling
Peaks of HSDPA traffic already on
a daily basis
Not many users on average
waiting for data
Average UEs on queue up to 3
with very low probability
CDF
Ericsson Confidential
24
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Live NW Details
RBS Counters (05/07/2006 to 09/07/2006)
MAC Efficiency Distribution
Iub Capacity Limiting Throughput Distribution (max = 1000)
35%
100%
90.00%
100.00%
90%
80.00%
90.00%
80%
70.00%
80.00%
70%
60.00%
60%
50%
20%
40%
15%
PDF [%]
PDF [%]
25%
CDF [%]
30%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
50.00%
40.00%
40.00%
30.00%
30.00%
30%
20.00%
20.00%
20%
10.00%
10.00%
10%
0.00%
10%
PDF 1xE1
PDF 2xE1
CDF 1xE1
ƒ
100%
90%
80%
20%
60%
50%
40%
10%
30%
20%
5%
CDF [%]
PDF [%]
70%
15%
ƒ
ƒ
10%
HS-DSCH BLER [%]
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0%
0%
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
ƒ
CDF
Considerable Iub restrictions on
scheduled throughput, especially
for 1xE1 sites
Very high MAC efficiency
High BLER figures in line with
achieved with all datacards tested
90% Percentile = 35% BLER
CDF
Ericsson Confidential
25
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
5%
PDF
HS-DSCH BLER Distribution
PDF
10%
MAC Efficiency [%]
CDF 2xE1
25%
100%
950
1000
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
0
0%
50
0%
0.00%
0%
5%
CDF [%]
40%
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
0
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
PDF
Ericsson Confidential
Ec/No [dB]
26
HS-DSCH Cell Throughput GROSS [bps]
CDF
PDF
HSDPA Field Trial
CDF
2006-07-06
2,000,000
1,900,000
30%
1,800,000
6%
1,700,000
40%
1,600,000
8%
1,500,000
50%
1,400,000
10%
60%
1,300,000
12%
2,000,000
1,900,000
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
12%
10%
8%
60%
6%
50%
40%
4%
2%
0%
18%
100%
16%
100%
16%
90%
14%
90%
14%
80%
12%
10%
60%
8%
50%
6%
40%
4%
20%
2%
10%
2%
10%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
30%
20%
CDF [%]
14%
CDF [%]
70%
1,200,000
PDF
1,100,000
CDF
1,000,000
HS-DSCH Cell Throughput NET Distribution (without BLER)
900,000
HS-DSCH UE Throughput NET [bps]
800,000
0%
700,000
0%
700,000
10%
600,000
2%
600,000
20%
500,000
4%
500,000
30%
400,000
6%
400,000
40%
300,000
8%
300,000
50%
200,000
10%
60%
200,000
70%
100,000
12%
0
80%
100,000
14%
PDF [%]
90%
CDF [%]
100%
16%
PDF [%]
2,000,000
1,900,000
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
18%
CDF [%]
0
100,000
PDF [%]
HS-DSCH UE Throughput NET Distribution (without BLER)
0
2,000,000
1,900,000
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
PDF
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
PDF [%]
Live NW Details
RBS Counters (05/07/2006 to 09/07/2006)
HS-DSCH UE Throughput GROSS Distribution (with BLER)
100%
90%
80%
70%
30%
20%
10%
0%
HS-DSCH UE Throughput GROSS [bps]
HS-DSCH Cell Throughput GROSS Distribution (with BLER)
CDF
80%
70%
Live NW Details
RBS Counters (05/07/2006 to 09/07/2006)
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
ƒ
CDF [%
20%
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
ƒ
ƒ
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
PDF [%
CQI Distribution
CQI
PDF pmReportedCqi
CDF pmReportedCqi
FTP based users distribution
(more used than reported)
Mixed traffic users distribution
(more reported than used)
pmReportedCqi = 31, invalid CQI
reported
PDF pmUsedCqi
CDF pmUsedCqi
DL Power Distribution (Scheduling Ratio > 0%)
ƒ
100%
14%
90%
12%
80%
70%
60%
8%
50%
6%
40%
CDF [%
PDF [%
10%
On average DL carrier power not
much affected yet by HSDPA
users
30%
4%
20%
2%
10%
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
30
29
0%
28
0%
DL Carrier Power [dBm]
PDF pmTransmittedCarrierPower
CDF pmTransmittedCarrierPower
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
PDF pmTransmittedCarrierPowerNonHs
CDF pmTransmittedCarrierPowerNonHs
Ericsson Confidential
27
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
28
Cell_i
CarrierPwrCell_i
DL_RSSI(x,y)
5
4
3
2
Scheduling Ratio
(Delta = pmTransmittedCarrierPower_Avg - pmTransmittedCarrierPowerNonHs_Avg)
7
6
0
0%
ƒ
ƒ
3la10771
3la10772
3la10773
3la13552
3la13553
3la13631
3la13632
3la13633
3la14101
3la14102
3la14103
3la14221
3la14222
3la14223
3la14251
3la14252
3la14253
3la14701
3la14702
3la14703
3la14801
3la14802
3la14803
3la14811
3la14812
3la14813
3la16751
3la16752
3la16753
3la16781
3la16782
3la16783
3la18021
3la18022
3la18023
3la18671
3la18672
3la18673
3la18931
3la18932
3la18933
3la20701
3la20702
3la20703
3la22081
3la22082
3la22083
3la24001
3la24002
3la24003
3la24541
3la24542
3la24543
3la25401
3la25402
3la25403
3la25411
3la25413
3la26241
3la26242
3la26243
3la26361
3la26362
3la26363
3la26701
3la26702
3la26703
3la26741
3la26742
3la26743
3la26961
3la26962
3la26963
3la27121
3la27122
3la27123
3la27262
3la27263
3la28861
3la28862
3la28863
3la38831
3la38833
3la39381
3la39391
3la43311
3la43312
3la43313
3la45141
3la45142
3la45143
3la46091
3la46092
3la46093
3la46271
3la46272
3la46273
3la46281
3la46282
3la46283
3la47381
3la47382
3la50161
3la50162
3la50163
3la50171
3la50172
3la50173
3la59401
3la59402
3la59403
3la59502
3la59503
3la60431
3la60432
3la60433
99%
93%
88%
83%
78%
72%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Delta [dB]
Live NW Details
RBS Counters (05/07/2006 to 09/07/2006)
HSDPA Scheduling Ratio vs DL Carrier Power Increase
Scheduling Ratio per Cell
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
1
20%
10%
HSDPA Scheduling Ratio [%]
Cell
Average Delta
Avg Sch
HSDPA Field Trial
Max Sch
Linear DL carrier power increase
against scheduling ratio
Considerable cell breathing
expected with traffic growth
DL _ RSSI ( x, y ) = ∑ CarrierPwrCell _ i
N
RSCPmeas ,Cell _ i ( x, y )
i =1
CPICH config ,Cell _ i
2006-07-06
+ Nt
Live NW Details
RBS Counters - Typical HSDPA Cell Behaviour (27123)
Throughput vs BLER
DL Carrier Power vs Scheduling Ratio
800000
1
0.9
700000
0.9
100000
0.1
pmTransmittedCarrierPower_Avg
pmTransmittedCarrierPowerNonHs_Avg
800000
2
700000
1.8
ƒ
Throughput [bps]
1.4
500000
1.2
400000
1
300000
0.8
0.6
200000
0.4
100000
0.2
Avg . UEs in Queue
1.6
600000
ƒ
0
23:00_23:15
21:45_22:00
20:45_21:00
17:45_18:00
16:15_16:30
15:15_15:30
14:15_14:30
13:15_13:30
12:15_12:30
11:15_11:30
10:15_10:30
08:45_09:00
07:30_07:45
06:00_06:15
04:45_05:00
03:45_04:00
02:30_02:45
01:00_01:15
00:00_00:15
0
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
23:00_23:15
21:45_22:00
20:45_21:00
17:45_18:00
16:15_16:30
15:15_15:30
14:15_14:30
13:15_13:30
12:15_12:30
DSCH_BLER
DSCH_UE_Thr_NET(without_reTx)
DSCH_UE_Thr_GROSS(with_reTx)
DSCH_Cell_Thr_NET
DSCH_Cell_Thr_GROSS
Throughput vs Avg UEs in Queue
Avg_UEs_in_Queue
DSCH_Cell_Thr_GROSS
0
00:00_00:15
23:00_23:15
21:45_22:00
20:45_21:00
17:45_18:00
16:15_16:30
15:15_15:30
14:15_14:30
13:15_13:30
12:15_12:30
11:15_11:30
10:15_10:30
08:45_09:00
07:30_07:45
06:00_06:15
04:45_05:00
03:45_04:00
02:30_02:45
01:00_01:15
Scheduling_Ratio
pmTransmittedCarrierPower_Max
pmTransmittedCarrierPowerNonHs_Max
0.1
0
0
00:00_00:15
34.5
BLER [%]
0.2
0.2
35.5
0.3
200000
11:15_11:30
36.5
0.4
10:15_10:30
0.3
0.5
300000
08:45_09:00
0.4
07:30_07:45
37.5
0.6
400000
06:00_06:15
0.5
0.7
500000
04:45_05:00
0.6
38.5
0.8
600000
03:45_04:00
0.7
02:30_02:45
Power [dBm]
39.5
01:00_01:15
0.8
Throughput [bps]
40.5
1
Scheduling Ratio [%]
41.5
ƒ
As seen before, average DL
carrier power gets close to
maximum value when scheduling
ratio increases
BLER decreases both UE and Cell
throughput
Queue effect on throughput
DSCH_UE_Thr_GROSS(with_reTx)
Ericsson Confidential
29
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Live NW Details
RBS Counters - Typical HSDPA Cell Behaviour (27123)
ATM Cells vs Iub Capacity
1200000000
1000
800
700
ATM Cells
800000000
600
600000000
500
400
400000000
300
200
200000000
ƒ
Throughput constraints due to Iub
may be caused by R99 on-going
traffic or maxHsRate setting
(compared with the total number
of 100 ms periods in the report
output period) [1/10 %]
ƒ
Daily average DL carrier power
gets close to maximum value in
busy HSDPA cells, i.e. high
scheduling ratio
Iub Capacity Limiting Ratio
900
1000000000
100
Iub_Capacity_Limiting_Thr
pmTransmittedAtmCells
23:00_23:15
21:45_22:00
20:45_21:00
17:45_18:00
16:15_16:30
15:15_15:30
14:15_14:30
13:15_13:30
12:15_12:30
11:15_11:30
10:15_10:30
08:45_09:00
07:30_07:45
06:00_06:15
04:45_05:00
03:45_04:00
02:30_02:45
01:00_01:15
0
00:00_00:15
0
pmReceivedAtmCells
DL Power Distribution (Cell 27123)
1
0.45
0.4
0.9
0.35
0.8
PDF [%
0.6
0.25
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.15
CDF [%
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.05
0.1
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
34
33
32
31
0
30
0
DL Carrier Power [dBm]
PDF pmTransmittedCarrierPower
CDF pmTransmittedCarrierPower
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
PDF pmTransmittedCarrierPowerNonHs
CDF pmTransmittedCarrierPowerNonHs
Ericsson Confidential
30
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Live NW Details
Way Forward
ƒ
The following Test Cases in Test Plant and Live NW are proposed as
means of improving HSDPA performance and overall system capacity
– TC0: Reference (static and load + mobility test)
– TC1: deltaAck1, deltaAck2, deltaNack1, deltaNack2,
deltaCqi1, deltaCqi2 recommended values (static, single +
several UEs on good and bad coverage)
– TC2: hsHysteresis1d and hsTimeToTrigger1d increase (static
+ mobility test single UE)
– TC3: hsScchMaxCodePwr reduction (static test, single UE)
– TC4: hsPowerMargin increase (static test, single UE)
– TC5: hsMeasurementPowerOffset
– TC6: cqiAdjustmentOn = TRUE (static + mobility test + 3 day
trial for comparison with previous optimized scenario, single UE)
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
31
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Agenda
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
HSDPA Field Trial
Live NW Details
HSDPA Optimization
Way Forward
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
32
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Due to unavailability of the Test Plant, Live NW Test Cases (TCs) were
adapted and performed in a low traffic cell, though with some limitations
(1xE1, no IMA, Classes B and C mapped on shared UBR VCs, modeled
with maxHsRate = 15), Option GlobeTrotter 3G+ datacard
All TCs were done to match a single ROP
TC0 to TC1.4 Static: single UE with 4 sessions of 22MB FTP file transfer
TC0 to TC1.4 Load: 1 up to 6 UEs connected every 1.5 min and
disconnected with 10 sec interval
TC0 to TC1.4: 1 RLS environment, RSCP~-70dBm, Ec/No~-4dB
TC1.5 to TC1.9: 2 RLS environment, RSCP~-90dBm, Ec/No~-13dB
Parameter Name
TC0_X
deltaAck1
4
deltaAck2
8
deltaNack1
4
deltaNack2
8
deltaCqi1
4
deltaCqi2
8
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC1.1_X TC1.2_X TC1.3_X TC1.4_X TC1.5_X TC1.6_X TC1.7_X TC1.8_X TC1.9_X
8
7
5
2
8
7
5
4
2
8
7
5
4
2
7
5
4
2
8
7
5
2
8
8
7
5
4
2
8
6
4
2
8
6
4
3
2
8
6
4
3
2
Ericsson Confidential
33
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs
ƒ
ACK, NACK and CQI HS-DPCCH power difference mapping as follows:
Quantized amplitude ratios for
Signalling values for Δ ACK, ΔΝACK and ΔCQI
10
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
ƒ
ƒ
⎛
⎜
⎝
Δ
HS
− DPCCH
20
⎞
⎟
⎠
30/15
24/15
19/15
15/15
12/15
9/15
8/15
6/15
5/15
Non Compressed HS-DPCCH Frames
P(HS-DPCCH) = P(DPCCH) + Δ(HS-DPCCH)
6.0
4.1
2.1
0.0
-1.9
-4.4
-5.5
-8.0
-9.5
Test limitations:
– Not controlled radio environment
– Strong Iub limitation
– Influence of R99 traffic not neglectable
As deltaX2 impact hardly is noticeable in a static environment, the best
performing deltaX1 TCs (TC1.1 to TC1.4) are to be conduced in mobility
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
34
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Static) – RBS Statistics
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
35
HSDPA Field Trial
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
Iub Capacity Limiting Thr [%]
88067 29
0
10:26.23 10.2% 0.55% 0.03% 0.00% 70%
90472
0
0
10:37.99 11.0% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 71%
91218
5
18 10:47.59 14.9% 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 72%
91417 25
6
10:47.57 13.1% 0.04% 0.03% 0.01% 72%
98872 2014 15 11:54.27 13.9% 12.39% 2.04% 0.02% 79%
310993 545 31 10:55.97 18.0% 1.89% 0.18% 0.01% 73%
301037 65
66 09:51.42 17.8% 0.04% 0.02% 0.02% 66%
310532 68 174 10:50.66 15.9% 0.06% 0.02% 0.06% 72%
275637 34 125 10:20.62 18.2% 0.05% 0.01% 0.05% 69%
315812 1617 673 10:53.61 17.4% 0.05% 0.51% 0.21% 73%
75064 24 1905 08:35.87 18.4% 0.07% 0.03% 2.54% 57%
73882 22 2472 08:33.39 19.1% 0.08% 0.03% 3.35% 57%
78371 44 1672 08:56.30 17.7% 0.14% 0.06% 2.13% 60%
90912 45 687 11:01.28 19.3% 0.16% 0.05% 0.76% 73%
99193 22 207 10:59.24 16.3% 0.09% 0.02% 0.21% 73%
Avg Ues in Queue
Scheduling Ratio [%]
CQI Zero [%]
CQI Invalid [%]
AckNack Not Detected [%]
313115
318996
323795
323786
357135
327987
295710
325331
310311
326804
257937
256695
268150
330640
329622
MAC-hs BLER [%]
31652
35103
48177
42295
43529
58079
52732
51657
56434
56857
47498
49020
47413
63551
53829
Active HS-DSCH Time [mm:ss.00]
pmNoActiveSubFrames
279746
283891
275567
281349
269363
263696
242858
273495
253732
269780
210250
207464
220373
266570
275505
CQI Zero
pmNackReceived
TC0_Static
TC1.1_Static
TC1.2_Static
TC1.3_Static
TC1.4_Static
TC0_Load
TC1.1_Load
TC1.2_Load
TC1.3_Load
TC1.4_Load
TC1.5_Static
TC1.6_Static
TC1.7_Static
TC1.8_Static
TC1.9_Static
CQI Invalid
pmAckReceived
09:00_09:15
09:15_09:30
09:30_09:45
10:00_10:15
10:15_10:30
10:45_11:00
11:00_11:15
11:15_11:30
11:30_11:45
11:45_12:00
14:30_14:45
14:45_15:00
15:00_15:15
15:15_15:30
15:30_15:45
CQI Reported
TC
Test Cases results summary:
ROP
ƒ
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.1
2.3
2.9
3.1
3.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1351
1326
1305
1307
1179
403
514
431
409
401
966
993
1040
1057
1191
1530
1514
1556
1526
1581
507
640
520
506
491
1208
1251
1292
1337
1447
1351
1326
1305
1307
1183
1255
1184
1263
1282
1281
994
1031
1064
1066
1194
1530
1514
1556
1526
1587
1580
1472
1523
1584
1569
1243
1299
1322
1349
1450
91%
86%
82%
87%
58%
71%
92%
86%
52%
81%
32%
36%
41%
32%
54%
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Static) – RBS Statistics
Overall Results
UE Throughput vs. Avg UEs in Queue
MAC-hs BLER [%]
AckNack Not Detected [%]
Avg_UEs_in_Queue
DSCH_UE_Thr_GROSS(with_reTx)
CQI Invalid [%]
Throughput vs. BLER
ƒ
25.0%
1800000
1600000
20.0%
1200000
15.0%
1000000
800000
10.0%
BLER [%]
Thoughput [bps]
1400000
ƒ
600000
400000
5.0%
200000
Mac-hs BLER
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
DSCH_Cell_Thr_NET
TC1.9_Static
TC1.8_Static
TC1.7_Static
TC1.6_Static
TC1.5_Static
TC1.4_Load
TC1.3_Load
TC1.2_Load
TC1.1_Load
TC0_Load
TC1.4_Static
TC1.3_Static
TC1.2_Static
TC1.1_Static
0.0%
TC0_Static
0
ƒ
36
Avg. UEs in Queue
TC1.9_Static
DSCH_UE_Thr_NET(without_reTx)
Load affects both MAC-hs BLER
and RLC BLER
Bad coverage and load in good
coverage equivalent in MAC-hs
BLER, TC0_Load to TC1.9
Lower throughput seen in bad
coverage, TC1.5 to TC1.9
DSCH_Cell_Thr_GROSS
Ericsson Confidential
TC1.8_Static
TC1.7_Static
TC1.6_Static
TC1.5_Static
TC1.4_Load
0
TC1.3_Load
0
TC1.9_Static
TC1.8_Static
TC1.7_Static
TC1.6_Static
TC1.5_Static
TC1.4_Load
TC1.3_Load
TC1.2_Load
TC1.1_Load
TC0_Load
TC1.4_Static
TC1.3_Static
TC1.2_Static
TC0_Static
0.00%
TC1.1_Static
0.0%
0.5
200000
TC1.2_Load
2.00%
1
400000
TC1.1_Load
5.0%
1.5
600000
TC0_Load
4.00%
800000
TC1.4_Static
6.00%
10.0%
2
1000000
TC1.3_Static
8.00%
2.5
1200000
TC1.2_Static
15.0%
3
1400000
TC0_Static
BLER [%]
10.00%
1600000
TC1.1_Static
12.00%
20.0%
3.5
1800000
Throughput [bps]
14.00%
AckNack Not Detected, CQI Invalid [%]
25.0%
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Static) – TEMS Investigation
Total Sesison Time
TC0
TC1.1
TC1.2
TC1.3
TC1.4
TC0
TC1.1
TC1.2
TC1.3
TC1.4
TC0
0:11:48
TC1.1
0:12:08
TC1.2
0:12:14
TC1.3
0:12:15
TC1.4
0:13:15
Measured Quantity
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Median
1484
1321
1160
1420
1297
1149
1517
1265
1116
1479
1269
1127
1558
1312
1018
Average
1427
1254
1130
1397
1212
1096
1446
1201
1086
1413
1199
1084
1488
1258
999
Std
269
240
159
293
252
173
296
250
167
291
253
162
291
271
155
90th Perc
1622
1400
1226
1710
1369
1215
1671
1376
1204
1648
1372
1204
1720
1504
1149
Measured Quantity
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
Median
9.4%
0.0%
7.1%
0.0%
15.0%
0.0%
13.0%
0.0%
13.3%
0.0%
Average
10.1%
0.2%
10.9%
0.3%
14.9%
0.1%
13.2%
0.2%
13.9%
0.1%
Std
6.1%
0.8%
11.1%
1.0%
7.1%
0.5%
7.7%
1.0%
7.1%
0.9%
90th Perc
18.0%
0.0%
28.0%
0.0%
23.0%
0.0%
23.0%
0.0%
22.2%
0.0%
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
37
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
TC0 shows lower time to
complete 4 sessions of
22MB FTP DL file transfer
TC1.4 dependent of poor
ACK NACK detection in
terms of and DL
Application Throughput
and consequently
download time
Similar BLER figures as
measured by the system
due to low ACK NACK
loss on HS-DPCCH
Possible negative effect of
datacard overheating
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Static) – TEMS Investigation
As seen from UE1
1400
40.0%
1200
35.0%
700.00
25.0%
800
20.0%
600
15.0%
400
35.0%
500.00
30.0%
400.00
25.0%
300.00
20.0%
15.0%
200.00
10.0%
100.00
5.0%
0
TC1.1
TC1.2
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
TC1.3
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
BLER Total [%]
ƒ
30.0%
30.0%
25.0%
25.0%
20.0%
20.0%
15.0%
15.0%
10.0%
10.0%
5.0%
5.0%
0.0%
TC1.5
TC1.6
TC1.7
TC1.5
TC1.6
DL Application
Throughput TC1.7
Served
Throughput
DL
Application
Throughput
Served Throughput
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC1.8
TC1.9
TC1.8 Throughput
TC1.9
Scheduled
BLER_Total
Scheduled
Throughput
BLER_Total
Ericsson Confidential
38
0.0%
BLER[%]
[%]
BLER
50.0%
50.0%
45.0%
45.0%
40.0%
40.0%
35.0%
35.0%
800.00
800.00
600.00
600.00
400.00
400.00
200.00
200.00
0.00
TC1.1
Scheduled Throughput
Throughput vs MAC-hs BLER (Static)
1000.00
1000.00
0.0%
TC0
TC1.4
1600.00
1600.00
1400.00
1400.00
1200.00
1200.00
5.0%
0.00
0.0%
TC0
Throughput
Throughput[kbp
[kbp
40.0%
10.0%
200
0.00
45.0%
600.00
30.0%
1000
Throughput vs MAC-hs BLER (Load)
ƒ
TC1.2
TC1.3
Served Throughput
TC1.4
BLER_Total
ACK NACK not decoded, CQI
Invalid, MAC-hs BLER and RLC
BLER lead to poor application
throughput in TC1.4
TC1.5 to TC1.9 results much
dependent of PC operator, some
indicators should be disregarded
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
MAC-hs BLER [%]
45.0%
Throughput [kbp
1600
BLER [%]
Throughput [kbps]
Throughput vs MAC-hs BLER (Static)
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Static) – TEMS Investigation
As seen from UE1
BLER [%]
PDF TC0
CDF TC0
PDF TC1.1
CDF TC1.1
PDF TC1.2
CDF TC1.2
PDF TC1.3
CDF TC1.3
PDF TC0
CDF TC0
PDF TC1.4
CDF TC1.4
25.0%
PDF [%]
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
95%
100%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0.0%
CDF [%]
ƒ
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
30.0%
ƒ
ƒ
BLER [%]
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
PDF TC1.6
CDF TC1.6
95%
100%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
BLER [%]
MAC-hs BLER Distribution (Static)
PDF TC1.5
CDF TC1.5
40%
0.0%
35%
95%
5.0%
100%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
5%
10%
0%
0.0%
10.0%
30%
5.0%
PDF TC1.7
CDF TC1.7
PDF TC1.8
CDF TC1.8
Ericsson Confidential
PDF TC1.9
CDF TC1.9
39
ƒ
PDF TC1.1
CDF TC1.1
PDF TC1.2
CDF TC1.2
PDF TC1.3
CDF TC1.3
PDF TC1.4
CDF TC1.4
TC0 seems to perform well
without load
TC1.1 static test with odd
distribution
TC1.3 with fair BLER figures with
and without load
TC1.9 polarized as seen before
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
CDF [%]
15.0%
25%
10.0%
20.0%
20%
15.0%
25.0%
15%
20.0%
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
30.0%
0%
PDF [%]
25.0%
MAC-hs BLER Distribution (Load)
35.0%
5%
30.0%
10%
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
PDF [%]
35.0%
CDF [%]
MAC-hs BLER Distribution (Static)
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Static) – GPEHs
Different scale!
UL Interference (Static)
-101
UL Interefernce [dBm]
-105
-102
UL Interference [dBm]
UL Interference (Load)
-103
-104
-105
-105.5
-106
-106
-107
0:00:00
-106.5
0:00:00
0:02:53
0:05:46
0:08:38
0:11:31
0:14:24
0:02:53
0:05:46
0:17:17
0:08:38
0:11:31
0:14:24
0:17:17
ROP Time [hh:mm:ss]
ROP Time [hh:mm:ss]
RTWP_TC0
RTWP_TC1.1
RTWP_TC1.2
RTWP_TC1.3
RTWP_TC0
RTWP_TC1.3
Poly. (RTWP_TC0)
Poly. (RTWP_TC1.4)
RTWP_TC1.4
UL Interference (Static)
RTWP_TC1.1
RTWP_TC1.4
Poly. (RTWP_TC1.1)
RTWP_TC1.2
Poly. (RTWP_TC1.3)
Poly. (RTWP_TC1.2)
UL Interference [dBm]
-101
ƒ
-102
-103
-104
ƒ
-105
-106
-107
0:00:00
0:02:53
0:05:46
0:08:38
0:11:31
0:14:24
0:17:17
ROP Time [hh:mm:ss]
RTWP_TC1.5
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
RTWP_TC1.6
RTWP_TC1.7
RTWP_TC1.8
Ericsson Confidential
Several peaks seen (may be other
users activity, not HS related)
Lower UL Interference measured
with lower HS-DPCCH power in
load scenario
RTWP_TC1.9
40
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – Drive Route
ƒ
As TC1.3 show a good compromise among all TCs and as TCs varying
deltaAck2, deltaNAck2 and deltaCqi2 were not conclusive, TC1.3
values deltaAck1=5, deltaNack1=5 and deltaCqi1=4 were chosen for
mobility tests with different values for deltaAck2, deltaNAck2 and
deltaCqi2
ƒ
Mobility Tests conduced
in RNC 1, around 4
HSDPA capable sites
Sites 1343 and 2942
have 1xE1 and
maxHsRate=15
Sites 4675 and 2229
have 2xE1 and
maxHsRate=28
ƒ
ƒ
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
41
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – Parameter Settings
ƒ
The following parameter settings were tested for evaluation of a system
and UE perspective.
Parameter Name
4
deltaAck2
8
deltaNack1
4
deltaNack2
8
deltaCqi1
4
deltaCqi2
8
initialCqiRepetitionFactor
1
initialAcknackRepetitionFactor
1
cqiFeedbackCycle
8
cqiErrors
10
cqiErrorsAbsent
10
hsHysteresis1d
hsQualityEstimate
hsTimeToTrigger1d
hsPowerMargin
hsMeasurementPowerOffset
cqiAdjustmentOn
ƒ
TC0_X
deltaAck1
TC1.3_X TC1.7_X
5
5
4
TC1.10_X
TC1.11_X
TC4.1_X
TC4.2_X
TC5.1
TC5.2
TC6_X
5
5
5
TC2.1_X TC2.2_X
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
40
75
40
40
40
40
40
[1]
[4]
[7.5]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
[4]
1280
2560
1280
1280
1280
1280
1280
CPICH_ RSCP
640
2
20
40
[0.2]
[2]
[4]
80
60
40
[8.0]
[6.0]
[4.0]
FALSE
TRUE
TC3 tests not performed as reduction of HS-SCCH power may result in
further reduction of HS-SCCH decoding in poor radio environment
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
42
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC0 vs TC1 RBS Statistics
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
CQI Invalid
CQI Zero
Active HS-DSCH Time [mm:ss.00]
MAC-hs BLER [%]
AckNack Not Detected [%]
CQI Invalid [%]
CQI Zero [%]
Scheduling Ratio [%]
Avg Ues in Queue
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
Iub Capacity Limiting Thr [%]
415005
399595
382551
402494
392240
CQI Reported
1092210
992690
983494
1015843
972294
pmNoActiveSubFrames
TC0_Mobility
TC1.3_Mobility
TC1.7_Mobility
TC1.10_Mobility
TC1.11_Mobility
pmNackReceived
TC
pmAckReceived
Test Cases results from a system perspective are the following:
1571079
1427230
1438145
1462384
1403280
1458324
830059
1094318
786295
1034338
8087
5006
23522
9574
11208
3487
3813
3959
1321
2301
00:52:22.16
00:47:34.46
00:47:56.29
00:48:44.77
00:46:46.56
27.5%
28.7%
28.0%
28.4%
28.7%
4.06%
2.45%
5.01%
3.01%
2.76%
0.55%
0.60%
2.15%
1.22%
1.08%
0.24%
0.46%
0.36%
0.17%
0.22%
10%
11%
11%
10%
9%
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
995
1012
956
1008
992
1447
1467
1402
1463
1446
1008
1024
988
1021
1017
1467
1484
1449
1481
1483
13%
9%
10%
14%
14%
TC1.11 shows a fair compromise between UL HS-DPCCH power and
overall HSDPA performance, namely in terms of MAC-hs BLER, ACK
NACK Not Decoded and CQI Invalid
Possible effect of R99 on-going traffic as Iub Capacity Limiting
Throughout is not constant, throughput should be seen as indicative
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
43
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC0 vs TC1 RBS Statistics
UE Throughput vs. Avg UEs in Queue
5.00%
15.0%
4.00%
3.00%
10.0%
2.00%
MAC-hs BLER [%]
TC1.10_Mobility
TC1.11_Mobility
0.00%
TC1.7_Mobility
0.0%
TC1.3_Mobility
1.00%
TC0_Mobility
5.0%
AckNack Not Detected [%]
800
20.0%
600
15.0%
400
10.0%
200
5.0%
0
0.0%
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
ƒ
BLER [%]
25.0%
TC1.11_Mobility
30.0%
1000
TC1.10_Mobility
1200
TC1.7_Mobility
35.0%
TC1.3_Mobility
40.0%
1400
TC0_Mobility
Thoughput [bps]
1600
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
1.2
800
1.0
600
0.8
0.6
400
0.4
200
0.2
0
0.0
Avg Ues in Queue
CQI Invalid [%]
Throughput vs. BLER
MAC-hs BLER [%]
1.4
1000
ƒ
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
MAC-hs BLER not much affected
by HS-DPCCH power offsets
TC1.11 results with regards to
ACK NACK Not Detected and CQI
Invalid comparable with TC1.3,
although TC1.3 makes use of
more UL power
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
Ericsson Confidential
44
Avg. UEs in Queue
20.0%
1.6
1200
TC1.11_Mobility
6.00%
1.8
TC1.10_Mobility
BLER [%]
7.00%
25.0%
2.0
1400
TC1.7_Mobility
8.00%
30.0%
1600
TC1.3_Mobility
35.0%
9.00%
TC0_Mobility
10.00%
Throughput [bps]
40.0%
AckNack Not Detected, CQI Invalid [%]
Overall Results
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC0 vs TC1 Conclusions
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
BLER values very similar for all test cases, far from target 10% and not
much dependent of HS-DPCCH power
Average ACK NACK Not Detected decreased from 4.06% in TC0 to
2.76% in TC1.11
Average CQI Invalid kept low in all tested scenarios
TC1.11 performance not far from best performing TC1.3, indicating that
further reduction is “affordable” to deltaAck2, deltaNack2 and
deltaCqi2 without affecting overall results
TC1.11 will be used onwards as a reference against Mobility changes,
TC2.1 and TC2.2, from which the best will be used for further
enhancements
TC1.11 settings are the following:
– deltaAck1= 5, deltaNack1=5 and deltaCqi1=4
– deltaAck2=7, deltaNack2=7 and deltaCqi2=5
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
45
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC1 vs TC2 RBS Statistics
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Iub Capacity Limiting Thr [%]
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
Avg Ues in Queue
Scheduling Ratio [%]
CQI Zero [%]
CQI Invalid [%]
AckNack Not Detected [%]
2301
4845
3567
MAC-hs BLER [%]
11208
9379
5265
Active HS-DSCH Time [mm:ss.00]
CQI Reported
pmNoActiveSubFrames
392240 1403280 1034338
381008 1370068 867183
410863 1435673 1185402
CQI Zero
972294
944481
994665
CQI Invalid
TC1.11_Mobility
TC2.1_Mobility
TC2.2_Mobility
pmNackReceived
TC
pmAckReceived
Test Cases results from a system perspective are the following:
00:46:46.56 28.7% 2.76% 1.08% 0.22% 9% 1.0 992 1446 1017 1483 14%
00:45:40.14 28.7% 3.25% 1.08% 0.56% 10% 1.0 975 1420 996 1450 17%
00:47:51.35 29.2% 2.10% 0.44% 0.30% 10% 1.0 982 1429 998 1453 11%
Very similar performance figures are achieved with all tested scenarios
Mac-hs BLER not much affected by slower HS Cell Changes
Average UEs in queue equal to 1.0 show that not many users were using
HSDPA in a FTP profile during the drive test
R99 traffic could affect differently the tested scenarios, with worst impact
in TC2.1 with 17% Iub limiting HSDPA throughput
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
46
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC1 vs TC2 RBS Statistics
UE Throughput vs. Avg UEs in Queue
BLER [%]
7.00%
25.0%
6.00%
20.0%
5.00%
15.0%
4.00%
3.00%
10.0%
2.00%
0.0%
0.00%
TC1.11_Mobility
MAC-hs BLER [%]
TC2.2_Mobility
1.00%
TC2.1_Mobility
5.0%
AckNack Not Detected [%]
30.0%
1000
25.0%
800
20.0%
600
15.0%
400
10.0%
200
5.0%
0
0.0%
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
Ericsson Confidential
47
ƒ
BLER [%]
35.0%
1200
TC2.2_Mobility
1400
TC2.1_Mobility
40.0%
TC1.11_Mobility
Thoughput [bps]
1600
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
1.6
1200
1.4
1000
1.2
800
1.0
600
0.8
0.6
400
0.4
200
0.2
0
0.0
Avg Ues in Queue
CQI Invalid [%]
Throughput vs. BLER
MAC-hs BLER [%]
1.8
ƒ
ƒ
Avg. UEs in Queue
30.0%
2.0
1400
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
TC2.2_Mobility
8.00%
1600
TC2.1_Mobility
35.0%
9.00%
TC1.11_Mobility
10.00%
Throughput [bps]
40.0%
AckNack Not Detected, CQI Invalid [%]
Overall Results
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
MAC-hs BLER not much affected
by cell changes in a mobile
environment
Very similar scheduled and served
throughputs in all TCs
ACK NACK Not Detected and CQI
Invalid seem slightly lower in
TC2.2 as compared to other TCs
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC1 vs TC2 RNC Statistics
Number of HS Cell Changes
350
ƒ
321
300
Count
250
200
ƒ
165
150
100
78
50
0
TC1.11
TC2.1
TC2.2
HSDPA CDR
ƒ
5
4.5
4
HSDPA CDR [%]
3.5
3
2.5
ƒ
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
TC1.11
TC2.1
TC2.2
HSDPA CDR [%]
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
48
Much less Cell Changes
performed, resulting in a more
stable behaviour
In TC2.2, almost all HS Cell
Changes in RNC 1 were
performed by the datacard used
in the drive test (73 according to
next slide)
HS-Cell Changes become nore
dependent of ttt1a, ttt1b and
tttc1c, thresholds and respective
hysteresis
Less HSDPA dropped calls in
whole RNC, resulting in a
decrease of 2.5% in a sample
period of 1h, i.e. the drive test
time
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC1 vs TC2 TEMS Investigation
hsdpa Time
Cell Changes
Cell Changes / min
Cell Changes within 5sec
Ping-Pongs within 5sec
TC1.11
00:49:17
178
3.6
86
11
TC2.1
00:48:20
116
2.4
36
0
TC2.2
00:47:31
73
1.5
8
0
Measured Quantity
BS EcIo [dB]
TC1.11
HS Serving EcIo [dB]
BS EcIo [dB]
TC2.1
HS Serving EcIo [dB]
BS EcIo [dB]
TC2.2
HS Serving EcIo [dB]
Median
-8.65
-8.79
-8.79
-9.04
-8.65
-8.87
Average
-8.59
-8.81
-8.68
-9.12
-8.61
-8.98
Std
1.62
1.83
1.69
2.11
1.76
2.06
90th Perc
-6.40
-6.43
-6.41
-6.54
-6.39
-6.46
Measured Quantity
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
TC1.11 Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
TC2.1 Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
TC2.2 Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Median
1542.37
1035.63
919.30
1516.49
1027.17
908.35
1561.31
1058.78
941.18
Average
1399.17
967.77
861.21
1362.17
943.72
833.23
1411.32
976.93
862.43
Std
375.48
314.47
262.08
403.64
341.47
296.00
381.85
323.19
286.20
90th Perc
1712.86
1290.00
1125.47
1711.18
1303.70
1127.23
1714.75
1298.59
1127.23
Measured Quantity
BLER Total [%]
TC1.11
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
TC2.1
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
TC2.2
BLER Retransmissions [%]
Median
29.4%
6.7%
30.0%
7.1%
29.8%
6.9%
Average
28.9%
9.9%
29.0%
10.4%
29.1%
10.0%
Std
9.4%
10.8%
10.2%
11.2%
9.6%
10.7%
90th Perc
39.2%
25.0%
40.0%
26.7%
39.8%
25.0%
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
49
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Fewer Cell Changes and
reduced Ping-Pong effect
with TC2.1 and TC2.2
Difference of best Ec/Io and
HS Serving Cell Ec/Io not
much increased in TC2.1
and TC2.2 as comparing
with TC1.11
Scheduled, Served and
Application Throughputs
very similar for all tested
scenarios
MAC-hs BLER (total and
retransmissions) also not
affected by HS Cell Change
parameter changes
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC1 vs TC2 TEMS Investigation
BLER [%]
TC1.11 PDF
TC1.11 CDF
Time Between Consecutive HS Cell Changes
80.0%
100.00%
70.0%
90.00%
ƒ
80.00%
60.0%
PDF [%]
60.00%
40.0%
50.00%
40.00%
30.0%
CDF [%]
70.00%
50.0%
ƒ
30.00%
20.0%
20.00%
HS Cell Change Time Delta [sec]
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC2.1 PDF
TC2.1 CDF
TC2.2 PDF
TC2.2 CDF
Ericsson Confidential
50
More
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
0.00%
1.0
10.00%
0.0%
0.5
10.0%
TC1.11 PDF
TC1.11 CDF
95%
0%
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
900
1000
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Throughput [kbps]
TC1.11 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC2.1 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC2.2 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC1.11 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
TC2.1 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
TC2.2 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
100%
0%
90%
0%
85%
10%
0.0%
80%
5%
75%
20%
10.0%
70%
10%
65%
30%
20.0%
60%
15%
55%
40%
30.0%
50%
20%
45%
50%
40.0%
40%
60%
25%
35%
30%
50.0%
30%
70%
60.0%
25%
35%
20%
80%
70.0%
15%
40%
5%
90%
80.0%
10%
100%
45%
PDF
50%
90.0%
CDF
BLER UE Comparison
100.0%
0
CDF [%]
MAC-hs Scheduled and Served Throughputs
ƒ
TC2.1 PDF
TC2.1 CDF
TC2.2 PDF
TC2.2 CDF
Similar throughputs and MAC-hs
BLER across all TCs
More stable HS Cell Changes from
TC1.11 to TC2.2, seem from time
between consecutive cell changes
TC2.1 results in 50% of HS Cell
Changes separated by more than
10 seconds
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC1 vs TC2 Conclusions
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
BLER values very similar for all test cases, still far from target 10% and
not much dependent of mobility, e.g. decreased HS Cell Changes
Average ACK NACK Not Detected and CQI Invalid kept low in all tested
scenarios
Although TC2.2 shows slightly better results, TC2.1 is less aggressive
and results in a balanced scenario
TC2.2 can be implemented in a near future if traffic grows massively and
frequent HS Cell Changes are seen as avoidable
TC2.1 will be used onwards as a reference against further changes,
namely TC4, TC5, from which the best will be used for further
comparison with CQI Adjustment Feature activated in TC6
TC2.1 settings as compared with default TC0 are the following:
– deltaAck1= 5, deltaNack1=5 and deltaCqi1=4
– deltaAck2=7, deltaNack2=7 and deltaCqi2=5
– hsHysteresis1d=40 (4dB)
– hsTimeToTrigger=1280ms
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
51
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC4 RBS Statistics
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
00:45:40.14 28.7% 3.25% 1.08% 0.56% 10% 1.0 975 1420 996 1450 17%
00:38:55.67 30.2% 2.41% 0.64% 0.32% 7% 1.0 867 1286 881 1306 5%
00:38:01.61 31.3% 1.86% 0.93% 0.20% 7% 0.8 386 584 438 663 2%
Decreased Scheduled Throughput with reduced available power
Slightly increased HS-DSCH BLER with reduced available power
Served Throughput much decreased with reduced available power as a
function of Scheduled Throughput and HS-DSCH BLER
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
52
Iub Capacity Limiting Thr [%]
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
Avg Ues in Queue
Scheduling Ratio [%]
CQI Zero [%]
CQI Invalid [%]
AckNack Not Detected [%]
4845
2431
1515
MAC-hs BLER [%]
9379
4760
6967
Active HS-DSCH Time [mm:ss.00]
CQI Reported
pmNoActiveSubFrames
381008 1370068 867183
343790 1167835 748176
350778 1140807 746200
CQI Zero
944481
795893
768777
CQI Invalid
TC2.1_Mobility
TC4.1_Mobility
TC4.2_Mobility
pmNackReceived
TC
ƒ
pmAckReceived
HSDPA available power was emulated by increasing hsPowerMargin
cell parameter, i.e. reducing in that amount the available
Test Cases results from a system perspective are the following:
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC4 RBS Statistics
UE Throughput vs. Avg UEs in Queue
BLER [%]
7.00%
25.0%
6.00%
20.0%
5.00%
4.00%
15.0%
3.00%
10.0%
2.00%
0.00%
MAC-hs BLER [%]
AckNack Not Detected [%]
30.0%
1000
25.0%
800
20.0%
600
15.0%
400
10.0%
200
5.0%
0
0.0%
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
Ericsson Confidential
53
ƒ
BLER [%]
35.0%
1200
TC4.2_Mobility
1400
TC4.1_Mobility
40.0%
TC2.1_Mobility
Thoughput [bps]
1600
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
1.4
1000
1.2
800
1.0
600
0.8
0.6
0.4
200
0.2
0
0.0
Avg Ues in Queue
CQI Invalid [%]
Throughput vs. BLER
MAC-hs BLER [%]
1.6
1200
400
TC4.2_Mobility
0.0%
TC4.1_Mobility
1.00%
TC2.1_Mobility
5.0%
1.8
ƒ
Avg. UEs in Queue
30.0%
2.0
1400
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
TC4.2_Mobility
8.00%
1600
TC4.1_Mobility
35.0%
9.00%
TC2.1_Mobility
10.00%
Throughput [bps]
40.0%
AckNack Not Detected, CQI Invalid [%]
Overall Results
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
MAC-hs BLER slightly affected by
reduced available power for
HSDPA channels
Scheduled and served throughput
much decreased from TC2.1 to
TC4.2 as a function of reduced
power for HSDPA, i.e. HS-SCCH
and HS-DSCH channels
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC4 TEMS Investigation
TC2.1
TC4.1
TC4.2
TC2.1
TC4.1
TC4.2
TC2.1
TC4.1
TC4.2
TC2.1
TC4.1
TC4.2
TC2.1
TC4.1
TC4.2
Measured Quantity
BS RSCP [dBm]
BS RSCP [dBm]
BS RSCP [dBm]
BS EcIo [dB]
BS EcIo [dB]
BS EcIo [dB]
CQI
CQI
CQI
Median
-79.48
-78.85
-78.76
-8.79
-7.97
-6.72
16.96
17.92
18.92
Average
-78.05
-77.57
-77.39
-8.68
-8.05
-6.94
16.81
17.50
18.28
Std
9.46
9.46
9.04
1.69
1.85
1.27
3.95
3.89
3.59
90th Perc
-64.93
-64.26
-64.44
-6.41
-6.29
-5.62
21.64
21.92
22.16
ƒ
ƒ
No issues on radio environment
CQI Reported by UE allows high
throughput as does not refrain
scheduling as only QPSK
modulation is available
Measured Quantity
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
Median
30.0%
7.1%
31.0%
11.1%
33.8%
21.4%
Average
29.0%
10.4%
30.9%
13.8%
35.0%
24.0%
Std
10.2%
11.2%
10.9%
12.5%
15.8%
16.6%
90th Perc
40.0%
26.7%
42.4%
31.6%
52.7%
46.1%
Measured Quantity
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Median
1516.49
1027.17
908.35
1393.58
898.24
809.86
534.78
316.54
280.00
Average
1362.17
943.72
833.23
1257.34
843.89
750.17
608.51
396.01
345.39
Std
403.64
341.47
296.00
427.25
355.97
312.50
395.88
310.79
266.33
90th Perc
1711.18
1303.70
1127.23
1682.83
1258.15
1094.40
1199.61
836.97
722.30
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
54
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Fairly high HS-DSCH BLER
as CQI is not adjusted
Higher BLER for TC4.2
when available power is
reduced
Scheduled throughput
decreases dramatically with
reduced available power
Poor application throughput
with 4dB hsPowerMargin
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC4 TEMS Investigation
MAC-hs Scheduled and Served Throughputs
MAC-hs Throughput per Cell
60%
1600
Percentage of Bins [%]
90.0%
80.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
1000
30%
800
600
20%
400
10%
200
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
900
1000
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
0
100
HS-DSCH BLER UE Comparison
95%
BLER [%]
TC2.1 PDF
TC2.1 CDF
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC4.1 PDF
TC4.1 CDF
TC4.2 PDF
TC4.2 CDF
Ericsson Confidential
55
100%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
ƒ
CDF
0%
60%
0%
55%
10%
50%
20%
5%
45%
30%
10%
40%
40%
15%
35%
50%
20%
30%
60%
25%
25%
30%
20%
70%
15%
80%
35%
10%
40%
5%
90%
0%
100%
45%
ƒ
29423
29422
29421
22293
22292
22291
46753
46752
TC1.11 Percentage Of Bins [%]
TC2.2 Percentage Of Bins [%]
TC4.1 Avg MAC-hs Sch Thr [kbps]
TC2.1 Avg MAC-hs Ser Thr [kbps]
TC4.2 Avg MAC-hs Ser Thr [kbps]
Throughput [kbps]
TC2.1 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC4.1 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC4.2 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC2.1 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
TC4.1 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
TC4.2 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
50%
46751
0.0%
13433
0
13431
0%
10.0%
PDF
1200
40%
13432
CDF [%]
70.0%
1400
50%
Throughput [kbps]
100.0%
TC2.1 Percentage Of Bins [%]
TC2.1 Avg MAC-hs Sch Thr [kbps]
TC4.2 Avg MAC-hs Sch Thr [kbps]
TC4.1 Avg MAC-hs Ser Thr [kbps]
Scheduled, Served Throughput
distributions and average values
per cell show that Throughput is
much decreased from TC2.1 to
TC4.2
HS-DSCH BLER also affected by
available power reduction, mainly
due to poor datacard performance
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC4 Conclusions
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Still fairly high HS-DSCH BLER as CQI is not adjusted, although slightly
higher when available power for HSDPA is reduced
Scheduled and served throughput much decreased from TC2.1 down to
TC4.2 as a function of reduced power for HSDPA, i.e. HS-SCCH and
HS-DSCH channels
TC4.2 HS-DSCH BLER slightly higher could be due to increased Option
datacard MAC-hs BLER performance for lower scheduled throughputs
Poor application throughput with 4dB hsPowerMargin
TC4.1 and TC4.2 can be applied in cells having unaffordable cell
breathing due to HSDPA traffic, e.g. when R99 traffic is affected by
reduced Ec/No by high HSDPA scheduling rates
TC2.1 still to be used onwards as a reference against further changes,
namely on TC5, where hsMeasurementPowerOffset is reduced to
diminish the amount of data sent on HS-DSCH and try to get lower HSDSCH BLER, at MAC-hs, which is unlikely due to previous seen results
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
56
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC5 RBS Statistics
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Iub Capacity Limiting Thr [%]
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
Avg Ues in Queue
Scheduling Ratio [%]
CQI Zero [%]
CQI Invalid [%]
AckNack Not Detected [%]
4845
2652
2428
MAC-hs BLER [%]
9379
4977
9678
Active HS-DSCH Time [mm:ss.00]
CQI Reported
pmNoActiveSubFrames
381008 1370068 867183
318074 1176784 671586
296454 1076378 678978
CQI Zero
944481
834342
757405
CQI Invalid
TC2.1_Mobility
TC5.1_Mobility
TC5.2_Mobility
pmNackReceived
TC
ƒ
pmAckReceived
TC5 tests aim to reduce hsMeasurementPowerOffset to decrease
Scheduled Throughput and try to get lower HS-DSCH BLER
Test Cases results from a system perspective are the following:
00:45:40.14 28.7% 3.25% 1.08% 0.56% 10% 1.0 975 1420 996 1450 17%
00:39:13.57 27.6% 2.07% 0.74% 0.39% 7% 1.0 1045 1485 1056 1500 7%
00:35:52.76 28.1% 2.09% 1.43% 0.36% 7% 1.0 1023 1467 1050 1504 7%
As verified seen in the table above, average MAC-hs BLER doesn’t
change between TCs
R99 traffic could affect differently the tested scenarios, with worst impact
in TC2.1 with 17% Iub limiting HSDPA throughput
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
57
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC5 RBS Statistics
Overall Results
BLER [%]
7.00%
25.0%
6.00%
20.0%
5.00%
4.00%
15.0%
3.00%
10.0%
2.00%
0.00%
MAC-hs BLER [%]
AckNack Not Detected [%]
30.0%
1000
25.0%
800
20.0%
600
15.0%
400
10.0%
200
5.0%
0
0.0%
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
DSCH Cell Thr GROSS [kbps]
Ericsson Confidential
58
ƒ
BLER [%]
35.0%
1200
TC5.2_Mobility
1400
TC5.1_Mobility
40.0%
TC2.1_Mobility
Thoughput [bps]
1600
DSCH Cell Thr NET [kbps]
1.4
1000
1.2
800
1.0
600
0.8
0.6
0.4
200
0.2
0
0.0
Avg Ues in Queue
CQI Invalid [%]
Throughput vs. BLER
MAC-hs BLER [%]
1.6
1200
400
TC5.2_Mobility
0.0%
TC5.1_Mobility
1.00%
TC2.1_Mobility
5.0%
1.8
ƒ
Avg. UEs in Queue
30.0%
2.0
1400
DSCH UE Thr NET [kbps]
TC5.2_Mobility
8.00%
1600
TC5.1_Mobility
35.0%
9.00%
TC2.1_Mobility
10.00%
Throughput [bps]
40.0%
AckNack Not Detected, CQI Invalid [%]
UE Throughput vs. Avg UEs in Queue
DSCH UE Thr GROSS [kbps]
Very similar figures regarding
MAC-hs BLER, ACK NACK Not
Detected, CQI Invalid
Also UE and Cell GROSS
Throughput (Scheduled) not
affected, indicating still high
reported CQI and similar TBS for
QPSK modulation
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC5 TEMS Investigation
TC2.1
TC5.1
TC5.2
TC2.1
TC5.1
TC5.2
TC2.1
TC5.1
TC5.2
TC2.1
TC5.1
TC5.2
Measured Quantity
BS EcIo [dB]
HS Serving EcIo [dB]
BS EcIo [dB]
HS Serving EcIo [dB]
BS EcIo [dB]
HS Serving EcIo [dB]
Median
-8.79
-9.04
-8.62
-8.81
-8.61
-8.85
Average
-8.68
-9.12
-8.56
-8.89
-8.58
-8.96
Std
1.69
2.11
1.77
2.03
1.71
2.00
90th Perc
-6.41
-6.54
-6.30
-6.37
-6.43
-6.55
Measured Quantity
CQI
CQI
CQI
Median
16.96
15.24
13.08
Average
16.81
15.13
12.97
Std
3.95
3.78
3.65
90th Perc
21.64
19.88
17.60
Measured Quantity
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
BLER Total [%]
BLER Retransmissions [%]
Median
30.0%
7.1%
29.0%
6.5%
29.2%
6.7%
Average
29.0%
10.4%
28.7%
9.9%
29.0%
10.3%
Std
10.2%
11.2%
10.3%
11.2%
10.2%
11.6%
90th Perc
40.0%
26.7%
40.0%
26.2%
40.2%
26.7%
Measured Quantity
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Scheduled Throughput [kbps]
Served Throughput [kbps]
DL Application Throughput [kbps]
Median
1516.49
1027.17
908.35
1590.85
1084.12
974.02
1547.16
1055.30
941.18
Average
1362.17
943.72
833.23
1443.43
1008.52
896.74
1399.92
973.72
855.49
Std
403.64
341.47
296.00
371.41
327.24
288.13
388.22
334.85
303.49
90th Perc
1711.18
1303.70
1127.23
1718.25
1355.08
1178.66
1714.68
1322.65
1149.12
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
59
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
No variation on radio
environment among TCs
CQI Reported by UE still
allows high throughput as
does not refrain scheduling
as only QPSK modulation
is available
Similar high BLER for all
TCs, no enhanced effect
measured
Scheduled throughput
overcomes CQI reduction
due to lower values of Iub
Limiting Throughput, e.g.
Iub bandwidth
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC5 TEMS Investigation
MAC-hs Scheduled and Served Throughputs
100.0%
20.0%
100.0%
90.0%
18.0%
90.0%
16.0%
80.0%
14.0%
70.0%
12.0%
60.0%
10.0%
50.0%
8.0%
40.0%
6.0%
30.0%
10.0%
4.0%
20.0%
0.0%
2.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
80.0%
60.0%
50.0%
PDF
CDF [%]
70.0%
40.0%
30.0%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1800
1700
1600
1500
1400
1300
1200
1100
900
1000
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
0
100
20.0%
Throughput [kbps]
TC2.1 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC5.1 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC5.2 MAC-hs Sch Thr CDF
TC2.1 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
TC5.1 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
TC5.2 MAC-hs Ser Thr CDF
CQI
TC2.1 PDF [%]
TC2.1 CDF [%]
95%
BLER [%]
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC5.1 PDF
TC5.1 CDF
TC5.2 PDF
TC5.2 CDF
Ericsson Confidential
60
100%
90%
85%
80%
ƒ
CDF
0%
75%
0%
70%
10%
65%
20%
5%
60%
30%
10%
55%
15%
50%
40%
45%
50%
20%
40%
60%
25%
35%
30%
30%
70%
25%
80%
35%
20%
90%
40%
15%
45%
10%
100%
5%
50%
0%
PDF
HS-DSCH BLER UE Comparison
TC2.1 PDF
TC2.1 CDF
CDF
CQI UE Comparison
ƒ
ƒ
TC5.1 PDF [%]
TC5.1 CDF [%]
TC5.2 PDF [%]
TC5.2 CDF [%]
Scheduled and Served Throughput
distributions show little variation
between TCs
CQI reported values decreased
from TC2.1 to TC5.2, by the
expected 2dB by TC
HS-DSCH BLER not sensitive to
hsMeasurementPowerOffset
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC5 Conclusions
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
TC5 aimed to achieve lower HS-DSCH BLER by reducing the amount of
data sent on HS-DSCH, i.e. Scheduled Throughput, attempted by
reducing hsMeasurementPowerOffset
No effect seen on MAC-hs BLER between TCs
Also UE and Cell GROSS Throughput (Scheduled) not affected,
indicating still high reported CQI and similar TBS for QPSK modulation
Though decreased from TC2.1 to TC5.2, CQI Reported by UE in all TCs
still allows high throughput and does not refrain scheduling as only
QPSK modulation is available
In addition TC2.1 higher Iub limiting HSDPA throughput figures, led to
favorable throughputs measured in TC5.1 and TC5.2
Similar high BLER for all TCs, no enhanced effect measured
HS-DSCH BLER not sensitive to hsMeasurementPowerOffset, any
reductions on this cell level parameter should be evaluated using the
whole set of UEs available in Customer’s NW, even 16QAM capable
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
61
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC6 Background
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The main goal of the HSDPA activities described in this presentation
was to achieve MAC-hs BLER values near the target value of 10%
which was not accomplished with the tuned UL Power Control and
Mobility parameters
The previous shown results were partly unloaded and loaded up to 6
UEs per cell static tests, and mobility tests in a selected drive route
Comparisons were made between test cases to get trends and
distributions, though throughput values should be seen as indicative as
tests were performed in the Live NW and load is not controlled
Therefore, to get more reliable throughput data based on users’
behaviour, a 3 days trial comparison between the reference TC2.1 and
TC6 with the optional feature “HSDPA CQI Adjustment” (FAJ 101 1004)
was carried out in all cells of RNC 1, i.e. TC2.1 + Cqi Adjustment
TC2.1 trial from 2006/08/18 to 2006/08/20
TC6 trial from 2006/08/11 to 2006/08/14
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
62
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC6 RBS Statistics
Scheduling Ratio
Scheduling Ratio
0.5%
100.0%
90.0%
0.4%
80.0%
0.3%
60.0%
50.0%
0.2%
40.0%
30.0%
0.1%
20.0%
10.0%
Scheduling Ratio [%]
TC2.1 PDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
TC2.1 CDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
TC2.1 PDF
90%
100%
80%
90%
70%
80%
ƒ
ƒ
60%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
ƒ
TC2.1 CDF
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
95%
100%
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
Fairly low average scheduling
Some peaks of HSDPA traffic
already on a daily basis, up to
100% scheduling ratio
Not many users on average
waiting for data
Average Ues in Queue
TC2.1 PDF
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
10.0
9.5
9.0
8.5
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
6.0
5.5
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
0%
1.5
10%
0%
1.0
20%
10%
0.5
20%
CDF [%]
70%
60%
0.0
35%
Scheduling Ratio [%]
Average Ues in Queue
PDF [%]
30%
25%
20%
15%
5%
10%
0.0%
0%
0.0%
TC2.1 CDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
Ericsson Confidential
63
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
CDF [%]
PDF [%]
CDF [%]
70.0%
100%
10%
0%
95%
0%
90%
0%
85%
10%
80%
10%
75%
20%
70%
30%
20%
65%
30%
60%
40%
55%
40%
50%
50%
45%
50%
40%
60%
35%
70%
60%
30%
70%
25%
80%
20%
80%
15%
90%
5%
100%
90%
PDF [%]
100%
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC6 RBS Statistics
Iub Limiting Throughput
MAC-hs Efficiency
90%
100%
90%
80%
90%
70%
80%
30%
70%
50%
40%
10%
pmCapAlloclubHsLimitingRatio
TC2.1 PDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
TC2.1 PDF
Scheduling Ratio [%]
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC2.1 CDF
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
ƒ
CDF [%]
0%
65%
10%
0%
60%
20%
2%
55%
30%
4%
50%
6%
45%
40%
40%
50%
8%
35%
60%
10%
30%
70%
12%
25%
14%
20%
80%
15%
16%
10%
90%
5%
100%
18%
0%
PDF [%]
20%
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
95%
100%
90%
85%
80%
75%
70%
65%
60%
55%
MAC-hs Efficiency [%]
TC2.1 CDF
MAC-hs BLER
TC2.1 PDF
50%
0%
45%
0%
40%
10%
0%
35%
10%
30%
20%
10%
25%
20%
0%
950
30%
20%
1,000
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
0
50
0%
40%
30%
30%
5%
50%
40%
20%
15%
60%
50%
15%
20%
70%
60%
PDF [%]
60%
CDF [%]
PDF [%]
25%
CDF [%]
80%
5%
35%
100%
10%
40%
ƒ
ƒ
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
TC2.1 CDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
Similar restrictions on throughput
due to lack of Iub bandwidth, 65%
of samples limited by transmission
Similar high MAC efficiency
BLER much improved with CQI
adjustment resulting in more
efficient use of available resources
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
Ericsson Confidential
64
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC6 RBS Statistics
CDF [%]
ƒ
ƒ
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
1,300,000
0%
1,200,000
10%
0.0%
1,100,000
20%
0.5%
900,000
30%
1.0%
1,000,000
40%
1.5%
800,000
50%
2.0%
700,000
60%
2.5%
600,000
70%
3.0%
500,000
80%
3.5%
400,000
4.0%
300,000
90%
200,000
100%
4.5%
0
5.0%
100,000
PDF [%]
HS-DSCH UE Throughput NET
ƒ
UE Throughput NET [bps]
TC2.1 PDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
TC2.1 CDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
Cell Throughput NET [bps]
TC2.1 PDF
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
TC2.1 CDF
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
1,300,000
CDF [%]
0%
1,200,000
10%
0.0%
1,100,000
0.5%
900,000
20%
1,000,000
30%
1.0%
800,000
40%
1.5%
700,000
50%
2.0%
600,000
60%
2.5%
500,000
70%
3.0%
400,000
80%
3.5%
300,000
90%
4.0%
200,000
100%
4.5%
0
5.0%
100,000
PDF [%]
HS-DSCH Cell Throughput NET
ƒ
Similar MAC-hs UE NET or
Served Throughput in around
50% of samples (only “acked”
bits)
Higher Peak MAC-hs NET
throughput achieved
Throughput increase in 50% of
samples for higher throughput
ranges, up to 120kbps more
(+13%)
Similar UE and Cell level
throughput as number of
simultaneous users is yet rather
low
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
Ericsson Confidential
65
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC6 RBS Statistics
CDF [%]
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
0%
1,300,000
10%
0.0%
1,200,000
20%
0.5%
1,100,000
30%
1.0%
900,000
1.5%
1,000,000
40%
800,000
50%
2.0%
700,000
60%
2.5%
600,000
70%
3.0%
500,000
80%
3.5%
400,000
4.0%
300,000
90%
200,000
100%
4.5%
0
5.0%
100,000
PDF [%]
HS-DSCH UE Throughput GROSS
UE Throughput GROSS [bps]
TC2.1 PDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
TC2.1 CDF
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
HS-DSCH Cell Throughput GROSS
4.0%
100%
3.5%
90%
80%
70%
2.5%
60%
2.0%
50%
1.5%
40%
CDF [%]
PDF [%]
3.0%
30%
1.0%
20%
Cell Throughput GROSS [bps]
TC2.1 PDF
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
TC2.1 CqiAdj PDF
TC2.1 CDF
1,800,000
1,700,000
1,600,000
1,500,000
1,400,000
1,300,000
1,200,000
1,100,000
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
0%
100,000
10%
0.0%
0
0.5%
ƒ
More resources used without
CQI Adjustment
Worse performance without CQI
Adjustment resulting in poorer
efficiency
GROSS or Scheduled
Throughput (all transmitted bits)
is higher without CQI
Adjustment for lower values of
NET Throughput (previous
slide), i.e. affected by higher
MAC-hs BLER
Similar Cell level throughput as
number of simultaneous users
is still rather low
TC2.1 CqiAdj CDF
Ericsson Confidential
66
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC6 RBS Statistics
100%
18%
90%
16%
80%
14%
70%
12%
60%
10%
50%
8%
40%
6%
30%
4%
20%
2%
10%
0%
0%
ƒ
CDF [%]
20%
ƒ
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
PDF [%]
CQI Distribution without CQI Adjustment
CQI
PDF pmReportedCqi
CDF pmReportedCqi
ƒ
PDF pmUsedCqi
CDF pmUsedCqi
100%
18%
90%
16%
80%
14%
70%
12%
60%
10%
50%
8%
40%
6%
30%
4%
20%
2%
10%
0%
0%
CQI
PDF pmReportedCqi
CDF pmReportedCqi
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
PDF pmUsedCqi
CDF pmUsedCqi
Ericsson Confidential
67
ƒ
CDF [%]
20%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
PDF [%]
CQI Distribution with CQI Adjustment
Reported and Used CQI
distributions dependent of traffic
profile
Likely FTP based users
distribution (number of used CQI
higher than reported CQI)
Probable HTTP traffic users
distribution (number of reported
CQI higher than used CQI )
Reduction on cell level parameter
hsMeasurementPowerOffset to
decrease BLER and not
overestimate radio environment
may result in lower served
throughput, especially for 16QAM
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
HSDPA Optimization
Live NW TCs (Mobility) – TC2 vs TC6 Conclusions
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Option_GlobeTrotter_3G+ NOMAX_SE (004400-01-307553-0) was
used in the HSDPA optimization phase as being the most representative
in Customer’s NW
After enhancing UL Power Control and Mobility parameters, further
reduction of MAC-hs BLER was not accomplished without making use of
the optional feature “HSDPA CQI Adjustment” (FAJ 101 1004)
By reducing BLER from ~30% to the target value of 10%, a gain around
20% in terms of Radio and Transmission resources is achieved
Higher Peak UE and Cell Served Throughputs achieved in about 50% of
measurements resulting in additional capacity as data is transferred
faster resources are freed for other users, and similar median UE and
Cell Served Throughputs passed on to RLC and Application Layers
TC6, meaning TC2.1 with CQI Adjustment, highly recommended to all
RNCs by means of using more efficiently the available resources and
enhance Mobile Broadband users experience
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
68
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Agenda
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
HSDPA Field Trial
Live NW Details
HSDPA Optimization
Way Forward
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
69
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Way Forward
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
TC2.1 recommended to all RNCs
CQI Adjustment highly recommended to allow more users accessing
higher bitrates
UL in-depth study of 384/HS
TC2.2 recommended in heavy loaded RNCs
e2e perspective, i.e. monitor not only Uu, but also Iub and Iu-PS
If HSDPA is considered as a killer application, consider further
enhancements or restrictions to R99 PS
Evaluate 2nd carrier scenario for HSDPA deployment vs Sponsor R99
datacards upgrade
Prepare NW for E-UL (HSUPA)
Evaluate P5 Basic and Optional Features against Customer strategy for
Mobile Broadband
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
70
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Appendix
KPIs and Counters
ƒ
PInt HS Accessibility [%] = 100 × pmTotNoRrcConnectReqPsSucc / pmTotNoRrcConnectReqPs
× pmNoRabEstablishSuccessPacketInteractiveHs / pmNoRabEstablishAttemptPacketInteractiveHs
ƒ
HS Interactive Cell Change success rate [%]
ƒ
Scheduling Ratio [%]
ƒ
Average Number UE’s in queue
ƒ
Iub Capacity Limiting of Throughput [0.1%]
ƒ
MAC Efficiency [%]
ƒ
HS-DSCH BLER [%]
ƒ
DSCH UE Thr. NET [bps]
ƒ
DSCH UE Thr. GROSS [bps]
ƒ
DSCH Cell Thr. NET [bps]
ƒ
DSCH Cell Thr. GROSS [bps]
= 100 × pmHsCcSuccess / pmHsCcAttempt
= 100 x (pmNoActiveSubFrames) x 0.002 / (ROP period)
= pmSumNonEmptyUserBuffers /
(pmNoActiveSubFrames + pmNoInactiveRequiredSubFrames)
= pmCapAlloclubHsLimitingRatio
= 100 x pmNoActiveSubFrames /
(pmNoActiveSubFrames + pmNoInactiveRequiredSubFrames)
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
= 100 × pmNackReceived / (pmAckReceived+pmNackReceived)
Ericsson Confidential
= pmSumAckedBits / (pmSumNonEmptyUserBuffers x 0.002s)
= pmSumTransmittedBits / (pmSumNonEmptyUserBuffers x 0.002s)
= pmSumAckedBits / (pmNoActiveSubFrames x 0.002s)
71
= pmSumTransmittedBits / (pmNoActiveSubFrames x 0.002s)
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
SEP-06:002508 Uen Rev A
Ericsson Confidential
72
HSDPA Field Trial
2006-07-06
Download
Related flashcards
Create Flashcards