Other-cell-interference factor Distribution Model

in Downlink WCDMA Systems

Anis Masmoudi1,2, Sami Tabbane2, Senior Member, IEEE
1

Institut National des Sciences Appliques et de Technologie (INSAT)

anis.masmoudi@insat.rnu.tn
2
Unit de recherche en Rseaux Radio Mobile Multimdia MEDIATRON
Ecole Suprieure des Communications de Tunis (SupCom)
sami.tabbane@supcom.rnu.tn
Abstract Interference performance is among the most important issues especially in WCDMA
cellular networks planning coverage and capacity. F-factor has been introduced in previous works to model
the interference in WCDMA downlink dimensioning process. In this paper, we establish its PDF expression
assuming one interferer in the serving cell both with and without correlated shadowing effect. Uniform and
non-uniform traffic situations are distinguished through the study of both uniform and non-uniform traffic
load cases. Then, we generalize the expression for multiple interfering cell tiers. We show the impact of this
evaluation on the design process in order to increase the capacity of a network.
Index Terms WCDMA, Interference, Distribution Function, F-factor, f-parameter, Uniform and
Non-Uniform Traffic-Load Cells, Log-Normal Correlated Shadow, Interfering Tiers, Design methodology.

I. INTRODUCTION AND MOTIVATIONS

Second generation CDMA-based systems such as CdmaOne (IS-95 based CDMA systems) [1] are
typically uplink capacity-limited [2]. Thus, the planning process which includes coverage and capacity
optimization can be restricted to the uplink only, simplifying the radio design process. In WCDMA third
generation systems, the situation is different because the multipath propagation effect in macro-cellular
environment affects the orthogonality introduced to mitigate downlink intra-cell interference in an ideal CDMA
case. WCDMA systems are then downlink capacity limited. In addition, the strong asymmetry of 3G multimedia
services (Web browsing, ftp, e-mail, ) leads to downlink limitations. Therefore, downlink must be carefully
considered along with the uplink.
With CDMA technology, interference is a critical factor because communications occur on the same
frequency band and time slot such as in the UMTS FDD mode. On the one hand, it is directly linked to coverage
and capacity of such a network. So, understanding the relationship between coverage and capacity and how it is
affected by interference and transmit power is essential for UMTS network planning, whatever it is a totally new
network or a second generation network that is migrating to 3G. One important source of interference in such a
WCDMA network comes from the signals transmitted by surrounding cells (inter-cell interference). A satisfactory
Eb/N0 value is of paramount importance to maintain a satisfactory quality of service (Frame Erasure Rate or Block
Error Rate). As a result, the interference level is directly related to the users density in the considered cell and its
neighbors and affects both the cell range and the capacity of the system. The higher the number of users in the
system, the higher the interference and the smaller the cell range. This is represented by the F-Factor [3] (home
cell noise / total noise) defined both for the uplink and for the downlink.
The f-parameter used for downlink dimensioning, refers to the amount of inter-cell downlink interference
relatively to the intra-cell interference in WCDMA cells. Since interference impacts the capacity and performance
of DS/CDMA based systems such as UMTS / WCDMA, it is necessary to investigate cell-interference
characteristics based on the location of a user. Moreover, an accurate estimation of downlink f-parameter allows
UMTS planners to predict design strategies where they can differentiate each area of the cell and avoid averaging
or overestimating the margin which has to be considered for example in the link budget calculations. Uplink
dimensioning is much simpler and more trivial than for the downlink. In fact, the receiving side on the uplink is the
base station which is a fixed localized point where received powers from all the mobiles must be approximately
constant for a given service. In fact, since most of the WCDMA systems implement a SIR-based power control on
the uplink, and assuming that the required SIR (Eb/N0) is a fixed value for a given service and that total uplink
interference and noise at the base station are constant, then the power strength received by the base station from all
served mobiles is almost constant and its distribution for a given service is approximately uniform or following
the power control command estimation error ; whereas for the downlink, mobiles can be at any position in the cell
with a received signal power depending on their location and distance related to their serving node B. The same
considerations apply to f-parameter both in the uplink and the downlink direction. The study of f-parameter in the
downlink is thus more complex than in uplink for a deep analysis such as its overall distribution and not only the
determination of some particular statistical parameters like the mean and the standard deviation values. Moreover,
downlink study is more important as it constitutes the bottleneck in third generation systems planning.

The analytical approach for evaluating this parameter is new in the literature and mainly for what concerns
its accuracy and explicit expression. Evaluation of this parameter, in the literature, has been, up to now, mainly
done through simulations and very few raw analytical modeling. For instance, [4] provides an implicit expression
of downlink other-cell-interference factor with summation expression and random variables, from which it derives
its mean expression then the experimental variation of this mean value against distance. The analysis of other-cellinterference factor in [4] is based on average and does not allow to explicit its expression for each area of the cell
with/without shadowing. [5] obtains the analytical values of the mean and the standard deviation of the inter-cell
and intra-cell interference for the reverse link of CDMA systems, and not of the ratio between the two interference
components, i.e. the f-parameter. Some simulation statistics of measured uplink F-factor are given in [6] over
different Monte-Carlo snapshots. Theory derivation of the F-factor such as [3] only refers to uplink channel
simulations. [7] deals with numerical average values of F-factor for different environment conditions. CDMA
systems SIR analytical distribution models such as developed in [8] only provide raw and closed-form expressions,
i.e. depending on integrals or summations approximated or formulated in special cases such as using FentonWilkinson approximation [9, Sec. 3.1.1], [10-14] which estimates the total interference modeled by the sum of
several log-normal components, but remains valid only in a certain range of shadowing standard-deviation as stated
by their authors. In [15], shadowing has been carefully addressed in the other-cell interference modeling. However,
only the simplified uplink direction in a uniform traffic load case is investigated. Moreover, it gives only a
numerical two-dimensional spatial integration to find the average relative Other-Cell Interference Factor and not its
exact mathematical distribution as our contribution work. To summarize, literature includes only general
experimental simulations and numerical results on f-parameter or some analytical expressions dealing with the
mean value or with the standard-deviation, or numerical integration resolution. This present analytical work
provides exact derivations of the general F-factor CDF and PDF distributions laws mathematical expressions in
WCDMA systems especially with one interferer, i.e. valid in each point of the cell and not only giving a single
average value. Besides, our approach doesnt depend on any assumption or values range. Furthermore, we have
also investigated the unequally-loaded cell case referring to the more general non-uniform mobile distribution
whereas literature such as in [15] has focused only on uniform traffic load. Resulting formulas can be used for
comparison with simulation results and to analytically model the downlink. We finally show how this original
modeling allows to refine the planning process and thus increase the quality and capacity of a cellular network.
The channel model considered, in this paper, is a deterministic distance path-loss with log-normal shadowing
effect. The rayleigh and multipath fading is out of the range of this study and we should rather apply a margin to
interference statistics in link budget dimensioning for example. The shadowing effect has been taken into account
in the formulation in Section III and its impact was analyzed.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II elaborates F-factor analytical PDF distribution
expressions assuming one interferer in the serving cell. We distinguish both equally-loaded and unequally-loaded
cell cases (i.e., uniformly or non-uniformly distributed traffic). In Section III, we extend our analytical study to
include shadowing propagation effect. Section IV generalizes the analytical expressions established to any number
of interferers. Section V presents numerical and simulation results. We also show in this section how our approach
allows to refine the planning process and allows to increase the capacity and performance of the network. Finally,
our conclusions are summarized in Section VI.

II. WCDMA F-FACTOR ANALYTICAL DISTRIBUTION MODEL ASSUMING ONE INTERFERER (WITHOUT
SHADOWING)
In this Section, we establish F-factor distribution both in simplified traffic and propagation assumptions
and unequally-loaded cells through Sub-sections A and B. The F-factor is defined [3], [16] as follows:
I int ra
1
F=
=
(1)
I int ra + I int er 1 + f
where Iinter and Iintra are respectively the inter-cell and the intra-cell interference in a typical cellular WCDMA
network such as FDD mode of UMTS system, and f is the other-cell-interference factor called along this paper
simply as f-parameter, defined by the ratio of the downlink intercell interference to the total power received from
the users own cell in a given position [4] given by the following expression:
f =

I int er
I int ra

(2)

In the rest of the paper, we focus on this parameter called also in some papers other-to-own-cell interference
ratio. Some works such as in [17] use the geometry factor (G-factor), which is the ratio of the own-cell
interference to other-cell interference or simply the inverse of f-parameter. Unlike f-parameter, the higher the
G-factor the closer to the node B the terminal is. In this section, we consider a deterministic propagation model
with only a path-loss phenomenon without considering any channel fading effects such as shadowing. This latter

will be introduced and modeled by a normal random variable (expressed in dB) in Section III. Two cases are
considered, based on the traffic load distribution in the cells.
A. Uniform traffic distribution
In this first case, all the cells are assumed to be equally loaded, i.e. the traffic and users distribution are
uniform within each cell, allowing the deployment of a regular grid of base stations (BS) or nodes B. Propagation
conditions are assumed to be the same all over the studied area. In such conditions, by considering a simplified
scenario with only two nodes B (one is the serving node B and the other is its neighbor interferer) the required
transmitted powers for the two nodes B are the same. Therefore, the power of both interfering and serving nodes B,
really used, can be mathematically simplified when calculating f-parameter which becomes depending only on
different path losses as expressed later in (3). Total transmit power reflects the equally-loaded cell case,
independently of any power control on the downlink, considered as perfect in this modeling. Thus, in each link, the
transmitted power is the one needed to ensure to the mobile the required quality corresponding to the received SIR
(Eb/N0) necessary for the used service. So, the downlink transmitted power to each mobile is not constant since its
position varies as well as the propagation conditions from one mobile link to another. However, the total required
transmitted power remains constant in that uniform traffic case because, as we assumed in this first case, cells
include the same load and user distribution in addition to the similar propagation environments.
Lets consider an omni-directional cell site whose radius is R and a user equipment (UE) served by this cell
and located at a distance r from its serving node B. In this case, f can be expressed by:
N
Lm , j
I
f = int er =
(3)
I
L
n =1, n m

int ra

n, j

Lm,j is the path loss from the serving BS m to UE j, Ln,j is the path loss from another BS n, to UE j and N is the
number of relevant neighboring base stations.
Notations of Fig. 1 are considered, including a single interferer BTSi (N = 1) located at a distance Di from
the target base station and di from the mobile terminal MS. The cluster size K is equal to 1. The path-loss
propagation exponent is . Assuming both base stations located on a horizontal axis (i = 0), the f-parameter
expressed on the mobile position (r,) can be written
as:

r
R
R
f (r , ) = = 1 + 3 2 3 cos

d
r
r

(4)

Fig. 1: A cell with an MS and an interfering BTS i.

The same study applies to G-factor by replacing by -. Developments detailed in the Appendix I allow to
determine the f-parameter CDF law as: 2

3s

F f (s) =

(1 s

; s

)2

(4 + 2 3 )

F f ( s ) = F1 ( s ) + F 2 ( s ); s [

F f (1) =

where
F1 ( s ) = 1

(4 + 2 3 )

5
3
+
6 4

Arc cos [G ( s ) ] +
4

F2 ( s ) =

(5)
2

3s

Arc cos [G ( s ) ]

G ( s ) 1 [G ( s )]

(1 s

and

(4 2 3 )

(1 s
3s

,1[ ]1,

3s

2
1 [G ( s ) ]
,
2
2

(1 s )

(1 + 2 s

)2

G(s) =

Arc sin s

)2
2

3s

) 1 [G ( s )]

2 (1 s

2
3

1
2

2 3s

)2

(6)

(7)
(8)

From (5), it is possible for f-parameter range to be higher than 1 (if it belongs to ]1, (4-2 3 )- /2] interval),
which indicates the possibility that interference be higher than useful signal: This should not surprise the reader
since by assuming a circular footprint, there is an overlapping in the coverage, i.e. there is an area outside the
hexagonal serving cell borders - though inside the circular coverage and within a distance R from the serving base
station (See Fig. 2) - where the neighboring cell can serve the mobile better than the original serving cell. This
assumption takes care of the case where the mobile moves in this overlapping region from the serving cell to the
neighboring interferer but is still connected to its original server since the switching between cells is not as
instantaneous as one cell's signal becomes better but rather requires a handover margin for the mobile to completely
disconnect from the first node B. This area would cause excessive inter-cell interference to the mobile if we don't
consider macro-diversity gain. However, the CDF and PDF distributions of f-parameter can be determined within
the hexagonal covered area either analytically by assuming also the supplementary condition that f-parameter is
less than or equal to one (f(r,) 1) under the integral expression in (57) (See Appendix I) and updating
accordingly its boundaries, or numerically by considering the distribution established and plotted for circular
coverage only within the f-parameter range less than 1 and then normalizing the corresponding probabilities
accordingly. Note that the side - limiting the hexagons of both neighboring cells - corresponds to a f-parameter
equal exactly to unity (or 0 dB). Hence, our model presents a maximum f-parameter value of (4-2 3 )- /2, which
corresponds to f(R,0) on the circular cell border, and on the horizontal line linking the serving and the interfering
node Bs.
Interfering cell
Serving cell

Overlapping area

Fig. 2: Overlapping area where interference is higher than the useful signal.
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the CDF plot of f-parameter respectively in number and in dB for the worst
propagation case ( = 4). These figures show that 80% of the covered area is such that f 0.73 or F 0.578.

Fig. 3: CDF distribution of f-parameter for the worst case ( = 4).

Fig. 4: CDF distribution of f-parameter in dB for the worst case ( = 4).

f-parameter PDF expression pf for one interferer and equally-loaded cells can then be simply deduced by
derivation of the different expressions of the cumulative distribution Ff versus s, i.e. p f ( s ) = F f ( s ) ; thus it can be
s

written as:
6s

p f (s) =

2 1

(1 + s
2

(1 s

; s

)3

1
(4 + 2 3 )

p f ( s ) = p1 ( s ) + p 2 ( s ) + p 3 ( s ) + p 4 ( s ); s [
5
3 3 2

p f (1) =

where
p1 ( s ) =

6s

2 1

(1 + s ) Arc cos[G ( s )]

3s

2 +1

1 [G ( s ) ]

6 3s

and

G(s)(1 + 2s )
2

3s

2 1

(1 s ) 2

4 1

2
1
2
(1 + s ) Arc sin s 1 [G ( s )]

6s

(10)

1 [G ( s ) ]

6 3s

6 1

2 32

(1 [G ( s ) ] )
2

3 3s

(1 + 2 s )(1 s ) 2

2 1

2 1

(1 + 2 s

) 1 [G ( s ) ]

2 1

4 1

G ( s) 1 [G ( s)]

2 (1 s

[G(s)]2
6s G(s)
+

2
2
2
2
2
1 [G(s)] (1 s ) 2 (1 + 2s ) 1 [G(s)] (1 s )2 s
3s

1 [G ( s)]

(1 s )3

2s 1 [G(s)] (1 s )2

p4 ( s) =

2 1

(1 + 2 s )(1 s ) 2

p3 (s) =

6s

(1 s )3

(4 2 3 )

(9)
2

p2 ( s ) =

(4 + 2 3 )

,1[ ]1,

(1 + 2s )(1 s ) 2

12s

4 1

G ( s) 1 [G ( s)]

(1 s )3

2 3s

4 1

, (11)

)2

3
2

1 [G(s)] (1 s )2
2

(1 + 2 s ) 1 [G ( s)]

, (12)

. (13)

(1 s )3

f-parameter PDF distribution is shown in Fig. 5 in dB for the worst case ( = 4) in the equally-loaded cells
case: it shows a maximum for 8.24 dB that is for f-parameter value of 0.15 (F-factor equal to 0.87). Fig. 6 shows
the PDF distributions for different path-loss exponents values: urban environments ( = 4) with less inter-cell
interference than rural areas ( = 2). Clearly, the higher the path-loss exponent, the less the inter-cell interference
(lower f-parameter and greater F-factor).

Fig. 5: PDF distribution of f parameter in dB for the worst case ( = 4).

Fig. 6: PDF distribution of f parameter in dB for different path-loss exponents.

B. Non-uniform traffic distribution
This case occurs with non-uniform traffic environments or at the borders of two different traffic
environments (e.g., urban and sub-urban). Overloaded cells size will shrink (cell breathing phenomena) compared
to unloaded ones (See Fig. 7). The size reduction of the most loaded cell of the network is due either to uplink
capacity limitations or to downlink coverage limitation. The first case occurs when the overloaded cell traffic
density increases and reaches the uplink pole capacity limit. The maximum number of users depends on many
factors such as service types mixture, required quality of service, traffic and service distribution, and the maximum
allowed uplink noise rise [18], [19].
Overloaded cell
Under-loaded cell

Fig. 7: Cell breathing in unequally-loaded cells.

Let T(r,) the cell traffic density (expressed in terms of number of subscribers per unit area) at a distance r
from the serving node B and an angle with the horizontal axis. The corresponding radius of the cell for this traffic
density is R. The increase of traffic density to T'(r,) reduces the new cell radius R' with the pole capacity as a limit
such as to obtain the same number of users in the cell assuming the same service distribution when traffic density
has increased, and thus:
2

T (r , ) r dr d =

R'

T ' (r , ) r dr d

(14)

Traffic density is assumed to be uniform along the cell (T(r,) = T and T'(r,) = T' are independent of r and ) and
the ratio T'/T is equal to . (14) becomes:
R' =

(15)

Thus, when the traffic increases ( >1), the cell serving area shrinks (R' < R): It is the capacity-limited cell
breathing mechanism.
When the cell breathing is due to the downlink coverage limit, the total BS transmission power reaches the
maximum power Pmax of the node B. If we consider a single service, a traffic density T(r,) with a cell size of R,
replacing the number of users, in the equation (11) of paper [16], by the corresponding expression as a function of
T(r,), we obtain:
Ra v 2 R
PN
T (r , ) L( r ) r dr d
W 0 0
Pmax =
(16)
2 R
Ra v
1
[(1 ) + f ] T ( r , ) r dr d
W

where L(r) is the path loss from the serving BS to UE with a distance r; , Ra and v are respectively the minimum
required average Eb/N0, the bitrate and the activity factor for a single service, PN is the noise power, W is the chip
rate, is the orthogonality factor and f is the mean other-to-own-cell interference ratio which can be calculated
numerically by averaging the expression (4) over the cell area. Let's assume traffic and user uniformity within each
separate cell (i.e. T(r,) and T(r,) are constant and equal, respectively, to T and T); and the path loss L(r) without
any fading as follows:
(17)
L(r ) = ar
where a is the multiplicative factor of the adequate propagation model which is constant in a non-shadowed
environment and depends on working frequency [20], and is the corresponding path loss exponent. Hence (16)
becomes
Ra v

PN a
Pmax =
1

Ra v
W

2T

R +2
+2

(18)

[(1 ) + f ] T R 2

As the traffic density increases to T' such that T'/T = , the cell radius shrinks to R' given by:
PN a
Pmax =
1

R a v

Ra v
W

2T '

+2

(19)

[(1 ) + f ]T ' R ' 2

Assuming TR = N the initial number of users and C =

1R

R'

R ' + 2
+2

Rv
W

(1 + f ) , (18) and (19) become:

R
CN + CN 1 = 0
R'

(20)

The numerical resolution of the polynomial (20) on (R/R') allows us to calculate directly the R'/R ratio in the
downlink coverage limited case, and thus the cell size reduction value.
Considering these two main cell breathing causes and the relations giving the cell size reduction value, we
can establish the f-parameter PDF distribution in a non-uniform traffic. Consider two unequally-loaded cells, the
first one is a serving cell with a radius R and a traffic area density T(r,) requiring a downlink transmission power
P; and the second is an interfering one with a radius R' and a traffic density T'(r,) requiring a total transmission
power at the node B of P' different than P. The link quality equations for downlink channels in the serving cell, can
be written as:
=

p (r , ) L(r )
W
Ra (1 ) P L( r ) + P ' / L (d i ) + PN

(21)

where p(r,) is the required transmit power at the node B of the serving cell for a channel with a mobile located at
(r,). Since the total required transmit power P from node B is the sum of all transmitted powers p(r,) required for
each mobile, thus P is given by:
P=

p(r , ) T (r , ) r dr d

(22)

Considering a non-shadowed environment, we can express L(r) as (17) and similarly L(di) as:
L(d i ) = ad i

(23)

Consequently, by extracting p(r,) from (21) and replacing it in (22), we can express P as:
Ra v

PN
P=

Ra v

W
2

PN a
=
1

Ra v
W

[(1 ) + f ( r , )] T (r , ) r dr d

Ra v
W

T (r , ) L(r ) r dr d

T ( r , ) r +1 dr d

(24)

[(1 ) + f ( r , )] T (r , ) r dr d

where f(r,) is the f-parameter of the serving cell for unequally-loaded cells, defined as follows:

P' r
P'
R
R
f (r , ) = = 1 + 3 2 3 cos

P di
P
r
r

P'
f eq ( r , )
P

(25)

where feq(r,) is the f-parameter given by (4) valid for the equally-loaded cells case, and f'(r,) is the f-parameter of
the interfering cell defined as follows:

P r
P
R
R
f ' (r , ) = = 1 + 3 2 3 cos

P' d i
P'
r
r

P
f eq (r , )
P'

(26)

Similarly, considering the interfering cell, we obtain:

PN a
P' =
1

Ra v
W

Ra v
W

T ' (r , ) r +1 dr d

(27)

[(1 ) + f ' ( r , )] T ' (r , ) r dr d

P' is different from P due to the unequal load between both cells. From (24) and (27), we can determine P' and
P

conclude that it is constant and independent of the mobile position (r,). Therefore, f(r,) and f'(r,) given
respectively by (25) and (26) become:
2

f (r , ) = f eq

R'

T ' (r, )
( r , )

T (r , )
0

Ra v 2 R

[(1 ) + f (r , )] T (r , ) r dr d
L( r ) r dr d 1

0 0
W

R v 2 R '
L (r ) r dr d 1 a [(1 ) + f ' (r , )] T ' (r , ) r dr d
W 0 0

(28)

Ra v 2 R '

[(1 ) + f ' (r , )] T ' (r , ) r dr d

L(r ) r dr d 1
W 0 0

R v 2 R
L(r ) r dr d 1 a [(1 ) + f (r , )] T (r , ) r dr d
W 0 0

(29)

and
2

f ' (r , ) = f eq

T (r , )
(r , )

T ' (r , )
0

R'

So, the expression (25) can be converted in dB scale as:

f dB = ( f eq )dB + C ( R, R ' ) dB

(30)
where (feq)dB is the dB-scale value of the equally-loaded cells f-parameter (other-to-own-cell interference ratio) and
C(R,R')dB is the constant described above (in dB) given by:
P'
(31)
C ( R, R ' ) dB = 10. log 10 ( )
P

where P and P' are the required total downlink transmit powers of nodes Bs corresponding to the serving and
interfering cells with radii R and R' respectively. f-parameter PDF distribution pf' in the non-uniform traffic case
and with 1-interferer can be derived and expressed as follows:
p f ' ( x dB ) = p f [x dB C ( R, R' ) dB ]
(32)
where pf is the f-parameter PDF expression in the uniform traffic case given by (9). Consequently, the new PDF
distribution curve of the other-to-own-cell interference ratio has the same shape as with uniform traffic (see Fig. 5)
provided a simple translation parallel to the x axis corresponding to the f-parameter values is applied. Intuitively, if
the serving cell is more loaded than the interfering one, the f-parameter values is smaller than with equally-loaded
cells (C(R,R') < 0 dB and R < R'). The PDF distribution curve is translated to the left of the initial curve (smaller
values). Similarly, on the opposite case (the serving cell is less loaded than the interferer), the PDF curve of f-

parameter in unequally-loaded cells is translated to the right of the initial curve (having higher values than that on
equally-loaded cells). The derivation of this constant (C(R, R)) is presented in Appendix II.
Although f-parameter distributions of two unequally-loaded cells have the same shape, they include
different ranges of values. This imbalance in the other-cell interference factor appears in the hot-spot cells which
cause hostile interference to the surrounding areas. Nevertheless, the mean f-parameter allover the whole area
remains equal to that in each equally-loaded cell, i.e. feq independently of the load amount or the traffic nature and
distribution. This is can be seen by the fact that the f-parameter range of one unequally-loaded cell increases
(respectively decreases) by the same amount as that of the other cell decreases (respectively increases). This same
increasing or decreasing amount is the C(R, R) constant established in the above expressions. Thus, we have
established analytically some results already achieved by simulation and important for the WCDMA cell planning
process modeling in both uniform and non-uniform traffic environments. Quantitative values support our claims in
Section V.
The C(R, R) calculation according to (90) expression allows designers to evaluate how much a cell is over
or under-loaded, so that they can improve performance by avoiding the negative impact of the over-loaded cells as
a hostile source of interference. The best solution to this situation is to downtilt the antenna of the over-loaded cell
in order to cover not beyond its limiting boundaries for interference isolation. The higher the C(R, R) constant the
more thorough the downtilting angle should be. Simple sectorization solution is not efficient in this case since the
same frequency band is shared.

III. f-PARAMETER PDF EXPRESSION IN A SHADOWED ENVIRONMENT (ONE INTERFERER)

f-parameter PDF expression established in (9) is valid only for a deterministic propagation environment.
Lets consider now the shadowing effect on this distribution with one interferer. Assuming f0 the f-parameter
obtained without shadowing and the shadowing standard-deviation, the general f-parameter expression (in dB)
can be written as the dB-scale of (3) by considering the additional slow fading propagation effect:
fdB =(Iint er +Iint er )(Iint ra +Iint ra )
(33)
where Iint er and Iint ra are two normal random variables modeling the effect of shadowing on the inter-cell and
intra-cell interfering power levels respectively. Briefly, f-parameter becomes:
f dB = f 0 + Y
(34)
where Y = I int er I int ra is a centered gauss random variable with a variance equal to [21]:

Y 2 = 12 + 2 2 2 12 1 2
(35)
Thus the f-parameter PDF with shadowing effect is the convolution product of f0 and Y PDF distributions, where 1
and 2 are the standard-deviations of Iint er and Iint ra respectively and 12 is the correlation coefficient between
Iint er and Iint ra . Since 1 = 2 = . Then (35) becomes:
Y 2 = 2 2 (1 12 )
(36)
So Y has a standard-deviation of 2(1 12 ) . First, let's suppose a uniform correlation, i.e. assigning the same
correlation to any pair of links. Thus, we assume a constant correlation coefficient with the most used mean values
25% and 50% [22] involving Std-deviations of Y equal respectively to and 1.22. So, psh and p being the PDF
distributions of f-parameter respectively with and without shadowing, and pY being the normal PDF distribution of
Y; psh can be expressed as
psh(s) = p(s) pY(s)
(37)
where denotes the convolution product and p(s) is given by (9).
By considering a general non-uniform correlation model based on the angle of arrival of shadowed signals
to the receiver (mobile) according to [21] and [23], the correlation coefficient can be written as:
(38)
12 = Acos() + B
where A and B are positive constants such that A + B 1; and is the angle between the MS-server link and the
MS-BTSi link (See Fig. 1). After some mathematical geometric manipulations, we can express cos() versus
mobile position coordinates (r, ) as follows:

r 3R cos

cos =

(39)

r 2 + 3R 2 2 3R r cos
Hence Y will have a Std-deviation of 2(1 B A

r 3R cos
2

r + 3R 2 2 3R r cos

) with respect to (36), (38) and (39). Thus,

let's call it Yr, due to its dependence on the mobile position. Since the randomness of the distribution of Y becomes
depending both on the Gaussian shadowing at the same mobile position and on the mobile polar location, we can
express the PDF distribution of Y assuming a uniform traffic distribution as:

pY ( s ) =

1
R 2

pY , r , ( s ) r dr d

where pY,r, is the normal (Gaussian) distribution having 2(1 B A

r 3R cos
2

r + 3R 2 2 3R r cos

(40)
) as a Std-deviation, i.e

located at the (r, ) polar position of the mobile MS. (40) is calculated by numerical computation as well as (37)
afterwards in order to find the overall PDF distribution of f-parameter with the general correlated shadowing
model.
Fig. 8 shows both PDF distributions with and without shadowing. The one without shadowing effect is
obtained through numerical computation and for an uncorrelated shadowing (i.e. X = 2 ) and a slow fading
standard-deviation example of = 6 dB. We note that the convolution product with the normal random variable
has averaged the deterministic PDF distribution by becoming smoother. In particular, the higher f-parameter values
occur more than in non-shadowed environment since their PDF values is more important than in the deterministic
PDF curve. In addition, the non-derivable maximum in the middle of the original curve becomes derivable, smooth
and having lower value by considering the shadowing effect.

Fig. 8: Shadowing impact on f-parameter PDF distribution.

Fig. 9 shows f-parameter distribution in different propagation environments with consideration of
shadowing impact. The following three different environments are considered:
- The rural environment: having a path-loss exponent of 2.5 a little higher than that stated in [22] for regions
with flat terrain, where there is Fresnel zone clearance or when base station location is chosen such that path
blockage is avoided. A slightly decorrelated shadowing is taken into account with a Std-deviation of 3 dB.
- Outdoor urban environment: a deterministic path-loss term with a decay exponent of 4 is considered as
appropriate in such areas [22], jointly with a 10 dB Std-deviation slow fading, which is reasonable for outdoors
[22], and a 50% constant correlation coefficient [21] between interfering and useful signals.
- Two different indoor environments: both with a path-loss exponent of 4, and a 12 dB Std-deviation slow fading
suitable for indoor. The first is for pedestrian users (inside buildings and residences) and has a 25% signals
correlation of different node-B while the second is for office environment with a 50% shadow correlation [22].

Fig. 9: Shadowing impact on f-parameter distribution in different environments.

More explicit propagation models appropriate to UMTS are detailed in [22]. Correlation factors are chosen
uniformly and independently of the angle between both links because this correlation model seems to provide more
accurate results than those depending on it [21], as stated previously.
We note that the higher the path-loss exponent, the less the f-parameter having maximum PDF value,
which is the same result established in Fig. 6 for non-shadowed environments. In fact, the most frequent
f-parameter value (maximum PDF), in Fig. 9, is about -3 dB in rural environment ( = 2.5) whereas it is only about
-14 dB in urban one ( = 4). Besides, for the same path-loss exponent ( = 4), the maximum f-parameter occurs
more at the same value for different shadowing St-deviation and correlation parameters. In fact, the higher the
shadowing Std-deviation, the higher the other-cell interference contribution to the total one. Likewise, the less the
shadowing is correlated, the more the interference comes from other cells. Consequently, the shadowing increases
the inter-cell versus intra-cell interference.
Table 1 summarizes the main statistical results of f-parameter distribution in the last simulated propagation
environments: While the f-parameter has almost the same mean value in different environments, the Std-deviation
is relatively low in rural environment and increases in indoor where shadowing is more important. So, we can take
the same F-factor value in a downlink dimensioning study based on the mean value for any propagation
environment. A simple calculation gives an average F-factor value of 0.45. Besides, it is obvious that the more
correlated the shadowing, the less the Std-deviation and the variability of the f-parameter distribution.
Path-loss
Shadowing Correlation
Mean
f-parameter distribution
Environment
f-parameter
Std-deviation
exponent () Std-deviation coefficient
Rural
2.5
3 dB
0%
0.98 dB (1.253)
0.59
Urban
4
10 dB
50%
0.91 dB (1.233)
0.95
(Outdoor)
Indoor
4
12 dB
25%
0.93 dB (1.239)
1.61
Indoor
4
12 dB
50%
0.92 dB (1.236)
1.25
Table 1: Statistics on f-parameter distribution in different environments for the equally-loaded cell case.
Consequently, the shadowing affects the f-parameter distribution, and its impact is as much important as its
Std-deviation is high or its correlation is low due to their smoothing effect, as depicted in Fig. 9.

IV. F-FACTOR DISTRIBUTION GENERALISATION TO MORE THAN ONE INTERFERER

In a uniform traffic environment and with the assumptions of a regular cell grid and homogeneous propagation
conditions without shadowing, the total required transmit powers of different base stations are almost the same as
well as the propagation conditions between the MS and the interferers of one tier. So, in such conditions, a mobile
near the serving cell - receives almost the same interference from each interfering cell in the first tier. However,
near the first interferer, it receives interference from the other cell interferers less than that perceived by the first
one (near it). This can lead us to find a bound for the total other-cell interference as shown below.
Assuming f0 the f-parameter with one interferer, f1 the one of 1-interfering tier, f2 the one caused by the second
interfering tier; and taking into account the definition given by equation (3) and the fact that inter-cell interference
caused only by the first tier is the sum of the six ones received by each interferer from the same distance d = 3 R
to the serving cell, where R is the cell radius in a regular hexagonal grid (See Fig. 10). So, the interference by each

first-tier cell can be approximated to be equal, then, in a determined mobile location, we have at worst f1 = 6f0. The
second tier has 12 interferers (6*2) which are approximately at the same distance from the serving cell (See
Fig. 10). In fact, six interferer sites are at the distance 2d from the server, and the six other interferers are at 3 d
from serving cell. Approximating the distance from the different interferers in the second tier to about 2d, we can
establish an upper bound for the f2/f0 ratio given by:
L
f2
d
62
6
12 int er = 12
=
=
(41)
f0
L' int er
(2d ) 2 2 1
where Linter is the propagation loss between one interferer in the first tier and the serving cell and Linter is the one
between the second tier and the server (distance approximately equal to 2d), hence an upper limit for f2 is 6f0/2-1.

Second
interfering tier

First interfering tier

Serving cell
Third interfering
tier

Distance d between
different tiers

Fig. 10: Interfering tiers around serving cell.

Similarly, we can establish that the f-parameter fn caused by the nth interfering tier is upper bounded by 6f0/n-1
since there are 6n interferers in the nth tier and this latter is approximately distant nd from the serving cell.
The global f-parameter is the sum of the ones caused by each tier separately because the inter-cell interference
is composed of the ones issued from each tier, and the intra-cell one remains the same one created by the serving
cell at the center. Consequently, we have in the worst case
f = fn
n

6 f0
n 1

(42)

Such upper bound is useful especially for dimensioning purposes, then we can assume that the f-parameter worst
value distribution can be obtained by translating the distribution obtained with one interferer by a constant c where
f is upper bounded by cf0. Assuming an infinity of interferer tiers and unlimited covered area, the constant c is
determined analytically by the sum of a converging Riemann series given, in dB-scale, as follows
+ 6
(43)
cdB = 10 log 10 1
n =1 n
This positive constant models the number of interferers assimilated in a WCDMA cellular network having K = 1
cluster size. Its exact value depends on the number of interferer tiers considered, which should be optimized to
include mainly the potential interferers. We can check that the series converges since must be between 2 and 4, so
(-1) > 1.
Equation (43) is only an approximate expression of c assuming that the interferers of a tier are equidistant
from the serving cell. The series value is equal to 8.36 in linear or to 9.22 dB with 10-2 approximation, calculated
for = 3.38 (Okumura-Hata propagation model).
Since c reflects the other interferers effect not considered in sub-section II-A analytical expressions we can
correct the f-parameter CDF and PDF distributions in a WCDMA system for preliminary planning phases so that

s
s
c
c
V. SIMULATION AND NUMERICAL RESULTS

Ff(s) and pf(s) become respectively F f ( ) and p f ( ), where c is written in linear scale.

This section first provides estimation of some important numerical F-factor values in terms of statistics
distribution and calculation of Std-deviation and mean value of the F-factor value for a typical WCDMA cell

configuration through simulations based on equations (9) and (37) already established in this paper (See Tables 1
and 2). In particular, the F-factor Std-deviation translates the variability of its distribution and how the different
F-factor values are distributed around the mean value for different propagation path loss exponents. Then, in subsection V-B, we introduce an example of application of our model and numerical results in order to improve
WCDMA design and dimensioning process.
A. Numerical results and statistics
Moreover, the calculated numerical values of standard-deviation show that the higher the path-loss
exponent, the higher the f-parameter Std-deviation. This is because of the fact that propagation in urban
environment is more dispersive than in rural areas due to diffraction and reflection propagation effects. This
increases the interference Std-deviation in the cell.
Standard-deviation
Mean f-parameter
Mean F-factor

2
1.175
0.460
1.802
3.37
0.643
0.609
1.902
3.52
0.617
0.618
1.928
3.7
0.590
0.629
1.962
4
0.554
0.644
2.027
Table 2: Statistics on f-parameter and F-factor for different path-loss exponents without shadowing for the
equally-loaded cell case.
Those numerical statistical values in Tables 1 and 2 extracted from calculations applied to the expressions in
(9) for the equally-loaded cell case are useful to be implemented into input static simulations and for checking the
already existing values selected in literature such as average F-factor and f-parameter. Just for comparison
purposes, the other-to-own cell interference ratio taken into account in [24] is 55% in macro-cells with
omnidirectional antennas. Our results confirm this value in non-shadowed environments with one interfering cell.
In fact, according to Table 2, a path-loss exponent of 4 corresponds to a mean f-parameter equal to 55.4%.
However, this f-parameter value considered is so optimistic since it takes into account only one interferer and does
not include shadowing effect which can increase the average other-interference factor to more than 123% according
to Table 1. Thus the value considered in [24] should be increased regarding the corresponding shadowing Stddeviation and correlation coefficient, and tuned by the calibrating cdB constant factor established in Section IV in
order to take into consideration the effect of several interferers. Hence the advantage of our study is to give
accurate F-factor and f-parameter range values in any environment type with different path-loss exponents and
shadowing parameters
The results in Tables 1 and 2 can be adjusted to cover also the unequally-loaded cells case by calculating the
constant C(R, R) according to expression (90) in order to include load imbalance between cells in a non-uniform
traffic environment. It is to note that the results in this case are computed for a locally-uniform traffic, i.e. uniform
traffic along each cell separately. Nevertheless, the same methodology as that in Appendix II can be followed to
generalize this result. The expression valid for any traffic distribution can be obtained by applying the general
formulas in sub-section II-B starting with (28) and (29) expressions and substituting the corresponding modeled
traffic expression depending on the polar position T(r, ) and T(r, ).
B. Impact of these results on the planning process
In this sub-section, we present the downlink radio dimensioning process as influenced by our modeling
approach. Handover and macrodiversity assumptions are taken into account in the next sub-section. First, let's
assume a uniform traffic and thus equally-loaded cells and see the impact of considering the non-negligible power
for other channel types on the study of [16]: For that, we start with the generic link quality equation for the
downlink connection i expressed by:
i =

Wpi Li
Ri (P Li (1 + f i ) + PN )

(44)

where i and pi are respectively the required Eb/N0 and the transmit power at BS for UE i including fast fading and
other margins, PN is the thermal noise power (including noise receiver factor), Ri is the used bit rate, W is the chip
rate, P is the required total transmit power of the BS for all radio link (RL) connections in the cell and including the
common and shared channels power requirement, and Li is the path loss from the serving BS to UE i.
Thus, the required transmit power pi can be written as follows:
R
pi = i i ((1 + f i ) P + PN Li )
(45)
W

Yet the total transmit power P is the sum of individual required transmit powers for each RL connection in addition
to other common channels power, this can be expressed as:

P = vi pi + P

(46)

i =1

where vi is the effective channel activity factor for the UE i and is the fraction of power dedicated to common and
shared channels (A typical value of is 0.15). By inserting pi expression in (45) into (46), we can re-extract the
total downlink transmission power of the BS:
N
i Ri vi
PN

Li
W
P=
N
Rv

1 i i i (1 + f i )

i =1 W
i =1

(47)

Here, we can define the downlink loading as:

N

i Ri vi

(1 + f i )
W

DL =
i =1

(48)

The "noise rise" NR due to multiple access interference (MAI) defined in [16] should depend on the amount
fraction of common channels power, i.e. in decibels NRDL = -10log10(1 - - DL). In other words, when DL
approaches to 1 - (and not to 1 as stated in [16]), capacity approaches to its maximum (pole capacity), where the
required transmit power approaches to infinity.
In case of one single service, Equation (47) can be written as:
PN

P=

Rv

NL
W
Rv
N (1 ) + f
1
W

(49)

where is the quality requirement of that service, R is its bit rate, v its activity factor, f and L are respectively the
average f-parameter and path-loss over the cell given by:
f =

1 N
1 N and
L = Li
fi

N i =1
N i =1

(50)

Assuming Ns different services having each (i) as a service requirement, R(i) as a bit rate, v(i) as the activity factor
and N(i) as a number of RL user connections, i = 1, 2, , Ns; Equation (47) can be grouped according to different
user profiles by summing over separate services, i.e.
NS

PN N ( i )
P=

i =1
NS

1 N (i )
i =1

(i ) R ( i ) v (i )

L
W

(i ) R ( i ) v (i )
(1 + f )
W

(51)

Here, unlike Eq. (11) in [16], we have assumed a uniform traffic in the whole area for all the Ns services with a fair
service resource management, hence the average allowed cell path-loss and the mean other-cell interference factor
are the same for each service ( L and f respectively). In (51), the numerator represents the sum of individual
transmission powers needed to overcome thermal noise power PN only, each term of the sum being relative to one
service; the denominator refers to the amount of the interference over the noise (noise rise) that should be also
considered in the transmission power terms as downlink interference margin. Therefore, given the maximum
available node B transmit power, different service profiles and traffic distribution among services, we can
dimension the maximum cell range by deducing directly the mean allowed cell path-loss and radius (By assuming
P the maximum power) then the maximum cell range value: In fact assuming a deterministic propagation model
(without fading), the average path loss of a circular cell with a radius R can be written as follows:
L=

1 2 R
1 2 R
2a
L (r , ) r dr d =
ar r dr d =
R

0
0
0
0
R
R
+2

(52)

where a is the multiplicative factor of the propagation model encountered in sub-section II-B above, and is the
corresponding path loss exponent. Yet the maximum allowed path-loss (i.e. cell range) is Lmax = L(R,) = aR, thus
the following relation between both maximum and mean path-loss:
+ 2 or in dB scale
Lmax =
L
(Lmax )dB = L dB + 10 log10 + 2
(53)
2
2
Hence, assuming d the cell distance corresponding to the average path-loss L , the maximum cell range can be
simply concluded to be:
1
+ 2
(54)

()

R=

With this method, the mean allowed path-loss, established from (51), can be converted to the maximum cell
range. So, an accurate value of mean f-parameter in a particular case (such as in uniform traffic or with / without

shadowing), as established in numerical results in sub-section V-A allows us to find a simple and efficient radio
dimensioning method in the downlink. Previous methods in practice only use a typical f-parameter value which is
either considered arbitrarily under a given range according to the environment, or taken in the worst case. In the
last case, designers used to calculated the transmit power needed for each service to ensure the required quality at
the cell edge, then the total power is determined and compared to the maximum node B available power; if the
required power is higher than maximum, the operator has either to reduce cell range or decrease the number of
users, and the mechanism is so on reiterated until the total required power correspond to the actual available power
[25]. However, this may lead to an over-dimensioning; that if really deployed, it may involve an unused amount of
the node B power because there are mobiles inside the cell area, which should need much less power than already
predicted in the peripheral. Furthermore, this used method has the disadvantage to plan a smaller cell range than
that the node B can guarantee, which makes operators deploy more sites than needed really, thus involving to them
extra costs and charging. Besides, the event consisting that required power is exceeding the maximum available
power - is so likely to happen since all planned users are in the cell edge and will consume much power resources:
Another possible alternative to operators faced to this problem without decreasing cell range is to reduce the
number of users to serve per cell, leading to a reduced capacity and a lack of gains to them. Consequently, our
method allows operators to maximize their profits by optimizing cell capacity and minimizing the number of sites
to deploy through an accurate dimensioning of WCDMA radio interface.
To make our methodology more concrete, let's take an example where traffic is uniform and without
considering shadowing, then we will extend it to take into account unequally-loaded cells and shadowing effect.
Assume there are four services to deploy with bit rates 12.2 Kb/s, 64 Kb/s and 128 Kb/s, 10 planned users per cell
respectively distributed to 7, 2 and 1, and required downlink Eb/N0 respectively equal to 5.5 dB, 3.5 dB and 1.5 dB.
The total downlink loading DL to plan was given by (48) and can calculated as a function of the mean f-parameter
in the cell as:
N
N (i ) ( i ) R (i ) v ( i )

(55)
DL =
(1 + f )
W
i =1

Assuming a path-loss exponent of 3.52 as Okumura-Hata model, Table 2 indicates a mean f-parameter value of
0.617 in 1-interferer case. By applying the 8.36 factor established in Section IV to account for multiple interferers,
we obtain an average f-parameter value of 5.158. Thus the downlink load factor in our case is DL = 72.5% with a
40% orthogonality factor. All the activity factors are assumed to be 0.60 except that of the voice service (12.2 Kb/s)
which has been taken 0.67. Let's suppose that = 15% of the available power is dedicated to common channels,
then DL < 1 - = 85%, which should be OK. Unless this last condition is filled, we must necessarily diminish the
cell load by decreasing the number of users per cell to be dimensioned while respecting each service users
proportion (in our case: 70%, 20% and 10% respectively for 12.2 Kb/s, 64 Kb/s and 128 Kb/s services). Here,
designers used simply to compare the downlink load factor to unity (100%); our contribution is that it should be
compared to 1 - (85% in our case study) which is the real maximum allowed downlink loading because common
channel power is not a part of the load but is rather considered as interference power component. The noise rise
NRDL is thus equal to -10log10(1 - - DL) = 9 dB approximately, which can be considered as the interference
margin to be applied to each service in the modified link budget (See Table 3) where the minimum average
S

required received power (sensitivity) per user and per service (due to f ) is determined. Then the aggregated total
required received power - assimilated to be at average distance d from the node B - is computed, and the maximum
average path-loss is deduced. The maximum allowed path-loss can then be calculated owing to expression (53) and
shown to be 132 dB which yields a cell range of about 700 meters assuming a Okumura-Hata model for urban
macro-cell environment [22] (a path loss L = 137.4 + 35.2 log(R)). The link budget in Table 3 being a simple
example with non-exhaustive component list, the operator can introduce other gains and losses not included in it
(such as fast fading margin, etc).
If we choose to consider an environment with shadowing effect, we should apply a margin to the radio link
budget taking into account the shadow standard deviation and the target coverage probability by applying Eq. (13)
in [26]. In this case, the average f-parameter to be considered in the preliminary calculations (in Eq. (51)) should
carefully take into account the study of f-parameter distribution modeling with shadowing in Section III by
extracting the results dealing with shadowing from Fig. 9 and Table 1 with the convenient shadow correlation
factor and propagation model or path loss exponent.
In the non-uniform traffic case (Unequally-loaded cells), the average f-parameter of an over or under-loaded
cell can be determined by applying the correction factor C(R, R') to the equally-loaded f-parameter through (30)
owing to (90) - in Appendix II - requiring only the amounts of traffic imbalance (T'/T) and cell radius shrinkage or
inflation versus regular grid equally-loaded one according to whether it is a capacity or coverage limitated case
(See sub-section II-B).

Service rate
Transmitter (Node B)
Maximum total transmission power
Antenna gain
Cable loss
Equivalent Isotropic total Radiated Power (EIRP)

12.2 Kb/s 64.0 Kb/s

128 Kb/s R(i)

43 dBm
18.0 dBi
2.0 dB
59.0 dBm

Receiver (Mobile User Equipment)

Thermal Noise Power Density
Receiver Noise Figure
Receiver Noise Density

a
b
c
d=a+b-c

-174.0 dBm/Hz
7.0 dB
-167.0 dBm/Hz

Receiver Noise Power

-101.2 dBm

Noise rise / Interference margin

Average Total Effective Noise + Interference
Processing Gain
Required Eb/N0

9.0 dB
-92.2 dBm
17.8 dB
3.5 dB
-106.5
dBm
0.60
2
-105.7
dBm
3 dB

Average Receiver Sensitivity per user

25.0 dB
5.5 dB
-111.7
dBm
0.67
7
- 105.0
dBm

14.8 dB
1.5 dB
-105.5
dBm
0.60
1
-107.7
dBm

e
f
g=e+f
h=g+
10log(3.84106)
I
j=h+i
k = 10log(3840/R(i))
l
m=l-k+j

Average Pathloss

157.2 dB

v(i)
N(i)
n = m + 10log(v(i)*
N(i))
o
p = sum of all
minimum average
powers per service
q=d-p-o

Shadow fading margin

Soft Handover gain
In-car loss
In-building loss (Urban environment)
Maximum Average Pathloss Allowed

8.6 dB
2 dB
8 dB
15 dB
127.6 dB

r
s
t
u
v=q-r+s-t-u

Path-loss exponent
MAXIMUM PATHLOSS ALLOWED

3.52
132.0 dB

w
x = v + 10log((w+2)/2)

Activity factor
Number of users
Minimum average total required received power (per
service)
Body loss
Minimum average total required received power (all
service)

-101.2 dBm

Table 3: Modified downlink radio link budget.

The modified link budget in Table 3 is based on a new study that averages parameters varying in the
downlink such as f-parameter and the path loss that used to be preventing an accurate dimensioning of WCDMA
radio interface because only the maximum node B available transmit power is known whereas individual link
required powers are to be determined. In fact, existing link budgets used for initial planning are based on fair power
distribution among the users independently of the service used and their positions. In other words operators used to
calculate the single transmit power per user by dividing the available power over the total number of users then
calculate directly the maximum path loss regardless of any interference margin as they make for the uplink.
However, fair power allocation (FPA) doesn't seem to optimize the resource utilization because the users far from
the node B could not have the power they need to achieve their required quality, which leads to interference,
especially in the cell boundaries involving a lack of capacity. Moreover, FPA considered in the existing link
budgets planning methods don't care of downlink power control that seem to be important to minimize interference
and optimize capacity and resources. Thus, our methodology allows rather a fair user satisfaction taking into
account power control mechanism, careful actual noise rise computation, which betters planning accuracy, reduces
interference level and optimizes quality and capacity of WCDMA networks.

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES

In this paper, we have evaluated analytically the F-factor referring to interference in a WCDMA cellular network
in addition to some resulting simulations and numerical values. Interference has been modeled in a typical WCDMA
system by means of accurate analytical distribution modeling of F-factor parameter for the downlink dimensioning process.
The F-factor PDF expression has been elaborated in an accurate approach without any major approximation and totally
different from previous ones. In fact, most previous works are based on static simulations or analytical expressions of

particular moments of f-parameter. The downlink direction has been considered in this work because very few existing
works were dealing with it, focusing mainly on the uplink which is not the limiting link in third generation networks.
Our study is particularly useful for choosing the convenient value of f-parameter to consider in the loading
equations or in the generic downlink SIR expression and suitable for input static simulations and thus an accurate design of
UMTS cellular networks in different load conditions. In fact, our analytical approach gives accurate modeling of
f-parameter distribution and thus correct values that should be used in simulations required for a preliminary planning
process both in equally and unequally-loaded cell cases. Moreover, our study is not valid only for regular grid cells, but it
applies also to irregular networks which operators are trying to optimize. In fact, unequally-loaded cells due to non-uniform
users distribution and cell breathing in WCDMA networks are based on cells with different sizes, and thus on irregular
cell grid principle.
At the end of Section V, we showed an example of how our model can improve the planning and design process
needed by operators before deployment. Our proposed methodology is beneficial for industry owing to its accuracy and
simplicity, and thus enhancing their network quality and capacity by reducing interference while saving investments and
infrastructure expenditure.
Even though the computations of f-parameter distribution realized in this paper are doable and feasible, they have
never been treated before as rigorously and accurately as we have done in this paper. Moreover, the analytical calculations
performed are very long and not straightforward even after simplification to one interferer. Here, the calculations has not
been done directly considering multiple interferers because the sum distribution is not as trivial as it seems. The f-parameter
PDF expression with shadowing has also been established using convolution product and has been plotted by simulations
and differentiated with that without shadowing in various propagation environments. Shadow correlation has also been
taken into account.
Further works will be focused on the modeling and estimation of downlink orthogonality factor as we have done
for the F-factor in order to obtain more accurate WCDMA dimensioning results in term of propagation issues.

APPENDIX I
In this appendix, we give details of the derivation of equations (5)-(8). We start by the following fparameter expression given in the paper by (4):

r
R
R
f (r , ) = = 1 + 3 2 3 cos

r
r
di

(56)

The f-parameter cumulative distribution function (CDF) Ff(s) is the probability to obtain f(r,) < s as follows:
F f ( s) = Pr ob( f ( r , ) < s ) =

1 2 R
1 2 ( s) 2 (s)
r dr d =
r dr d

R 0 0 f ( r , )< s
R 1 ( s ) r1 ( s )

(57)

where r1(s), r2(s), 1(s) and 2(s) denote the polar boundaries of the area where f(r,) < s. Lets determine those
boundaries. Starting with f(r,) < s expression as given by (56), we can conclude the following 2nd degree
polynomial inequality on (r/R):
(1 s

r
r
) 2 3 cos + 3 > 0
R
R

(58)

If 0 < s < 1 then for all [0, 2], the discriminant of (58) is positive (' > 0). Since one root is negative, (58) is

respected only if 0 < r < R 3 cos + 3 cos 3(1 s

) = z ; Yet, 0 < r R then z and R must be compared; we

easily establish two cases:

1st case: if 0 < s (4+2 3 )-/2 then z R for all [0, 2]; in this case, (57) becomes:
2

1 2 z
1 R 3 cos + 3 cos 3(1 s )
F f (s) =
r
dr
d
=

d
2
R 0 0
R 2

(59)

By developing the squared term, we obtain

3

F f (s) =
s

+
1

6 A ( s)
2
s 1

(60)

where

A ( s ) = cos cos s sin d

0

(61)

After linearizing cos, we can write

A ( s ) =

cos s
0

sin d

(62)

The integral part in A(s) is null since /2 is a symmetry center, so A(s) = /2; thus
3s

F f ( s) =

s 2 1

3s

; s ]0, (4+2 3 )-/2]

1 s 2

(63)

2nd case:
if (4+2 3 )-/2 s < 1 then z R for all [ Arc cos( 2 s
3

2 3

z > R otherwise ( [ Arc cos(

2
3

), Arc cos(
s

2
3

), 2 Arc cos(

2 3

)]

2 3
2

)] )

2 3

thus the boundaries 1, 2, r1 and r2 in (57) are well determined and

2

2
3 cos + 3 cos 3(1 s )

s
1

1 Arc cos( 23 s2 3 ) R

F f (s) =
2
R Arc cos( 2 s ) 0
3

2 3

1 2 Arc cos( 23 s2
r dr d +
2
R Arc cos( 2 s )
3

r dr d

(64)

2 3

which leads directly to the following expression

F f ( s) = 1

Arc cos(

2
3

2 3

3 Arc cos(
)+

2
s

)
6 A( s)
2 3
+
2
2

1
s 1

; s [(4+2 3 )-/2, 1[

(65)

where
A( s ) =

Arc cos(

2 3

cos cos s sin d

(66)

By writing cos = (1+cos2)/2, we obtainf

2

2
2
2 s 2
1
2 s
1 2 s

A( s ) = Arc cos(

) +

3 2 3 B( s )
2
3 2 3 2 3 2 3

where B ( s ) =

Arc cos(

2
3

2 3

cos s

(67)

sin d .

To determine B(s) expression, we have to distinguish two sub-cases:

1st sub-case: if 4-/2 s < 1
2

In this sub-case, Arc cos( 2 s ) ; then, by applying, successively, both the following variable changing:
2
3 2 3
t = s1/ sin then t = sin , we obtain

B( s ) = s

1
2 s
Arc sin s 1

3
2
3

(68)

cos d
-/2

Similarly as (65) was obtained, we can derive the CDF expression, s [4 , 1[, as follows
1
2
2
1
2
3s Arcsins 1 [G(s)]

1 [G(s)] 1 s (1 [G(s)])
1
3s Arc cos[G(s)] 3G(s) 1 [G( s)]

3s
Ff (s) = 1 Arc cos[G(s)] +
+

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

where

G( s) =

Ff ( s) = 1

2 3

3s Arc cos[G(s)]
2
1 s

2 sub-case: if (4+2 3 )

-/2

B1 ( s) = cos s
2
0

2 3

3s G(s) 1 [G(s)]
2
1 s

s4

Here, we have Arc cos( 2 s

(69)

, leading directly to the following expression:

Arc cos[G(s)] +

nd

2
1
3
2
3s Arc sins 1 [G(s)]

3s 1 [G(s)] 1 s (1 [G(s)])

2
2
2
2
1 s
1 s

-/2

, so we can write B(s) = B1(s) + B2(s) where

Arc cos(
sin d and B 2 ( s) =

2
3

2 3

cos s

sin d

By applying, successively, the variable changing sin = s-1/ t then t = sin to B1(s), we obtain

(70)

B1 ( s ) =

1
1
2
1 2
s Arc sin( s ) + s 1 s
2

(71)

To calculate B2(s), we apply, successively, the three variable changing: = /2 - , cos = s-1/ t then t = sin, we
obtain
B2 (s) = s

Arc sin( s

Arc sin( s

1 )

cos d

(72)

which can be solved, similarly, into:

1
1
1
2
1
2

1 2
B2 (s) = s Arc sin(s ) Arc sin(s 1 [G(s)] ) + s 1 s s 1 [G(s)] 1 s [1 [G(s)]]
2

(73)

where G(s) is given in the 1st sub-case. By rewriting (65), (67), (71) and (73) we obtain the same CDF expression
as (70), s [(4+2 3 )-/2, 4-/2].
Now, if s 1, the discriminant of (58) is negative (' < 0) if and only if
Arc cos( 1 s

) < < Arc cos( 1 s

) or + Arc cos( 1 s

) < < 2 Arc cos( 1 s

).

In this case, (58) is true r ]0, R].

However, the discriminant of (58) is positive (' > 0) if and only if
Arc cos( 1 s

) < < Arc cos( 1 s

) or Arc cos( 1 s

) < < + Arc cos( 1 s

nd

1) [ Arc cos( 1 s ), + Arc cos( 1 s ) ], both roots of the 2 degree polynomial (58) are negative and
thus inequality (58) is respected if and only if r ]0, R].
2)

[ Arc cos(

1 s

), Arc cos( 1 s

) ],

both

roots

are

3 cos + 3 cos 3(1 s ) or r > R 3 cos 3 cos 3(1 s

0<r<R
2

1
s
s

positive

and

(58)

).

Yet, 0 < r R then we must compare both roots to R ; we establish that:

1st case: if s > (42 3 )-/2 then the two roots are higher than R (for all [ Arc cos(
that case, (58) is verified r ]0, R].

1 s

), Arc cos( 1 s

) ]).

In

Summing up, we can determine the f-parameter CDF as Ff(s) = 1, s > (42 3 )-/2
2nd case: if 1 < s (42 3 )-/2 then:
1) [ Arc cos(G ( s ) ), Arc cos(G ( s ) ) ]), R is contained between the two roots; and since we should always have r
]0, R], so r ]0, z[.
2

2) if Arc cos( 1 s ) Arc cos(G(s)) or Arc cos(G ( s) ) Arc cos( 1 s ) then both roots are higher than R (z R)
thus (58) is true r ]0, R].
Keeping into account what is established previously, we can express the CDF as the following

2
3 cos + 3 cos 3 (1 s )

s 1

1 Arc cos (G ( s ) ) R

F f (s) =
R Arc cos (G ( s ) ) 0

r dr d +

1 2 Arc cos (G ( s ) ) R
r dr d
R Arc cos (G ( s ) ) 0

(74)

We obtain, similarly, the same expression as (70), s ]1, (42 3 )-/2].

Now, we distinguish the particular case s = 1 ((58) is a 1st degree polynomial). Starting with f(r,) < 1, we establish
that:
r cos <

3R
2

(75)

If cos 0 (i.e. [/2, 3/2]) then (75) is well respected r ]0, R].
If cos > 0, (75) r <

3R = r . Yet, r R [-/6, /6]. In this case, r ]0, r [. Otherwise (for all

0
0
0
2 cos

]/6, /2[ ]3/2, 11/6[), r0 > R, and thus r ]0, R]. Consequently,

F f (1) =

3R

11

1 6 2 cos
1
6
r dr d +
R 6 0
R 6

r dr d =

5
3
+
6 4

(76)

Finally, we can easily establish that

1 s

2s

(1 G ( s)) =

+1 ;

s [(4+2 3 )-/2, 1[ ]1, (42 3 )-/2]. Thus (70)

2 3s

can be transformed into the respective part in (7).

APPENDIX II
This appendix provides the explicit methodology to calculate the C(R,R')dB constant analytical expression.
First, we start with equation (28) integrating it along the serving cell area (radius R) with traffic density weighting
T(r,), then we obtain:
2

f (r, ) T(r, ) r dr d =

Rav 2 R

[(1) + f (r, )] T(r, ) r dr d

T' (r, ) r +1 dr d 1
W 0 0

2 R
Rav 2 R'

+1

+
T
(
r
,
)
r
dr
d
1
[(
1

)
f
'
(
r
,

)]
T
'
(
r
,

)
r
dr
d

0 0
W 0 0

R'

feq(r, ) T(r, ) r dr

(77)

Assuming local uniform traffic densities T and T' along both cells, (77) becomes:
T

Let X be equal to

+2

R'
f (r, ) r dr d = T'
R

f (r , ) r dr d ,

R v
R v 2 R

1 a (1 )TR T a f (r,) r dr d
0 0
W
W

feq(r,) r dr d
Rav 2 R
Rav

(
1

)
T
'

R
'

T
'
f
'
(
r
,

)
r
dr
d

W
W 0 0

(78)

then we can extract it from the previous equation:

+2

R'
T '
R

Ra v
2 R
(1 )TR f eq (r , ) r dr d
1
W

0 0
X =
+2
R v

R v
R' Ra v 2 R
T 1 a (1 )T 'R' T ' a X '+T '
f eq (r , ) r dr d
W
W
W 0 0
R

(79)

where X ' = 2 R ' f ' (r , ) r dr d .

0
0
Similarly, we integrate equation (29) along the interfering cell area (radius R') with its traffic density
weighting T'(r,):
2

R'

f ' (r , ) T ' (r , ) r dr d =

R'

Ra v 2 R '

[(1 ) + f ' (r , )] T ' (r , ) r dr d

T (r , ) L(r ) r dr d 1
W 0 0

2 R '

Ra v 2 R
0 0 T ' (r, ) L(r ) r dr d 1 W 0 0 [(1 ) + f (r, )] T (r, ) r dr d
2

f eq (r, ) T ' (r , ) r dr d

(80)

With the same assumptions regarding local cell traffic densities T and T' as above (80) becomes:
2

T' X' = T

R'

+2

R
feq (r, ) r dr d
R'

R v
Rav
(1)T'R' T' a X '
1
W
W

Rav
Rav
1

(
1

)
T
R

T
X

W
W

(81)

Replacing in (81) X by its expression given by (79), we obtain, the following second degree equation:
A X' + B X' + D = 0, where
R
A = T
R'

+2

R a v
R a v
R a v

(1 )TR

Feq '+
1
W
W
W

B = B1 + B2 B3
B1 =

T R

T ' R'

+2

+2

R a v
R a v
R a v

R'
Feq ' 21
(1 )T ' R ' + T '
Feq
W
W
W
R

+2

Ra v
R a v
Ra v

R'
B 2 = 1
(1 )TR 1
(1 )T ' R ' + T
Feq

W
W
W
R

+2

R a v

Feq 1
(1 )TR
W

+2
+2

R a v
R a v
R a v

R
R'
D = T Feq ' 1
(1 )T ' R ' 1
(1 )T ' R ' + T '
Feq

R
'
W
W
R
W

R'
B3 = T '
R

R a v
W

Feq =

Feq ' =

R'

(82)
(83)
(84)
(85)
(86)
(87)

f eq (r , ) r dr d

(88)

f eq (r , ) r dr d

(89)

Feq and Feq' are the average f-parameter respectively in the serving and the interfering cells and can be calculated
numerically since the distribution of f-parameter feq is known from the sub-section II-A and since R and R' can be
determined from the regular grid radius R0 (without cell breathing assuming equally-loaded cells) by calculating
R/R0 and R'/R0 with the expression (15) (respectively (20)) in case of uplink capacity (respectively downlink

coverage) limitation. Note that if T' > T then R' < R0 < R and F'eq < f < Feq where f is the average f-parameter in
the equally-loaded cell case. Once Feq and F'eq are known, the values of A, B and D coefficients can be determined;
and thus the equation on X' can be solved. Once determined, X' reinserted in (79) provides directly X value, hence
the value of C(R, R')dB constant given from (28) and (30) by:
C(R, R' ) dB

R v
R v

1 a (1 )TR T a X
W
W

= 10 log10
Ra v
Ra v

(
1

)
T
'
R
'

T
'
X
'

W
W

(90)

where X is the solution of the second degree equation above and X is given by (79).

REFERENCES
[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]

Youngnam Han; Hang Gu Bahk, CDMA technology: present status and future prospects,
Microwave Conference Proceedings, APMC '97, Asia-Pacific , vol. 1 , 2-5 Dec. 1997, pp. 165 168,
A. J. Viterbi, CDMA Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication, Addison-Wesley, pp. 198, 1995,
R. Owen, P. Jones, S. Dehghan, D. Lister, Uplink WCDMA capacity and range as a function of inter-to-intra cell
interference: theory and practice, Proc. of IEEE 51st Veh. Technology Conf., Tokyo, May 2000,
S. Shin, A. Ahmad,, K. Kim, Performance of packet data transmission using the other-cell-interference factor in
DS/CDMA downlink, Comm., IEE Proceedings-, vol. 150 , Issue: 2 , April 2003, pp. 129 133,
C. De Alm., Ho., R., On the interference of cellular CDMA systems, ITS '98 Proc., vol. 1, Aug. 1998 , pp. 166 171,
R. Owen, S. Burley, P. Jones, V. Messer, Considerations for UMTS capacity and range estimation Capacity and Range
Enhancement Techniques for the 3G Mobile Comm. and Beyond, IEE Colloq. on, Ref. No. 11 Feb. 2000, pp. 5/1 - 5/6,
T. A. Bazil, M. C. Ramon, On the W-CDMA Uplink Capacity and Interference Statistics of a Long Tunnel Cigarshaped Microcells, Journal of Microwaves and Optoelectronics, vol. 3, n 3, December 2003,
T.T. Tjhung and A. C. C. Chai, Distribution of SIR and Performance of DS-CDMA Systems in Lognormally
Shadowed Rician Channels, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 49, pp. 1110-1125, July 2000,
G. L. Stber, Principles of Mobile Communications, Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1996,
L. F. Fenton, The sum of lognormal probability distributions in scatter transmission systems, IEEE Trans. on Comm.
Sys., vol. COM-8, 5767, March 1960,
A.A. Abu-Dayya, N.C. Beaulieu, Outage Probabilities in the Presence of Correlated Lognormal Interferers, IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 43, pp. 164-173, Feb. 1994,
R. Prasad, M.G. Jansen and A. Kegel, Capacity Analysis of a Cellular Direct Sequence Code Division Multiple Access
System with Imperfect Power Control, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. E-76-B, No. 8, pp. 894-905, Aug. 1993,
S. C. Schwartz, Y. S. Yeh, On the Distribution Function and Moments of Power Sums With Log-Normal
Components, Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 61, pp. 1441-1462, Sept. 1982,
M.-S. Alouini, A. Goldsmith, Area spectral efficiency of cellular mobile radio systems, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 48, pp. 10471066, July 1999,
A.J. Viterbi, A.M. Viterbi, E. Zehavi, Other-cell interference in cellular power-controlled CDMA Communications,
IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 42, Issue: 234, pp. 1501 1504, Feb./Mar./Apr. 1994,
K. Sipil, et al., Estimation of Capacity and Required Transmission Power of WCDMA Downlink Based on a
Downlink Pole Equation, IEEE Proc. of Veh. Tech. Conf. 2000 spring, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 1002-1005, May 2000,
N. Cotanis, A Systematic Approach For UMTS RAN Design, 3G Infr. & Serv. conf., 2-3 July 2001, Greece, pp. 121,
Hilt., K.; de Bern., R., WCDMA downlink capacity estimation, VTC 2000, Tokyo, vol. 2 , May 2000, pp. 992 996,
Ataman, S., Wautier, A., Perfect power control in a multiservice CDMA cellular system
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 13th IEEE Intern. Symp., vol. 3, Sept. 2002, pp. 1222 1226,
Massimo Franceschetti J. Bruck and L. Schulman, Microcellular systems wave propagation and random walks, IEEE
Antennas and Propagation Symposium (AP-S '02), San Antonio, Texas, 2002,
Graziosi, F., Pratesi, M., Ruggieri, M., Santucci, F., An improved analysis of outage probability with correlated cochannel interferers, Glob. Telec. Conf., GLOBECOM 98, IEEE, vol. 6, 8-12, Nov. 1998, pp. 3710 3715,
3GPP (UMTS), Selection procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies of the UMTS, UMTS 30.03
version 3.2.0, ETSI TR 101 112 V3.2.0, April 1998,
M. Pratesi, F. Santucci, F. Graziosi, M. Ruggieri, Outage analysis in mobile radio systems with generically correlated
log-normal interferers, IEEE Trans. on Comm., vol. 48, No. 3, March 2000, pp. 381 385,
Holma Harri, Antti Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2me dition, Chapter 8, 2002,
Hani Ramzi, UMTS radio access network dimensioning, Alcatel Tlc. Review, 1st quartor, January 2001,
J. Laiho, A. Wacker, Radio network planning process and methods for WCDMA, Annals of Telecommunications,
Vol. 56, No. 5-6, Hermes Penton Science, Mai/June 2001, pp. 317-331.