0% found this document useful (0 votes)
33 views35 pages

LTE Practical Questions and Issues

The document discusses practical issues in LTE projects, focusing on accessibility degradation due to new L800 sites, UL RSSI impacts from TMA configuration, and low MIMO usage. It highlights the causes of accessibility degradation when launching L800 sites, including inter modulation and increased Tracking Area Updates. Additionally, it examines how TMA configuration affects UL RSSI measurements and the correlation between MIMO utilization and reported CQI in LTE cells.

Uploaded by

Karan Kumar
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
0% found this document useful (0 votes)
33 views35 pages

LTE Practical Questions and Issues

The document discusses practical issues in LTE projects, focusing on accessibility degradation due to new L800 sites, UL RSSI impacts from TMA configuration, and low MIMO usage. It highlights the causes of accessibility degradation when launching L800 sites, including inter modulation and increased Tracking Area Updates. Additionally, it examines how TMA configuration affects UL RSSI measurements and the correlation between MIMO utilization and reported CQI in LTE cells.

Uploaded by

Karan Kumar
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Lte practical questions II

SPECIFIC ISSUES IN REAL PROJECT


… PREVIOUSLY

› LTE practical questions:


1. BW increase vs. Output Power
2. cellRange vs. rachRootSequence
3. Latency vs. PRB Utilization

[Link]

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 2


PRACTICAL questions II

1. Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 site

2. UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration

3. Low % of MIMO usage

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 3


PRACTICAL questions II

1. Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 site

2. UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration

3. Low % of MIMO usage

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 4


Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 sITE

› New LTE 800MHz is deployed in an area mainly covered by LTE 1800MHz

New L800 site

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 5


Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 sITE

Accessibitliy
› When the LTE800 site is set degradation in
on-air, a clear degradation in nearby L1800

Accessibitliy of the nearby


L1800 sites appears

› Question: What’s the reason


behind this behavior?
L800 on-air

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 6


Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 SITE

Why did L1800 Accessibility decrease when launching nearby L800?

› Product of inter modulation (PIM) between L800 and L1800 cells


› Increase in the L1800 UL RSSI due to new L800 traffic
› Increase in the number of Tracking Area Updates (TAU)

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 7


Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 sITE
ANSWERS

› How are we measuring Accessibility? CSSR = 100 * RRC * ERAB

CSSR = 100 *

((pmRrcConnEstabSuccMta + pmRrcConnEstabSuccMod + pmRrcConnEstabSuccMos + pmRrcConnEstabSuccHpa + pmRrcConnEstabSuccEm) /


(pmRrcConnEstabAttEm + pmRrcConnEstabAttHpa + pmRrcConnEstabAttMod + pmRrcConnEstabAttMos + pmRrcConnEstabAttMta
- pmRrcConnEstabAttReattEm – pmRrcConnEstabAttReattHpa – pmRrcConnEstabAttReattMod – pmRrcConnEstabAttReattMos - pmRrcConnEstabAttReattMta))

*
(pmErabEstabSuccInit / pmErabEstabAttInit)
ERAB RRC

(*) Note: S1 part not being considered here

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 8


Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 sITE

› RRC part, splitted by


type of connection

ATTEMPTS

SUCCESSES

RE-ATTEMPTS

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 9


Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 sITE

› In this case, the main cause was “Mobile Originating Signaling”

pmRrcConnEstabAttEm: “Emergency”
pmRrcConnEstabAttHpa: “High Priority Access”
pmRrcConnEstabAttMod: “Mobile Originating Data”
pmRrcConnEstabAttMos: “Mobile Originating Signaling”
pmRrcConnEstabAttMta: “Mobile Terminating Access”

Neighbor L800 on-air

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 10


Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 sITE
› New L800 site was deployed in a
Tracking Area border
› Propagation in L800 is larger, so
coverage of L800 cells
(TAC=10130) is overlapping with
L1800
L1800 coverage (TAC=10230) accessibility
degradation

› Two different TAC covering the


same physical area: high
increase in the Tracking Area
Update (TAU) intensity, when UE
moves between layer L800 and
L1800 New L800
on-air

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 11


Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 sITE
› After changing the TAC of new L800 site, Trackig Area Update procedure (TAU)
reduces a lot (pmRrcConnEstabAttMos is lower) and Accessibility of neighbor
L1800 cells recovers

RRC signaling (pmRrcConnEstabAttMos) for neighbor L1800 cells before and after TAC change Accessibility

TAC change

TAC change
Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 12
PRACTICAL questions II

1. Accesibility degradation vs. new L800 sector

2. UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration

3. Low % of MIMO usage

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 13


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
› LTE-1800 sector is sharing TMA (Tower Mounted Antenna

Amplifier) and Antenna with WCDMA-2100

› TMA is configured and controlled by 3G NodeB, but


it is not denifed in LTE TMA

Diplexer

WCDMA-2100 LTE-1800
RU RU

› Question: What is the impact on LTE UL RSSI KPI?

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 14


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
What is the impact on LTE UL RSSI KPI due to not having TMA configured in LTE?

› Higher UL RSSI in LTE KPI due to not having TMA configured


› Lower UL RSSI in LTE KPI due to not having TMA configured
› No implact, same UL RSSI regardless TMA configuration

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 15


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
ANSWERS

› UL RSSI KPI in LTE is measured using the counter pmRadioRecInterferencePwr

Details of the measurement


in 3gpp specification 36.214

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 16


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
ANSWERS

› The reference point for the measurement must be the RX antenna connector

3gpp TS 36.214, pag. 11

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 17


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
ANSWERS

› If TMA is not defined, pmRadioRecInterferencePwr is not considering the correct


reference point for the measurement

Antenna Antenna

pmRadioRecInterferencePwr
reference point when TMA is
TMA defined TMA

pmRadioRecInterferencePwr
reference point when TMA is
LTE-1800 LTE-1800
not defined RU RU

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 18


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
ANSWERS
Example:
› This is not affecting signal quality, because TMA
in actually installed in the real world and working
properly (managed by 3G network)
› Common KPIs are OK: CSSR, DCR, Thpt, etc.. Antenna

Ul RSSI = - 110 dBm

› But UL RSSI KPI is showing higher values TMA


UL Gain =
14 dB
compared to other sites, because UL Gain of the
Ul RSSI = - 96 dBm
TMA is not being taken into account
LTE-1800
RU

Value reported when TMA is not defined

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 19


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
ANSWERS

› TMA can only be controlled by one system (3G or LTE)


› Solution: If we want to keep the TMA being controlled by 3G, we can “simulate”
the TMA in LTE using the dlAttenuation and ulAttenuation parameters:

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 20


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
ANSWERS

› For example, if we have 2 dB of feeder losses, and a TMA with 12


dB of UL gain, we can set dlAttenuation and ulAttenuation this way:
– dlAttenuation = 2 dB
– ulAttenuation = -10 dB

i) The unit is 0.1 dB


ii) Each value of the array represent a 5-MHz interval of the operating band

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 21


UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration
ANSWERS

› After setting dlAttenuation = 20 and ulAttenuation = -100 in our network, UL


RSSI changed from -109 dBm to -119 dBm

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 22


PRACTICAL questions II

1. Accesibility degradation vs. new L800 sector

2. UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration

3. Low % of MIMO usage

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 23


Low % of MIMO usage
› Percentage of MIMO usage is a good indicator to check the radio conditions
of an LTE cell

› There should be a correlation


between % of MIMO
utilization, and CQI reported
by UEs

Cells with some kind of


problem: low MIMO
utilization despite good CQI

Scatter plot with daily average % of MIMO utilization and daily average reported CQI. Data from counters (each dot is a cell)
Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 24
Low % of MIMO usage
› Formulas
Percentage_MIMO_usage = 100 * pmRadioUeRepRankDistr[1]/(pmRadioUeRepRankDistr[0] + pmRadioUeRepRankDistr[1])
MO class Counter Counter Type Counter Size Description
The reported rank distribution indicates the rank of UEs that are in an Open
and Closed Loop Spatial Multiplexing mode, where rank is reported.

PDF ranges:
EUtranCellFDD pmRadioUeRepRankDistr ACC PDF[4]
[0]: Rank = 1
[1]: Rank = 2
[2]: Rank = 3
[3]: Rank = 4

MO class Counter Counter Type Counter Size Description


The transmission mode and rank distributions provide more detailed
information on the extent to which each transmission mode and rank
is used.

PDF ranges:
› More detailed distribution can be obtained [0]: Transmit diversity
[1]: Open Loop SM Rank 1

using pmRadioTxRankDistr: [2]: Open Loop SM Rank 2


[3]: Closed Loop SM rank 1
EUtranCellFDD pmRadioTxRankDistr ACC PDF[14] [4]: Closed Loop SM rank 2
[5]: Reserved
[6]: Reserved
[7]: Reserved
[8]: Closed Loop SM rank 3
[9]: Closed Loop SM rank 4
[10]: Multiple Layer Transmission rank 1
[11]: Multiple Layer Transmission rank 2
[12]: Open Loop SM rank 3
[13]: Open Loop SM rank 4
Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 25
Low % of MIMO usage
› Formulas

4G_Average_Reported_CQI = (1*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[1] + 2*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[2] + 3*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[3] +


4*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[4] + 5*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[5] + 6*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[6] + 7*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[7] +
8*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[8] + 9*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[9] + 10*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[10] + 11*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[11] +
12*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[12] + 13*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[13] + 14*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[14] +
15*pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[15])
/
(pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[0] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[1] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[2] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[3] +
pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[4] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[5] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[6] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[7] +
pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[8] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[9] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[10] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[11] +
pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[12] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[13] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[14] + pmRadioUeRepCqiDistr[15])

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 26


Low % of MIMO usage
EXAMPLE 1. L800 sector, 10MHz BW
› CQI around 10-13, but % MIMO utilization less than 1%.

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 27


Low % of MIMO usage
EXAMPLE 1. L800 sector, 10MHz BW
› How many antennas are configured?

Two antennas configured

› How many are used?

noOfUsedTxAntennas and noOfUsedRxAntennas


Internal parameter, parse complete MOM

Two antennas used


Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 28
Low % of MIMO usage
EXAMPLE 1. L800 sector, 10MHz BW
› What about VSWR (Voltage Standing Wave Ratio)?

RF A port in SECTOR 1
is not ok (more than 1.5
VSWR is a problem)
RF A port in SECTOR 2
is also bad

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 29


Low % of MIMO usage
EXAMPLE 1. L800 sector, 10MHz BW

› SECTOR 3 is ok

› SECTOR 1 and SECTOR 2 are not


ok, due to installation problem

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 30


Low % of MIMO usage
EXAMPLE 2. L2600 sector, 20MHz BW
› CQI around 10-13, but % MIMO utilization less than 1% in general.

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 31


Low % of MIMO usage
EXAMPLE 2. L2600 sector, 20MHz BW
› Two antennas configured and used

› VSWR is ok

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 32


Low % of MIMO usage
EXAMPLE 2. L2600 sector, 20MHz BW
› Site covering a football stadium. No matches in this period, only intermittent
traffic captured from outside
Some peaks around 25-30% of MIMO utilization
if we look at ROP (15 min) level

› So no MIMO problem in this case

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 33


SUMMARY
1. Accessibility degradation vs. new L800 sector

› Overlapping Tracking Areas among different layers can cause accessibility


degradation. Review TAC borders

2. UL RSSI vs. TMA configuration

› If TMA exists but it is not configured in the eNB, UL RSSI values are not
correctly measured. Define it, or simulate it with negative ulAttenuation

3. Low % of MIMO usage

› Low % of MIMO utilization can be used as an indicator of installation problems

Ericsson Internal | 2016-05-06 | Page 34

You might also like