GSM Design Validation and Quick Analysis The problem

Drive-test analysis is often based on lengthy manual processes where different information elements from the test log file (such as RxQual, RxLev, and so on) are displayed on a map in layers or parallel routes; combination of colors from these time-coincident elements are then used to understand the mechanisms behind potential problems. However, this method rarely permits accurate validation of the global behavior of the test mobile on the test route.

The solution
A better engineering practice for the validation of the network design along a test route consists of analyzing the drive-test data from a statistical point of view. Complex combinations of information elements can be calculated, and the relative importance of potentially inefficient or risky combinations of these indicators can easily be evaluated. It is then a matter of properly dividing the test route into representative segments that will help point to improperly designed areas of the network. In the light of this, it is often a good idea to split drive tests into small segments that can later be assembled into a greater area or region for processing and evaluation.

Call Details
Counts of CC, RR & MM messages, with a summary showing call and handover success rates. In this report, there is a small section dedicated to key drive-test indicators for evaluating customer perception of the network design. These indicators are:

Number of dropped calls. Number of assignment failures. Handover success rate.

Dropped calls are probably the worst and most frustrating situation that customers can experience in a network. Every effort should be put into reducing these to zero.

Assignment failures, from a customer perspective, usually result in the classic three beeps when trying to establish a call. This situation is annoyingbut certainly not as criticalas a dropped call. Finally, handover failures mean that the customer is not experiencing the best-possible overall call quality, as the call is not served by the best possible cell (best server). In fact, a handover attempt is related to the fact that either a better cell is available, or the handover is vital to keeping the call alive. If a handover fails (and if the call successfully returns to the old cell), then unless the radio conditions have changed in the meantime, the serving cell might not be the most suitable cell but a mere second choice, and the call may be at risk. An indication of the drive-test measurement period is given to evaluate the frequency of the above phenomena

Design Validation
Breakdown of good/bad design, and a chart of poor design by class of poor design. Combining several of the elements described above into a single stream of results will give a clear and efficient view of the overall quality of the network design. It also lets us efficiently identify the nature of the problems along the test route. In the report template provided with this engineering note, the following information elements have been combined into a matrix:

RxQual: the quality is considered acceptable if RxQual is greater than or equal to 3. RxLev: the level is considered sufficient if greater than or equal to 85 dBm. Server Dominance: the serving cell is considered dominant if there are less than 3 neighbors within 5 dB from the server.

Each dimension of this matrix is a Boolean evaluation of the measurement reports from the test mobile. Therefore, the results can be combined into single values coded on three bits. Each value will correspond to a unique combination of potential problems that will ease the analysis.

Typically, two types of information may be extracted from the statistical analysis of these combined evaluations of the data:

The objective measure of the quality of the network design along the drive-test route. This is represented by the percentage of samples where all individual expressions (described above) were calculated to be acceptable. The most significant problems in the areas along the drive-test route that do not correspond to a good design. This is done by identifying the most represented combinations of the matrix dimensions on a distribution plot. Problem sources and potential solutions may then be read directly by referring to the matrix description. For example, all points where the level is considered good and the quality is not acceptable may be classified as points of interference.

Note that, for the reasons described in the Handover Area section above, this evaluation is not valid in the case of dual-band networks. A specific set of queries has been designed for this case.

Measurement Charts
Graphs showing distribution of RxLevSub, RxQualSub and TA. The statistical distribution of the RxLev and RxQual information elements are basic but important indicators of the quality of the network RF design along the drive test route. Typically, it is important to look at the most represented RxLev and RxQual values and the overall spread of values in these distributions. In fact, the most represented value is important in understanding the RxLev and RxQual levels that customers are likely to experience. How the values are spread across the range will indicate the consistency of the network design. Concentrated values are a good sign. Widely spread values mean that network customers are likely to experience varying levels of quality or receive level when in the drive-test area.

Note that features such as Power Control (in the downlink, as only the DL receive level is available with drive-test measurements) will clearly influence the concentration of measurements between the defined upper and lower triggering points of the algorithm. Another important indication of how customers may perceive the network is the cumulative distribution of RxLev or RxQual samples. These can be used to identify clearly the extent that poor quality or low level will affect customers along the drive-test route. A cumulative distribution of 10% at 80 dBm, for example, means that this Rx level can clearly be considered as a guaranteed minimum receive level on 90% of the drive-test route.

Neighbour Level - Single Band

Shows the percentage of samples where at least one neighbour is stronger than the serving cell, and neighbours within 5 dBm from the server for PDF and CDF, in table and graph form. Handover area When analyzing a drive-test trace, it is interesting to look at the proportion of the route that is subject to potential handovers. The handover area in this case is defined as the area where at least one neighbor is stronger than the serving cell. This computation method could of course be enhanced to consider a network-specific handover margin, but in any case, it will give a good indication of the best server-cell efficiency in the drive-test area. If the drive-test shows a low handover success rate, it will be reflected in the handover area indicator, as the call is then likely to be served by a second-best server or third-best server cell. The indicator can also be used to evaluate the potential improvement that could be obtained from modifying the handover margin or speeding up the handover process. Note that this analysis is not valid for dual-band networks. In fact, a mobile engaged in a call procedure on the 1800-band is likely to measure many neighbors in the 900-band above the receive level of the serving cell. However, a better cell handover to the upper layer (the 900 MHz umbrella

layer) will be prevented by the system. Only quality or level problems could trigger a handover to a 900-cell. Analysis of the handover area in dual-band networks is therefore treated separately in the report provided with this engineering note. Neighbors within 5 dB from server To understand further the quality of the network design, we need to analyze the relative level of reported neighbors along the drive test route. In practice, if we count the number of neighbors that are within a 5 dB range from the serving cell receive level (including, of course, any neighbor for which the level would be above the server), we have a good indicator of the server dominance in each point of the test route. Typically, one or two neighbors within this range may be considered a sane situation. More than two neighbors within 5 dB from the server typically indicates that there is no clear dominant server cell in the area; therefore this is a potentially risky area, subject to interference.

Neighbour Level - Double Band

Shows percentage band usage, intra/inter band handover and neighbours within 5dB from the server for PDF and CDF, in table and graph form. In the case of a dual-band network, care must be taken that the evaluation of relative neighbor receive level takes the band information into consideration. This avoids situations where inter-band HO algorithms, preventing a call to return to a potential best server in the upper (umbrella) layer, would result in an incorrect interpretation of the network designquality indicators. In the report template provided with this engineering note, the result sheet and a set of queries have been specifically designed for dual-band analysis. The report reproduces any of the indicators presented for a single-band network, but with all necessary adaptations where band information plays a role in the results of the analysis. Handover Area and analysis of the number of neighbors within 5 dB from the server clearly separate

results within the concerned band from the inter-band results. Network Design analysis only takes neighbors from the same band as the serving cell into account in the evaluation of the server dominance. In addition, in the case of a dual-band network, the band indication allows you to statistically analyze the percentage of time spent in each band by the test mobile. This is a good indicator for validating the proper functioning of the dual-band scenarios and multi-band handover settings imagined by the RF design and optimization engineers.