8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
1/14
HUAWEI TECHNoLOGIES CO., LTD.
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
www.huawei.com
Page 1
Multi-Carrier Deployment Scenario
For HSPA Network
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
2/14
Objective
To study various scenarios for multi-carrier deployment
To understand the impact on REL-99 (CS and PS)
To understand the benefits of deploying multi-carrier for HSPA capacity
enhancement
Recommendation and Conclusion
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
3/14
Trial Area
Total Sites = 10sites with IP backhaul
Using RAN11
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
4/14
Multi-Carrier Deployment Scenario
3rdCarrier
2nd Carrier
1st Carrier
Cell Reserved
R99 only
HS only
R99 + HS
R99 + HS
R99 only
HS only
HS only
R99 + HS
R99 + HS
R99 + HS
Scenario A: R+H
Maximize 3G voice coverage
Good voice performance
Segregation of traffic
Easy to optimize
Idle UE stays at 1stcarrier.Better battery life
2ndcarrier overloaded
Poor HS CSSR due to
coverage shrinkage at 2nd
carrier
Poor HS speed when many
users are connected
+
-
Balanced load
Good HS CSSR performance
(no directed retry)
More capacity for Better
HS experience
Scenario C: H+H
3G coverage shrink due to
HS traffic
3G voice traffic reduced.
Extra load to GSM
Complex optimization
Reselection between
carrier leads to shorter
battery life
Cell Reserved
Cell Reserved
Maximize 3G voice coverage
Good voice performance
Segregation of traffic
Easy to optimize
More capacity for HS. Betterexperience
Idle UE at 1stcarrier. Better
battery life
Scenario D: R+H+H
Poor HS CSSR due to DRD
coverage shrinkage at 2nd
and 3rdcarrier
Balanced load
Good HS CSSR performance
(no directed retry)
More capacity for HS.
Best HS experience
3G coverage shrink due to
HS traffic
3G voice traffic reduced.
Extra load to GSM
Complex optimization
Reselection between
carrier leads to shorter
battery life
Scenario B:H+H+H
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
5/14
98.00%
98.20%
98.40%
98.60%
98.80%
99.00%
99.20%
99.40%
99.60%
28/12/2009
29/12/2009
30/12/2009
04/01/2010
06/01/2010
07/01/2010
08/01/2010
11/01/2010
12/01/2010
Sum of M - Accessibility Success Rate_Speech (CSSR) (Cell)
CS Performance
AMR CSSR
Scenario B:H+H+H
3-days average 99.42%
Scenario D (R + H + H) has the best CSSR performance
Scenario C:H+H
3-days average 99.16%
Scenario D:R+H+H
3-days average 99.44%
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
6/14
0.44%
0.46%
0.48%
0.50%
0.52%
0.54%
0.56%
0.58%
0.60%
28/12/2009
29/12/2009
30/12/2009
04/01/2010
06/01/2010
07/01/2010
08/01/2010
11/01/2010
12/01/2010
Sum of M - AMR Call Drop Ratio (Cell)
CS Performance
AMR Drop Call Rate
Scenario D has the lowest drop call rate when one carrier is dedicated for REL-99
Scenario B:H+H+H
3-days average=0.59%
Scenario C:H+H
3-days average=0.56%
Scenario D:R+H+H
3-days average=0.52%
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
7/14
1700
1750
1800
1850
1900
1950
2000
2050
2100
12/28/2009 12/29/2009 12/30/2009 1/4/2010 1/6/2010 1/7/2010 1/8/2010 1/11/2010 1/12/2010
Sum of VS.CS.RB.Erlang.Sum
CS Performance
CS Erlang
R+H+H
*Traffic drop on 12 Dec due to BUFFMU was down
Scenario B has the most traffic due to clean 3rdcarrier serving bigger area. However if this scenario is
deployed in large scale, noise for 3rdcarrier will increase and traffic will eventually drop
Ultimately, Scenario D is best to ensure maximum CS traffic in 3G
Scenario B:H+H+H
3-days total = 5937
Scenario C:H+H
3-days total = 5620
Scenario D:R+H+H*
3-days total =5834
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
8/14
CS Performance
IRAT Ratio
35.50%
36.00%
36.50%
37.00%
37.50%
38.00%
38.50%
39.00%
39.50%
40.00%
28/12/2009
29/12/2009
30/12/2009
04/01/2010
06/01/2010
07/01/2010
08/01/2010
11/01/2010
12/01/2010
Sum of IRAT Attempt / RAB Attempt
Scenario B:H+H+H
3-days average = 37.76%
Scenario C:H+H
3-days average = 38.89%
Scenario D:R+H+H
3-days average =37.29%
With a dedicated carrier reserved for R99, Scenario D has kept the IRAT ratio at minimum
Scenario B has relatively low IRAT as 3rdcarrier is not fully loaded. If 3rdcarrier is fully loaded, then
IRAT Ratio will eventually increase
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
9/14
97.20%
97.40%
97.60%
97.80%
98.00%
98.20%
98.40%
98.60%
28/12/2009
29/12/2009
30/12/2009
04/01/2010
06/01/2010
07/01/2010
08/01/2010
11/01/2010
12/01/2010
Sum of M - Accessibility Success Rate_PS (Cell)
PS Performance
PS CSSR
Scenario B has the best PS CSSR mainly due to unloaded 3rdcarrier.
For Scenario D, the PS CSSR performance degraded due to high RIP failure.
Scenario B:H+H+H
3-days average=98.3%
Scenario C:H+H
3-days average=97.8%
Scenario D:R+H+H
3-days average=97.9%
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
10/14
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
12/28/2009 12/29/2009 12/30/2009 1/4/2010 1/6/2010 1/7/2010 1/8/2010 1/11/2010 1/12/2010
Average of RIP Fail/PS RAB Attempt
PS Performance
RIP Failure Ratio
Highest RIP Failure Ratio is the highest with scenario D; R + H +H due to different
coverage (loading) across the carrier.
Scenario B:H+H+H Scenario C: H+H Scenario D:R+ H+H
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
11/14
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
28/12/2009
29/12/2009
30/12/2009
04/01/2010
06/01/2010
07/01/2010
08/01/2010
11/01/2010
12/01/2010
Sum of VS.HSDPA.UE.Mean.Cell
HSDPA Performance
Average HSDPA UE User
Scenario B has the most HS user as 3rdcarrier is relatively clean and hence has larger
coverage. If Scenario B is deployed in large, the coverage will eventually shrink and user
number will decrease eventually
Scenario B:H+H+H
3-days average user= 256 users
Scenario C:H+H
3-days average user= 215 users
Scenario D:R+H+H
3-days average user= 210 users
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
12/14
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
CellTotalHS
Volume
Sum of VS.HSDPA.MeanChThroughput.TotalMBytes
3rd Strategic Implementation
Peak Cell Total HS Volume (30 minutes Stats)
4.62 GByte
Scenario B:H+H+H
3-days total = 434Terabyte
3.98 GByte 3.88 GByte
Scenario B could prove most data. At the busiest period, it could transfer 4.62Gbyte of data
compared to only 3.9GByte for Scenario C and D
Scenario B could provide additional16% at busiest period (maximum loaded).
On a daily basis, it has 28% more capacity
Scenario C:H+H
3-days total = 338Terabyte
Scenario D:R+H+H
3-days total = 328Terabyte
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
13/14
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
UEAverageThroug
hput
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
TotalHSOnlineU
E
Average of VS.HSDPA.MeanChThroughput Sum of VS.HSDPA.UE.Mean.Cell
Time
Data
HSDPA Performance
UE average throughput (30 minutes stats)
H+H+H H+H R+H+H
Total HS UE Count : H+H+H = 256, H+H = 215, R+H+H =210
Average HS UE Throughput (kbps): H+H+H = 970, H+H = 952, R+H+H =974
8/13/2019 3rd Carrier Deployment With RAN11 v2.3
14/14
Summary
Scenario B: H+H+H Scenario C: H+H Scenario D: R+H+H
Highest drop call
CSSR is acceptable
Highest traffic
Performance might degrade
when loaded
High drop call rate
Poorest CSSR
Lowest traffic
Lowest drop
Acceptable CSSR
High CS traffic and is not
impacted by loading
Acceptable CSSR
RIP Failure is kept minimum
Acceptable CSSR
RIP Failure is kept minimum
Poor CSSR
Higher RIP Failure
Has most carrier for HSDPA.
16% for busiest period and
28% on a daily basis.
No significant gain in HS user
throughput (Counter issue?)
CS Service
PS Service
HSDPA
Performance
Scenario D is preferred as it provides best CS performance
Impact on RIP failure could be mitigated by enabling DRD fallback
Scenario D could provide better capacity if compared to current Scenario A