Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I.
BACKGROUNDS
ANALYTICAL APPROACH
(1)
= ( freq1 + freq 2 ) 2 .
(2)
= ( freq1 + freq 2 ) 2 ,
=
2
freq1
+ freq 2
(3)
2.
hotspot
(4)
freq.2
= freq ,
= freq
freq.1
(5)
2.
(6)
B. Simulation results
Because CPICH power tuning has a direct impact on the
DL IFHO triggers and our final target is developing a
controllable combination of IFHO and CPICH power tuning,
DL IFHO triggers are more important than UL IFHO trigger in
this research. Then, we compared the performances between
CPICH RSCP and CPICH EcNo triggers. Note that in the
following, the definition of IFHO rate used in figures is
IFHO rate =number of IFHO / number of calls.
A. Simulation condition
Different from the paper [7], we used the uniformly
distributed two-layered macro cell configuration shown in
Figure 1. Both frequencies have almost 100 % coverage by
using two kinds of BTSs, which are 120-degree-separated 3sector BTS and at the same location 60-degree-rotated to each
other. This is for fully utilizing the available frequencies and
for simplifying evaluation. Terminals generate calls by
randomly choosing either frequency 1 or frequency 2 with
equal probabilities for each frequency. They move at 20 km/h
and, in addition, there is a hotspot, at which user density is
higher than other area. The other dynamic simulator settings
are listed in table 1 in the last page of this paper. Our
evaluations are done on ten sectors surrounding this hotspot,
namely, sectors 0, 1, 2, 7, 8, 19, 20, 26, 27 and 30 in Figure 1.
96
U L , cp ich E cN o
95
D L , cp ich E cN o
94
U L , cp ich R S C P
93
D L , cp ich R S C P
92
91
0
0 .1
0 .2
0 .3
0 .4
0 .5
0 .6
IFH O r a te
CSR [%]
97
III.
(7)
U L, c pic h E cN o
94
D L, c pic h E cN o
92
U L, c pic h R S C P
D L, c pic h R S C P
90
88
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 .6
IF H O rate
0.8
Cell 0
Cell 1
0.7
Cell 7
Cell 8
0.5
Cell 19
Cell 20
0.4
Cell 26
0.3
Cell 27
Cell 30
0.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
IFHO rate
2.
3.
4.
IV.
A. Simulation condition
To evaluate the combination of IFHO and CPICH power
tuning in load balancing, we choose CPICH EcNo trigger. One
reason for this choice is that CPICH EcNo trigger proves to be
a better trigger in the performance analysis done in section II.
The other reason is that CPICH EcNo trigger has better load
balancing ability. This can be seen in the results that CPICH
EcNo triggered-IFHO occurrence is concentrated on hotspot.
0.9
Cell 0
0.85
Cell 1
0.8
UL loading
DL loading
Cell 2
0.6
Cell 2
0.75
Cell 7
0.7
Cell 8
0.65
Cell 19
0.6
Cell 20
0.55
Cell 26
0.5
Cell 27
0.45
Cell 30
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
IFHO rate
0.8
0.8
0.7
DL loading
IFHO rate
Cell 1
Cell 2
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Cell 19
0.3
Cell 20
0.2
Cell 26
1.5
2.5
Cell 8
0.4
0.1
1
Cell 7
0.5
0.1
Cell 27
Cell 30
1
1.5
Cell 8
0.3
Cell 19
0.2
Cell 20
Cell 26
0.1
Cell 27
0
1.5
2.5
Cell 30
Cell 0
Cell 1
0.7
Cell 2
Cell 7
U L lo a d in g / (7 =2 0 )/ c p ic h E c N o 12
0.8
0.75
Cell 2
0.65
UL loading
DL loading
Cell 1
0.4
Cell 7
0.6
Cell 8
0.55
Cell 19
0.5
Cell 20
0.45
Cell 26
0.4
Cell 27
0.35
Cell 30
0.3
1
Cell 0
0.5
2.5
0.6
Pilot pow e r of Ce ll 7 a nd 20 [W ]
Cell 0
0.7
1.5
2 .5
P ilo t p o w e r o f Ce ll 7 a n d 20 [W ]
TABLE I.
100
98
Cell
environment
Multi path
model
Fast fading
CSR [%]
96
94
UL P a c k e t C S R
92
D L Packet C SR
90
UL S p e e c h C S R
D L Speech C SR
88
86
1
1 .5
2 .5
Slow fading
P ilo t P o w e r o f C e ll 7 a n d C e ll 2 0 [ W ]
Code
orthogonality
Propagation
model
Load target
CPICH power
BTS max
power
Terminal
velocity
Number of
terminals
Proportion of
traffic
CONCLUSION
FER target
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]