Optimization Methods

for UMTS Radio Network Planning?;??

Andreas Eisenblatter1, Armin Fugenschuh2, Hans-Florian Geerdes3, Daniel
Junglas2, Thorsten Koch3, and Alexander Martin2

Atesio GmbH, Berlin

Technische Universitat Darmstadt
3 Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum fur Informationstechnik Berlin (ZIB)
Abstract. The UMTS radio network planning problem poses the challenge of designing
a cost-e_ective network that provides users with su_cient coverage and
capacity. We describe an optimization model for this problem that is based on
comprehensive planning data of the EU project Momentum. We present heuristic
mathematical methods for this realistic model, including computational results.
1
2

1 Introduction
Third generation (3G) telecommunication networks based on UMTS technology
are currently being deployed across Europe. Network operators face
planning challenges, for which experiences from 2G GSM barely carry over.
The EU-funded project Momentum developed models and simulation methods
for UMTS radio network design. Among others, we devised network optimization
methods that are based on a very detailed mathematical model.
Momentum constitutes, of course, not the only e_ort to advance methods
for UMTS radio network planning. In [1{3] several optimization models
are suggested and heuristics methods such as tabu search or greedy are used
to solve them. Integer programming methods for planning are shown in [12],
power control and capacity issues are treated in [4,11]. Many technical aspects
of UMTS networks and some practice-driven optimization and tuning
rules are given in [10]. Optimization of certain network aspects without site
selection is treated in [9].
Within this article, we focus on heuristic algorithms to solve the optimization
task. Methods based directly on the mathematical mixed integer programming
model presented in [5,8] will be presented in the future. The preliminary
computational results obtained within Momentum are very promising.

2 Optimization Approach
Our optimization approach is snapshot based. A snapshot is a set of users that
want to use the network at the same time. We consider several snapshots at
This work is a result of the European Project Momentum, IST-2000-28088
Partly funded by the DFG Research Center \Mathematics for key technologies"
2 Andreas Eisenblatter et al.
?

??

once and try to _nd a network that performs well for these snapshots and is
cost-e_ective at the same time. Snapshots are typically drawn according to
service-speci_c spatial tra_c load distributions.
2.1 Optimization Model
The following decisions have to be made for planning a network:
Site Selection. From a set S of potential sites (roughly equivalent to roof
tops where antenna masts could be placed), a subset of sites to be opened
has to be chosen.
Installation Selection. At each opened site various installations (antenna
con_gurations) can be employed at di_erent antenna locations. From the
set I of all possible installations a subset has to be selected. The number
of antennas per site is limited; three-sectorized sites are typical.
Mobile Assignment. For each of the users, represented by the set M of
mobiles that is possibly distributed over several snapshots, we have to
decide which installation serves which mobile device. This is in practice
often done on a best-server basis: each mobile is served by the installation
whose signal is strongest at the mobile's location.
Power Assignment. Once the users are attached to installations, a feasible
combination of power values has to be found. This includes transmission
powers in uplink and downlink as well as the cells' pilot powers.
This is formulated as a MIP in [5,8], with binary variables corresponding to
the _rst three decisions and fractional power variables p.

The coverage and capacity requirements are reected in so-called CIR

inequalities (Carrier-to-Interference-Ratio) that have to hold for each user.
These inequalities at the core of our optimization model follow the pattern:
Received Signal
Interfering Signals + Noise _ Threshold
Using the notation from Table 1, the CIR inequality for the uplink reads:
"mj p"m
_p"j "mj _"m p"m _ _"m (1a)
The CIR inequality for the downlink is somewhat more complicated, since
code orthogonality has to be considered for signals from the same cell:
#jm p#j m
#jm

_
1 !m
__
_p#j _#m p#jm
_
+
P
i6=j #im _p#i + _m
_ _#m (1b)

UMTS Radio Network Planning 3

_m _ 0 noise at mobile m
_"m; _#m 2 [0; 1] uplink/downlink activity factor of mobile m
!m 2 [0; 1] orthogonality factor for mobile m
_"m; _#m _ 0 uplink/downlink CIR target for mobile m
"mj; #jm 2 [0; 1] attenuation factors between mobile m and installation j
p"m 2 R+ uplink transmit power from mobile m
p#im 2 R+ downlink transmit power from installation i to mobile m
_p"j 2 R+ Total received uplink power at installation j (in the snapshot)
_p#j 2 R+ Total downlink power emitted by installation j (in the snapshot)
Table 1. Notations in CIR inequalities

2.2 Planning Data

Input data for our optimization model is derived from the planning scenarios
developed within the EU project Momentum. The full contents of these
scenarios are described in [7], several scenarios of them are publicly available
at [13]. The scenarios contain detailed data on aspects relevant to UMTS
radio network planning. The data can be classi_ed as follows:
Radio and Environment. All aspects of the \outside" world. This includes
radio propagation, UMTS radio bearers, information on the terrain (such
as height or clutter data), and background noise.
Infrastructure. All aspects that are to some extent under the control of
the network operator. This includes base station hardware, antennas,
potential sites and antenna locations, and radio resource management.
User Demand. All aspects related to users, such as o_ered services (e. g.,
video telephony, media streaming), user mobility, usage speci_cs, and
tra_c data.
The potential sites and installations for the planning scenario \The Hague"
are shown in Fig. 1(a), the average user demand is illustrated in Fig. 1(b).
Darker areas indicate higher tra_c load here, the users in the snapshots are
generated according to this distribution together with additional information
on the used services, equipment, and mobility. The actual parameters for the
optimization model [8] and the CIR inequalities (1), in particular, are derived
from the information in the planning scenarios. Table 2 gives an overview.
2.3 Preprocessing: Coverage and Capacity Analysis
Before an automatic planning process can be employed, the input data is
analyzed in order to detect coverage and capacity shortages. The coverageoriented
analysis is based on propagation path loss predictions for all available
sites and their antenna locations. Capacity shortages are harder to detect. We
use a heuristic, which is based on a tentative network design using all available
sites. Employing methods similar to the ones described in [4,14], the average

4 Andreas Eisenblatter et al.

(a) Potential sites and antenna
con_gurations (installations)
(b) Tra_c distribution
Fig. 1. Example of planning scenario (The Hague)
Planning Scenario Parameter
Equipment loss, Connection loss
Propagation loss, Antenna gain
Usage loss (e. g. body)
9>=
>;
Signal attenuation "mj,#jm
BLER requirements
User speed
Radio bearer
)
CIR targets _"m,_#m
User equipment, User mobility
Radio bearer
o
Activity factors _"m,_#m
Clutter type
Channel model
o
Orthogonality !m
Table 2. Derivation of parameters from the data scenarios

up- and downlink load per cell of this tentative network can be computed
e_ciently. If the tra_c load is too high for the potential infrastructure in some
regions, these can be localized as overloaded cells in the tentative network.
Notice that this approach merely provides lower bounds on the achievable
network up- and downlink capacity. Methods for estimating an upper bound
on the network capacity are under development.

3 Heuristic Planning Methods

It turned out that solving mixed-integer program as described in its main
components in Section 2.1 exactly (using for example Cplex 8.1) takes signi
_cant time and computing resources, even for moderate sized scenarios.
Therefore, we developed various heuristic algorithms that aim at obtaining
good (not necessarily optimal) solutions within reasonable running times.
UMTS Radio Network Planning 5

The explanation of all these methods, including greedy-type heuristics, tabu

search, simulated annealing, and evolution algorithms, is beyond the scope
of this document. We restrict ourselves to the most successful one, the \SetCovering Heuristic". The interested reader may refer to [5,6] for the description
of the other methods.
3.1 Set-Covering Heuristic
The idea of the Set-Covering Heuristic is to _nd for each installation i 2 I a
set Mi of mobiles that this installation can \cover" (we will explain this in
more detail below). We assign a cost ci to each of these sets Mi and then _nd
a set J = fj1; : : : ; jkg _ f1; : : : ; jIjg of indices such that each mobile m 2M is covered by at
least one Mj ; j 2 J and for which the cost cJ =
P
j2J cj is
minimal. Each index in J corresponds to an installation, and we will simply
select the installations that are given by J.
In order to compute the set Mi for a given installation i 2 I we proceed
as follows: First of all, we ignore all other installations j 2 I; j 6= i, that is,
we assume they are not selected. We then consider each mobile m 2M and
determine its distance dm;i to installation i. We de_ne this distance to be
dm;i = 1=("mi + #im) if both attenuation values are non-zero (attenuation is
set to zero if the corresponding pathloss exceeds a certain threshold). If the
up- or downlink attenuation between mobile m and installation i is zero, this
mobile can never be served by installation i. We then set dm;i = 1.

Let M denote the set of mobiles for which dm;i < 1. We initially set
Mi = ; and sort the mobiles inM by non-decreasing values of dm;i. According
to this list we check for each mobile m, whether installation i can serve all mobiles
in Mi [fmg simultaneously. In the positive case we set Mi = Mi [fmg.
The feasibility check is based on a Power Assignment Heuristic, which basically
solves two systems of linear equations that arise when inequalities (1a)
and (1b) are replaced with equations, see [5,6] for details.
The Power Assignment Heuristic does not only check whether installation
i can serve all mobiles in Mi [ fmg but also _nds minimal transmission
powers for each mobile/installation connection in the positive case. These
transmission powers are used to compute a score ci for the resulting set Mi:
ci =
X
m2Mi

_"p" +
X
m2Mi

_#p# + Ci (2)
where the terms p" and p# denote up- and downlink transmission powers
as returned by the Power Assignment Heuristic and Ci is the cost that is
associated with installing installation i. The factors _" and _# are used to
weight the transmission powers in the cost for set Mi. From iterating over
the list of mobiles with dm;i < 1 we obtain a set Mi together with a score
(or \cost") ci as desired; see Algorithm 1.
6 Andreas Eisenblatter et al.

Algorithm 1 Covering a set of mobiles with a given installation.

Input: Installation i 2 I and mobiles M _M that i may potentially cover.
1. Determine the mobile/installation distance dm;i for each mobile in M.
2. Sort Mby non-decreasing distance to i. Denote result by Msorted.
3. Set Mreturn = ; and creturn = Ci.
4. For each mobile m 2 Msorted do
(a) Set M0 = Mreturn [ fmg.
(b) Use Power Assignment Heuristic to check whether installation i can
serve all mobiles in M0.
(c) If so, set Mreturn = M0 and update creturn according to equation (2).
5. Return Mreturn and creturn.
Given the sets Mi and associated costs ci for each installation, we de_ne
a set-covering problem. Let A 2 RjMj_jIj denote the incidence matrix of M and the Mi (i. e., aij
= 1 if and only if mobile i is in Mj) and introduce
binary variables xj ; j = 1; : : : ; jIj that are set to one if set Mj is selected and
to zero otherwise. The set-covering problem then reads as follows:
min
nX
i2I

cixi j Ax _ 1; x 2 f0; 1gjIj

o
(3)
Notice that in the above description we implicitly assume that
S
i2I

Mi =M.
If this is not the case we simply replace M by
S
i2I Mi.
As stated earlier, each set Mi is in direct correspondence with an installation
i 2 I. Thus, given an optimal solution x 2 f0; 1gjIj to (3) we simply
select all installations i 2 I for which xi = 1 and install them.
The Set-Covering algorithm as described above has three problems:
_ Model (3) is too simplistic: it does, for example, not take into account
that installations are hosted at sites. Opening such a site requires a certain
amount of money (typically much more than the cost for a single

antenna) and for each site there are minimum and maximum numbers of
installations that can be simultaneously installed.
_ Due to the fact that we ignore all other installation while computing the
set Mi for installation i, we also ignore potential interference from these
installations. The sets Mi tend to overestimate the coverage and capacity
of the installations.
_ The set-covering problem as de_ned in (3) may not have a feasible solution.
This can especially happen if tra_c is high and the number of
installations that are available per site is limited.
All three problems can be resolved: In the _rst case, the additional constraints
related to sites can easily be added to (3). In the second case, we
shrink the sets Mi at the end of Algorithm 1 using a \shrinkage factor"
fshrink. Or we impose some heuristically determined interference via a \load
factor" fload and require that the installation may not use more than that
UMTS Radio Network Planning 7

percentage of its maximum load during the algorithm. We distinguish two

cases if (3) is infeasible. In case fshrink and fload equal one we declare the
input infeasible (which is true up to the assumption that we have performed
an optimal mobile assignment). In case at least one of these factors is less
than one we modify the factors and iterate.
3.2 Results
Using the Set-Covering Heuristic we are able to compute good solutions to
large-scale real world instances. We illustrate one such result for the \The
Hague" scenario mentioned in Section 2. The instance contains 76 potential
sites, 912 potential installations, and 10,800 mobiles partitioned into 20
snapshots (approximately 540 mobiles per snapshot). For this instance we
obtained the best result using a combination of the \heuristic interference"
and \heuristic shrinking" strategies by setting fshrink = 0:7 and fload = 0:6.
With these modi_cations the Set-Covering heuristic took 66 minutes on
a 1GHz Intel Pentium-III processor with 2GB RAM to _nd the _nal installation
selection. Fig. 2 depicts the solution. Fig. 2(a) shows the selected
installations/antennas; the load in the network is illustrated for uplink and
downlink in Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 2(c) (the light areas denote a load of about
25{30%, the darker areas have less load). Our result was evaluated using advanced
static network simulation methods developed within the Momentum
project [14]. The methods reported at most 3% missed tra_c.
(a) Selected antennas (b) Uplink load (c) Downlink load
Fig. 2. Heuristic planning solution

4 Conclusion
We presented an optimization problem of planning cost-e_ective UMTS radio
networks. The model we use reects many aspects of reality that are essential
8 Andreas Eisenblatter et al.

for planning UMTS networks. To our knowledge, this is the most detailed and
comprehensive planning model in literature. Based on this model, we have
described some heuristic network planning methods that work well in practice
and lead to good results.

References
1. E. Amaldi, A. Capone, F. Malucelli. Planning UMTS base station location:
Optimization models with power control and algorithms. IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communications, 2002.
2. E. Amaldi, A. Capone, F. Malucelli, F. Signori. UMTS radio planning: Optimizing
base station con_guration. In Proceedings of IEEE VTC Fall 2002,
volume 2, pp. 768{772, 2002.
3. E. Amaldi, A. Capone, F. Malucelli, F. Signori. Optimizing base station location
and con_guration in UMTS networks. In Proceedings of INOC 2003,
pp. 13{18, 2003.
4. D. Catrein, L. Imhof, R. Mathar. Power control, capacity, and duality of upand
downlink in cellular CDMA systems. Tech. Rep., RWTH Aachen, 2003.
5. A. Eisenblatter, E. R. Fledderus, A. Fugenschuh, H.-F. Geerdes, B. Heideck,
D. Junglas, T. Koch, T. Kurner, A. Martin. Mathematical methods for automatic
optimisation of UMTS radio networks. Tech. Rep. IST-2000-28088-

MOMENTUM-D43-PUB, IST-2000-28088 MOMENTUM, 2003.

6. A. Eisenblatter, H.-F. Geerdes, D. Junglas, T. Koch, T. K urner, A. Martin.
Final report on automatic planning and optimisation. Tech. Rep. IST-200028088-MOMENTUM-D46-PUB, IST-2000-28088 MOMENTUM, 2003.
7. A. Eisenblatter, H.-F. Geerdes, T. Koch, U. Turke. MOMENTUM public planning
scenarios and their XML format. Tech. Rep. TD(03) 167, COST 273,
Prague, Czech Republic, Sep. 2003.
8. A. Eisenblatter, T. Koch, A. Martin, T. Achterberg, A. Fugenschuh, A. Koster,
O. Wegel, R. Wessaly. Modelling feasible network con_gurations for UMTS.
In G. Anandalingam and S. Raghavan, editors, Telecommunications Network
Design and Management. Kluwer, 2002.
9. A. Gerdenitsch, S. Jakl, M. Toeltsch, T. Neubauer. Intelligent algorithms for
system capacity optimization of UMTS FDD networks. In Proc. IEEE 4th
International Conference on 3G Mobile Communication Technology, pp. 222{
226, London, June 2002.
10. J. Laiho, A. Wacker, T. Novosad, editors. Radio Network Planning and Optimization
for UMTS. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2001.
11. K. Leibnitz. Analytical Modeling of Power Control and its Impact on Wideband
CDMA Capacity and Planning. PhD thesis, University of Wurzburg, Feb. 2003.
12. R. Mathar and M. Schmeink. Optimal base station positioning and channel assignment
for 3G mobile networks by integer programming. Ann. of Operations
Research, (107):225{236, 2001.
13. Momentum Project. Models and simulations for network planning and control
of UMTS. http://momentum.zib.de, 2001. IST-2000-28088 MOMENTUM.
14. U. Turke, R. Perera, E. Lamers, T. Winter, C. Gorg. An advanced approach
for QoS analysis in UMTS radio network planning. In Proc. of the 18th International
Teletra_c Congress, pp. 91{100. VDE, 2003.