Research Project Proposal

For PhD Thesis

Title:
Connecting Self-Organisation Use Cases in Future Radio Systems.


Candidate: Stephen S. Mwanje

Supervisor(s): Prof. Dr. -Ing. Habil. Andreas Mitschele-Thiel




V2.0 Nov 2011

l

ABSTRACT
ireless communication networks involve conIiguration, optimization and management oI a
large number oI parameters in order to guarantee the network`s degree oI availability, reliability
and quality oI the services provided. It is expected that Iuture networks will be SelI-Organizing
in all these Iunctional areas as has been proposed Ior LTE. A number oI SelI-Organization
Networks (SON) Use Cases (UCs) have been proposed and their methods studied Ior diIIerent
radio network Iunctionalities where SelI Organization can be applied. During the parallel
operation oI any number oI these SON methods, interrelationships may be realized in the
operation oI the UCs either as requirements Ior interaction or as conIlict situations. This is
especially so because the UCs operate on the same radio network, adjusting the same set oI
network parameters and together aiming to achieve the same global objectives (measure by a set
oI metrics). Interactions are realized where one UC triggers another or where multiple UCs
cooperate (work together) to optimize a particular metric. ConIlicts on the other hand, result
Irom 2 UCs adjusting the same parameters or when a parameter adjusted by one UC aIIects a
metric oI another UC. All these connectivity scenarios are bound to exist in any single SON
environment. It is then necessary, to establish the required mechanism(s) Ior these connections
and Ior the simultaneous operation. e envisage application oI cooperation and conIlict
resolution mechanisms to derive methods and algorithms Ior the connections. Such mechanisms
may include hierarchical ordering, consensus, game theoretic approaches or methods to decouple
UCs or sub SONs based on the UC characteristics like time oI run, Irequency oI execution, or
breadth oI eIIect oI parameter changes. This work is part oI the Graduate School oI Mobile
Communications` and is related to other work on SelI Organization oI Coverage and Capacity in
Iuture Radio access networks being undertaken by Muhammad Naseer ul Islam, Nauman Zia and
Elke Roth-Mandutz.

1

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Cellular systems have had exceptional growth in the last two decades driven initially by demand
Ior mobility oI speech users but recently Ior mobile data applications like web 2.0, mobile
video on demand, and mobile oIIice. This was matched by development oI better technologies to
deliver the desired services. The most recent oI these technologies is LTE, expected to deliver up
to 100Mbps in a 20MHz downlink spectrum at speeds oI up to 15Km/hr |1|.
ith expected optimal cell sizes much smaller compared to earlier systems (e.g. 5Km Ior LTE
|1|), Iuture radio systems will require many more base stations (eNodeBs, eNBs) compared to
2/3G systems. This translates into high Capital Expenditure (Capex), high Operational
Expenditure (Opex) and challenges in ensuring optimum radio network perIormance. It has been
identiIied that potential Capex and Opex reductions and signiIicant perIormance improvement
can be made through SelI-Organisation (SO) oI the radio systems |2| |3|.
1.2. Motivation and Context
In justiIying the need Ior SO, the Next Generation Mobile Networks (NGMN) consortium, a
cooperation oI mobile network operators worldwide presented the operators` SON requirements
to the standardisation bodies |4|. In |5|, in working towards inclusion oI SON Iunctionality in the
standardisation oI LTE, 3GPP generated an inIormative list oI UCs which could be considered
priority Ior development. The Socrates Project, a European Union (EU) FP7 Project undertaken
by oI major research institutions and equipment vendors across Europe, leaped above these and
other previous projects like Monotas |6| and GandalI |7|, to identiIy and describe 25 UCs related
to the LTE air interIace Ialling in either one oI the three network Iunctional areas oI
conIiguration, optimisation and healing |8|, |9|. Socrates also deIined the criteria Ior evaluating
SelI organization methods |10| and identiIied the need Ior integrating these methods.
1.3. Statement and Significance of the Problem
The UCs identiIied above operate on the same radio network, adjusting the same set oI network
parameters and together aiming to achieve the same global targets / beneIits that are measure by
a Iixed set oI metrics. During the parallel operation oI any number oI these SON methods,
2

interrelationships may be realized in the operation oI the UCs either as requirements Ior
interaction or as conIlict situations. Interactions are realized where one UC triggers another or
where multiple UCs cooperate to optimize a particular metric. ConIlicts on the other hand, result
Irom 2 UCs adjusting the same parameters or when a parameter adjusted by one UC aIIects a
metric oI another UC. Consequently, it is necessary to establish the required mechanism(s) Ior
these connections and Ior the simultaneous operation.
To demonstrate the signiIicance oI the problem, consider the operation oI two SelI Optimization
UCs handovers (SOHO) and Admission Control (SOAC) in two neighboring cells. Consider a
User Equipment (UE) at the edge oI cell A moving towards cell B, where Cell A continually
optimizes its Handover (HO) parameters to optimise HO perIormance. As the UE nears the edge
oI cell A, HO is initiated to cell B, only to Iind that, as a mechanism to maintain particular
desired QoS oI new and on-going calls, cell B has adjusted its parameters in order to control
admission oI new entrants call setups or HO Ior a set time period t
d
. The likely result here is
that HO to B will not be perIormed and the UE will stay connected to A although in B`s
Iootprint. This may eventually lead to a call drop. Alternatively the UE may be pre-emptively
admitted into B but later handed over back to cell A resulting into a ping-pong HO. To solve the
problem the two use cases would have to cooperate during the selI-optimization process in order
to minimize both HO call drops and ping pong HOs.
A optimizes HO parameters to
determine that it is initiated at d
Km Irom eNB
B optimizes AC and decided to reject new
sessions Ior a speciIic time t
d
~4 in order to
maintain QoS Ior ongoing sessions
UE reaches dKm Irom A
A initiates handover to B

B rejects handover since td has not expired
as set in previous admission control
optimization
UE stays on A although physically
within B`s coverage

Dragged session breaks due to bad
signal
or another handover is initiated resulting in
ping-pong handover
Figure 1: Interaction of Handover and Admission Control across two cells
The interactions presented here can be complicated Iurther iI other SO UCs are running.
Consider the case where a load balancing UC (SOLB) is running to adjust HO parameters as a
means oI balancing load between the two cells. The SOLB may decide to send more traIIic onto
8 A
8
A
10

L0

L1


L2
3

cell A to relieve B while SOHO on A is adjusting the same HO parameters in order to optimise
handover perIormance, which may inherently send traIIic to B. These will deIinitely need to be
coordinated. Another case is a congestion control UC (SOCC) running to reduce congestion on B
alongside the SOLB. Running both concurrently may result into excessive load reduction on B
while over loading A. Ior example the SOLB may decide to shrink B`s cell size to send more
traIIic on A. concurrently, the SOCC may decide to drop some oI the connected radio bearers in
order to reduce load. The results will be a large sudden reduction in B`s load with a
disproportionate load transIer to A. The connectivity among the Iour UCs can be summarised by
Iigure 2. It is then necessary to coordinate and resolve these interactions among such related
UCs. The same is also required among all other interactions as well as these UCs against the rest.

Figure 2: Possible Connections among Handover, Admission Control, Congestion Control and Load
Balancing SO UCs


CongesLlon ConLrol
Admlsslon ConLrol
Load 8alanclng
Pandover
CongesLlon ConLrol Pandover
CooperaLlon
L8 ln cell A may Lrlgger CC ln cell 8



SC ln
Cell A
SC ln
Cell 8
8ad
CoS
PC arameLer ConfllcLs
1rlgger
CooperaLlon
arameLer Ad[usLmenL


2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
2.1. SO Use Cases
Introduction
Most oI the work on SON in LTE has been on three major Ironts -the operators` perspective oI
the beneIit oI SONs by NGNM |4|, the standardization oI SON in LTE by 3GPP |5| and research
on the requirements, nature and implementation oI SONs by SOCRATES |8| |11| |12| |13|. The
18 UCs presented by NGNM covered the pre-operational and operational states oI the network
distributed into 4 categories oI network planning, deployment, optimization and maintenance |4|.
Other related work was undertaken in the Monotas project that studied 'Mobile Network
Optimisation Through Advanced Simulation |6| and by the GandalI` project that deIined
solutions Ior selI-diagnosis, selI-testing and selI-tuning in multi-system environment |7|.
In an eIIort to standardize the development and operation oI SON Iunctionality especially Ior a
multivendor environment, 3GPP has described the necessary measurements, procedures and
open interIaces to support the operation oI nine (9) SON UCs. Covered within the 3GPP TR
36.902 standard, the 9 are so selected in consideration oI the manual eIIort especially in the early
deployment phase that would be required to set up and optimize the network to achieve a stable
system setup. For each UC, the standard describes the required Iunctionality, evaluation
scenarios and expected results, the solution description and where applicable the O&M
requirements Ior radio related Iunctions.
Development of SON Methods / Solutions
In studying towards a common Iramework Ior development oI required algorithms Ior the UCs in
the SOCRATES project, all the 25 UCs were Iully described in a uniIorm structure that deIined
all the parameters that relate to the operation oI the individual UCs |5|. Each UC is deIined in
terms oI a metric that represents a speciIic network physical state or operational behaviour that
ought to be maximized; a trigger event or situation that initiates the execution oI a particular
SON UC method; a set oI parameters that can potentially be adjusted as well as a set oI input
inIormation sources which will be used in order to determine which and to what values
parameters should be adjusted |9|. The project partners also attempted to priorities the UCs
(table 1) in order to determine the most important ones that could be developed Iirst |11|.


Table 1: Overview oI Socrates Use Case Prioritization per partner |11|
USE CASE Over all Rank
SelI-Healing: Cell outage compensation 1
SelI-Optimization: Coverage hole detection 2
SelI-Optimization: Home eNodeB 3
SelI-Optimization: Load Balancing 4
SelI-Healing: Cell outage detection 5
SelI-Optimization: InterIerence Coordination 6
SelI-Optimization: Management oI relays and repeaters 7
SelI-Optimization: Packet Scheduling 8
SelI-Optimization: Handover 9
SelI-Optimization: Admission Control 10
SelI-Optimization: Reduction oI energy consumption 11
SelI-Optimization: Congestion Control 12
SelI- ConIiguration: Intelligently selecting site locations 13
SelI-Healing: Cell outage prediction 14
SelI-ConIiguration: Automatic generation oI deIault parameters 15
SelI-Optimization: Physical Channels 16
SelI-Optimization: RACH Optimization 17
SelI-Optimization: MIMO 18
SelI-Optimization: Link Level Retransmission Scheme 19
SelI-Optimization: Spectrum Sharing 20
SelI-Optimization: Neighbour Cell List 21
SelI-Optimization: Tracking Areas 22
SelI-ConIiguration: Network Authentication 23
SelI-ConIiguration: Hardware/capacity extension 24
SelI-Optimization: TDD UL/DL Switching Point 25
Development status and Results
ithin SOCRATES, a Iramework has been studied to deIine the guidelines Ior development oI
the SO algorithms and within this Iramework, a high level study oI the interaction and
dependencies between use cases was undertaken |4|. Individually, some UCs have been studied
to varying depths and with varying results, with the most Iamous being Handover Optimization
|14|, |15|, |16| |17|, Admission Control Optimization |18|, |17| and Load balancing |19| |20|.
In |14| an algorithm that selects the best hysteresis and time to trigger combinations Ior
Handover Optimization is simulated in a speciIic scenario with better results when compared to
the same system and scenario but with static settings. In |15|, the authors study the perIormance
oI a selI-organising algorithm Ior handover parameters optimisation against two reIerence cases
one with no protection against oscillations i.e. where UEs are connected to the best server at all
times and another with strong protection. They observe that application oI a SO algorithm
improves system perIormance in both DL and UL throughput and yet concurrently mitigates
oscillations at levels similar to the strong protection case.


Similarly, a call admission control SON algorithm is simulated and Iound to comply better to a
deIined policy, than the static algorithm with Iixed HO Threshold (Th
HO
) |18|. Conversely,
system level simulation results are presented in |19| based on a LB algorithm that evaluates the
load condition in a given cell and its neighbouring cells and estimates the impact oI changing the
HO parameters in order to improve the overall network perIormance. It is observed that a gain in
terms oI increase oI average number oI satisIied users is possible albeit dependent on the load
situation in a cell and the available capacity in neighbouring cells.
In another study, an algorithm was presented, which tunes the RACH power control parameters
and simulations ran proved that RACH selI-tuning is indeed possible given that UE assisted
measurements are available Ior the selI-tuning mechanism |21|. Other Iunctions have also been
studied including Packet Scheduling Parameter Optimisation, Load Balancing, SelI-Optimisation
oI Home eNodeBs, Cell Outage Management, X-Map Estimation, and Automatic Generation oI
Initial Parameters Ior eNodeB Insertion |22|
2.2. The Connectivity challenge
UC Connections
Individually, the UCs in 2.1 optimise only a narrow Iield. Globally, however, all the UCs must
be operated on the same radio network to achieve the desired goals and in many cases, many
UCs must be simultaneously operated. This will necessitate interaction among them and may in
some cases result into conIlicts. It is then necessary, to establish the required mechanism(s) Ior
these connections and Ior the simultaneous operation.
Four major connectivity scenarios have been identiIied and can be categorisations under two
groups either as Interactive or ConIlict type connections.
%rigger interactions: In this case, a UC Iails to solve a trigger situation and should call in
another UC to take action. The trigger event oI one UC to another must be managed.
Cooperation interactions: In this case, a single UC cannot on its own solve a trigger situation
and must exchange inIormation with another UC during execution to concurrently adjust their
parameters in order to achieve a certain metric level.
Parameter conflicts: To achieve any one metric with a given UC method, a number oI
parameters have to be tuned. The same parameters however may be tuned by a diIIerent method


to achieve a diIIerent metric. An example here is the adjustment oI Handover parameters by HO
optimisation and Load balancing UCs
Observability conflicts: A UC optimises its own parameters but inadvertently aIIects a metric oI
another UC through adjustment oI at least one parameter that may not actually be shared
between the two UCs. A mechanism is necessary to ensure that actions oI the two UCs are
coordinated Ior good overall network perIormance.
Other relationships may exit but would not require integration activity during SON development.
An example is having two UCs that share inputs. In such case there is no need Ior integration
unless the two UCs also exhibit one oI the 4 connections above.
Benefits and preliminary results of SON UC integrations
In demonstrating the need Ior integration and potential beneIits, some connected UCs have been
simulated together. In one such case, Simulation results show that, compared to the case without
the selI-optimisation oI HO parameters, the AC parameter optimisation algorithm considerably
improves the HO perIormance by reducing the amount oI calls that are dropped prior to or during
HO |17|. There is however little negative interaction between the two algorithms |22|.
In another study, interaction between a HO SO algorithm and a LB SO algorithm is simulated
with a coordinator that controls the two base algorithms. Results show that the coordinator is
able to control the two algorithms to reasonable system perIormance and in some cases to better
perIormance than any oI two separately by combining the strengths oI the two algorithms |20|.
To consider the eIIect oI HO optimisation between macro and Home eNBs, simulation results do
not show any perIormance improvement Ior the scenario oI a simpliIied, trend based, macro HO
optimisation algorithm |22|.
2.3. Concerns for UC integration
Following successIul development oI standalone UCs, the integration must address the major
concerns relating to their concurrent operation including the Iollowing:
Dependencies among UCs:
The Iour observed connections can be realised among any set oI UCs at diIIerent times
depending on the network trigger situation. The triggers are any oI the network perIormance


situations including high or low number oI dropped or blocked calls; high, low or imbalanced
QoS or traIIic load; high or low cell capacity; a need Ior a new site; or the presence oI a coverage
hole or a cell outage.
Combined simulation:
A number oI simulation tools have been developed in the development oI solutions Ior
standalone UCs. It is then necessary to devise means to integrate the simulation environment Ior
the integration studies. A generic discussion oI possible alternatives has been presented in |13|
where it is noted that the Iinal choice oI approach will depend on a particular grouping oI UCs in
terms oI the speciIics oI the combined SON Iunctions; control parameters and key measurables;
possible diIIerences in operational time scales oI the integrated SON Iunctions, and the
suitability oI the available simulation tools Ior consideration oI integrated SON Iunctions.
Architecture:
Depending on the extent oI their inIluence in terms oI number oI cells they aIIect, individual
UCs have diIIerent preIerred architectural designs which could be centralised, distributed or
hybrids oI the other two. hen combined however, the architectural demands may change
depending on the other UCs they interconnect to as well as their degree oI interconnectivity. A
demonstration oI the degree oI connectivity is given in Iigure 3 which shows the connectivity
between UCs and parameters Ior the 15 top most UCs as prioritised by Socrates in |11|.

Figure 3: Expected connectivity among top 15 UCs (adapted from |22|)
-elghb
LlsL
Po Pys PC
CffseL
111 uL 1x
ower
upllnk
C
AnLenna
1llL
uL 1x
o/88
8eam
lorm
Sched
aram
Admlss
1hr
PC
CpLl
m
Load
bal
Pe-8
PC CpL CC A-8
uC
aram
CCu CPu CCC AC
Pe-8
Cov/lnL
lnLef
Coord
ackeL
Sched
Admlss
CLr
Lgy
Cons
Cong
CLr


Stability:
In a single complex system, there are likely to be many causes oI instability ranging Irom single
parameters reaching their maximum values to ping pong eIIects between pair(s) oI UCs. These
need to be determined and solutions devised Ior them.
Integration of Operator policies
It may be the case that human eIIort is still needed iI not to deIine the requirements to be IulIilled
by Son Iunctions but also to deIine the compromise Iunctions between competing objectives oI
SON methods |13|.
Assessment Methods and metrics:
It is important on integration oI multiple UCs, to consider what the most appropriate assessment
method and metrics Ior such an integrated case would be. In |13| a generic discussion is given on
the possible alternatives oI deIining the assessment metrics Ior the integrated UC as well as an
example assessment method based on distributed coordination Iunctions
2.4. State of the Art Solutions
Functional parameter groups
In |11|, |23| an idea was presented to classiIy diIIerent radio parameters into groups - called
Iunctional parameters groups created in a way that parameters in any one group contribute to
the satisIaction oI the same goal(s). It was expected that parameters in one group would not be
coupled with the goals oI other groups, which would allow Ior the identiIication oI UCs that can
be developed in parallel and that would not need to be coordinated and / or simulated together.
However, it was Iound that a majority oI the parameters Iell under the same Iunctional parameter
group which would lead to impracticable results, as the majority oI the algorithms would need to
be simulated together. An alternative attempt to reduce the complexity considered the relation
between the parameters by introducing a metric interrelation weight (I) such that high Is
would suggest that the associated parameter pair be jointly investigated and optimised.
Control and Coordination
|11|, |23| suggest handling conIlicts by introducing a control plane which compares the
measurements against operator deIined thresholds and decides on the activation oI triggers
10

and a coordination plane which processes the parameter changes proposed by concurrent
Iunctionalities beIore real network parameter adjustments are executed. The authors speciIy
the requirements Ior the control and coordination planes as well as the challenges including
identiIication oI possible conIlicts. They also speciIy the Iunctions that may be included in the
coordinator to include autognostics, super operator policy Iunctionality, guard Iunctionality
against extreme behaviour due to SON, arbitration and SON parameter execution, but leave the
details oI the speciIication and implementation oI coordination Iunctions to Iuture work.
In |24| an experimental system that realizes SON Iunction coordination based on fexible
operator policy-based decision coordination developed in |25| is presented. Coverage and
Capacity Optimization (CCO) is used as use case to demonstrate successIul coordination oI
multiple independent SON Iunctions Ior which coordination decisions are built into policies on a
decision tree.
A case study Ior a coordination Iunction has also been implemented in |20| |22| to evaluate the
Integration oI Handover Optimisation and Load Balancing. The study implements an alignment
Iunction that prevents handover optimisation Irom adjusting the hysteresis oI a cell that has
previously been oIten overloaded. The SON coordination combines the beneIits oI both
algorithms to signiIicantly improve the call drop ratio and not so much the HO Iailure ratio
although with slight increases in number oI unsatisIied customers and HO ping pong ratio.
2.5. Open Issues and Conclusion
The state oI the art has presented ideas that have only been partially validated. The degree oI
dependence among the SON UCs has also not been Iully described although has been noted to
most likely be vendor dependent depending on the vendors` implementation oI the SON
methods. The proposed coordination Iunction has only been partially justiIied and needs to be
Iully validated including validation oI its proposed Iunctions. This project will contribute to
study, development and validation oI the proposed as well as new solutions and ideas to
implement SON integration and where possible demonstrate how the UCs can be de-coupled.

11

3. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Plan
This project will seek to answer how algorithms can be designed, implemented and evaluated Ior
interactive use cases in selI organized networks with consideration oI the LTE radio system as an
example. SpeciIically, it will study, design and simulate the algorithms Ior a Iinite set oI
interacting selI-organization use cases which will be determined in the process.
ithin the project, the work will be structured as Iollows:
A) An analysis oI use cases, interactions and algorithms which will involve
O Study the requirements Ior the optimization oI individual use cases and the results so
Iar available oI individual algorithm developments.
O Study the nature oI the interactions among the use cases and the Irameworks Ior
evaluating the interactions.
O Study the characteristics oI individual Use Cases and their implications towards
interactivity and conIlict management Ior the Use cases
O Study the state oI the art oI proposed solutions as well other possible solutions that have
been applied in other systems computational, biological or otherwise. This will
include a consideration oI the limitations oI the diIIerent strategies and their beneIits
B) Algorithm design and development
O Propose new and improvements in solutions Ior observed interactions and scenarios; to
possible designs and implementation strategies Ior the interactive algorithms and
comparison oI the useIulness oI diIIerent strategies Ior the implementation oI the
interactions and / or conIlict resolution strategies in the SON use cases.
O Create a Iramework Ior designing algorithms Ior the selected integrated SON use cases,
including the guidelines Ior evaluating the designed algorithms.
O Design and evaluate the algorithms Ior the use cases where necessary Ior UCs
individually and Ior interactive UCs together.
C) Demonstration and Simulations
12

O Create a Iramework Ior simulating algorithms individually and together, including the
guidelines Ior evaluating the simulations and their results. Critical here will be the
shared metrics Ior achieving individual and global objectives oI the multiple use cases.
O Simulate algorithms and analyze the results both individual Use Case as well as Ior a
set oI interactive Use Cases simulated together.
3.2. Proposed Solution Ideas
Hybrid Architecture
The best solution lies in implementing distributed algorithms Ior individual UCs. These then
have to be coordinated in a cell and eNB to achieve global network objectives. A controller`
also evaluates shared metrics aIIected by non-shared parameters to ensure appropriateness oI
solution(s) to network Iunctionality. The structure oI the hybrid systems may be such that the
individual UC and the single cell multi UC coordination and control Iunctionalities are Iully
distributed while the multi eNB coordination is Iully centralised. To counter the eIIects oI
centralisation in a multivendor environment, the single vendor multi eNB coordination may also
be partially distributed in a way that one oI the interacting eNBs would assume leadership,
guiding the others towards an agreed solution.

Figure 4: Hybrid Implementation of Use Case Entities
13

Hierarchical Clustering of UCs
A hierarchical ordering oI UCs may be used to avoid ping pong activity between UCs especially
in UC-UC trigger scenarios and parameter value conIlicts. A sample rule could be that a lower
rank UC cannot change the decision made by a higher rank UC on a conIlict parameter within a
speciIied time period. Another rule could be that in case where one UC could trigger another, a
lower rank UC may be reIuted Irom execution Iollowing activity Irom a higher rank UC.
"uantitative arbitration
Arbitration could be undertaken in parameter value conIlicts by evaluating a cost to the entire
network oI a parameter taking a value diIIerent Irom the ones proposed by the contending UCs.
The Iinal value selected would be the one that minimises this network wide cost.
Coarse & fine Optimization Parameters
A course vs. Iine adjustable parameter ranking may be undertaken so that some parameters those
with eIIect on many UCs, are optimised Ior a larger set oI UCs while others are used to optimise
individual UCs. An example is optimising transmit power and Downlink transmit power Ior a set
oI 9 UCs to some semi-permanent values and then using the rest oI parameters to optimise
individual UCs (Iigures 5). The course parameters like transmit power could be adjusted much
less Irequently than the Iine parameters like Ior example in an average ratio oI 1:1000 times.

Figure 5: Separation of parameters into Course and fine optimisation parameters.
Suboptimal solutions with reduced parameter sets
Simple non coordination based solutions or at least those requiring minimal coordination
Iunctions can be designed Ior sub optimal solutions by reducing input and / or adjustable
uL 1x ower
upllnk C
AnLenna 1llL
uL 1x o/88
8eam lorm
Sched aram
CC
uC aram
CCu
CPu
CCC
AC
Pe-8 Cov/lnL
lnLeference Coord
ackeL Sched
Lgy Cons
1

parameter sets Ior the individual UCs. As an example iI interIerence coordination is undertaken
without adjusting antenna tilts, Iigure 5 can still be decoupled along the dotted line.
Characteristics based Decoupling
It is expected also that the anticipated connections between UCs can also be broken by
consideration oI the individual characteristics oI the UCs. For example even though AGP and
interIerence coordination both adjust the antenna tilt, the Iact that the tow UCs run at diIIerent
network stages (i.e. conIiguration Ior AGP and optimisation Ior interIerence coordination)
implies that they are actually not connected and do not need integration.
Other considerations
Other strategies will also be considered especially Ior speciIic problem cases. For example
applicable approaches could be game theory in conIlicts situations and consensus in both conIlict
and cooperation scenarios. Coordination and integration Iunctions could be designed based on
available methods in these approaches Ior quantitative and / or algorithmic solutions.
3.3. Purpose of the Study
The major purposes oI this project are to understand the interactions among a set oI UCs and to
develop algorithms that can be used to implement their integration in a way that they are able to
work in a coordinated manner during the selI-optimization process. The project will however,
contribute towards validating other research work by applying the results obtained in that
research in the design and simulation oI the algorithms. Finally, the project will contribute new
knowledge on the subject in both methods oI designing and implementing the solutions as well
as in the new results culminating Irom this research.
3.4. Risks
The major risk to the project is the ability to manage the complexity combined with little
literature on the subject. OI critical importance also will be the knowledge oI algorithms and data
structures which may be required in order to design, implement and evaluate eIIicient
algorithms. Other Ioreseeable risks could be challenges with stability and robustness oI the
algorithms although these can be managed.
1

4. CONTRIBUTIONS
This project will be undertaken in the international graduate school oI mobile communication at
TU Ilmenau within the context oI research towards autonomous adaptation oI systems to
dynamically changing environments. The core oI the work will be within the Modeling and
Evaluation` working group oI the school but is expected to use the results and algorithms oI the
SelI Organized Decision Making` working group and will test the results through the
Demonstrator` working group.
The work on interaction oI selI-organization use cases in LTE is strongly related to other topics
oI the Graduate School especially on SON. SpeciIically, it interIaces with SelI-Organization oI
Coverage and Capacity in Future Radio Access Networks (RAN) by Muhammad Naseer, and
SelI-Organized Mobility Load Balancing Ior Future Radio Access Networks by Nauman Zia.
1

5. WORK SCHEDULE
10/1/11 12/31/11 3/31/12 /30/12 /2/12 12/2/12 3/30/13 /2/13 /2/13 12/2/13 3/2/1 /2/1 /2/1
reparaLlon
Any Courses?
Self organlsaLlon
course 2
SLaLe of Lhe ArL
8ackground SLudy
SC- CperaLlonal descrlpLlon
SC- demo CongesLlon CLr
SC- uC ConnecLlons
rellmlnary roblem descrlpLlon
uemonsLraLe ConnecLlons
ueLalled roblem lormulaLlon
SLudy of roposed MeLhods
Analyse llmlLaLlons of Lhe meLhods
uemonsLraLe Clobal Challenge
SoluLlons
uevelop and demonsLraLe ldea 1
SlmulaLe soln and documenL resulLs
uevelop and demonsLraLe ldea 2
SlmulaLe soln and documenL resulLs
uevelop and demonsLraLe ldea 3
SlmulaLe soln and documenL resulLs
CompleLlon AcLlvlLles
1hesls WrlLlng
uesserLaLlon
uefence
Ma[or uuraLlon AcLlvlLy uuraLlon Mll esLone
1

REFERENCES
|1| http://www.3gpp.org/LTE
|2| J.L. VAN DEN BERG ET AL, 'SelI-Organisation in Future Mobile Communication
Networks, Deutsche Telekom AG, version 1.0, December 2008
|3| L.C. SCHMELZ, J.L. VAN DEN BERG, R. LITJENS,A., M. AMIRIJOO, O. LINNELL,
C. BLONDIA, T. KRNER, N. SCULLY, J. OSZMIANSKI, SelI-conIiguration, -
optimisation and -healing in wireless networks 2008RF
|4| Next Generation Mobile Networks, 'Use Cases related to SelI Organising Network,
Overall Description, NGNM, May 2007. http://www.ngmn.org/technology.html
|5| 3GPP TR 36.902 V0.0.1, 'Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-
UTRAN); SelI-conIiguration and selI-optimizing network use cases and solutions
|6| Monotas, 'Mobile Network Optimisation Through Advanced Simulation,
http://www.macltd.com/monotas/index.php
|7| GandalI, 'Monitoring and selI-tuning oI RRM parameters in a multi-system network,
http://www.celtic-initiative.org/Projects/Celtic-projects/Call2/GANDALF/gandalI-deIault.asp
|8| SOCRATES Deliverable D2.1: Use Cases Ior SelI-Organising Networks, EU STREP
SOCRATES (INFSO-ICT-216284), Version 1.0, March 2008
|9| SOCRATES Deliverable D2.2: Requirements Ior SelI-Organising Networks, EU STREP
SOCRATES (INFSO-ICT-216284), Version 1.0, June 2008
|10| SOCRATES Deliverable D2.3: Assessment criteria Ior SelI-Organising Networks, EU
STREP SOCRATES (INFSO-ICT-216284), Version 1.0, June 2008.
|11| SOCRATES Deliverable D2.4: 'Framework Ior the development oI selI-organisation
methods, EU STREP SOCRATES (INFSO-ICT-216284), September 2008.
|12| SOCRATES Deliverable D2.5: 'Review oI use cases and Iramework, EU STREP
SOCRATES (INFSO-ICT-216284), March 2009.
|13| SOCRATES Deliverable D2.6: 'Review oI use cases and Iramework II, EU STREP
SOCRATES (INFSO-ICT-216284), December 2009.
|14| Thomas Jansen, Irina Balany, Ingrid Moermanz, Thomas Kurner, 'Handover parameter
optimization in LTE selI-organizing networks, COST2100 TD(10)10068 Athens,
Greece, 2010/Febr/03-05
1

|15| Jose Alonso-Rubio, SelI-Optimization Ior Handover Oscillation Control in LTE,
IEEE/IFIP Network Operations and Management Symposium, Osaka, Japan, 2010.
|16| I. Balan, T. Jansen, B. Sas, I. Moerman & T. Krner, 'Enhanced weighted perIormance
based handover optimization in LTE, Proceedings oI FNMS, arsaw, Poland, 2011
|17| B. Sas, K. Spaey, I. Baran, K. Zetterberg and R. Litjens, 'SelI-optimisation oI admission
control and handover, Proceedings oI ISON, 15-18 May 2011, Budapest, Hungary
|18| K. Spaey, B. Sas, C. Blondia, 'SelI-Optimising Call Admission Control Ior LTE
Downlink, Joint COST 2100 / SOCRATES workshop, February 5, 2010
|19| A. Lobinger, S. SteIanski, T. Jansen & I. Balan, Load balancing in downlink LTE selI-
optimizing networks, VTC2010-Spring, Taipei, Taiwan, May 16-19, 2010.
|20| Lobinger, A.; SteIanski, S.; Jansen, T.; Balan, I.,Coordinating Handover Parameter
Optimization and Load Balancing in LTE SelI-Optimizing Networks, IEEE 73rd
Vehicular Technology ConIerence (VTC-Spring), Budapest, Hungary
|21| M. Amirijoo, P. Frenger, F. Gunnarsson, J. Moe, K. Zetterberg, 'Towards RACH SelI
Tuning in LTE IEEE Vehicular Technology ConIerence, Spring, 2009.
|22| T. Jansen, M. Amirijoo, U. Trke, L. Jorguseski, K. Zetterberg, R. Nascimento, L. C.
Schmelz, J. Turk, I. Balan, 'Embedding Multiple SelI-Organisation Functionalities in
Future Radio Access Networks, 69th Vehicular Technology ConIerence, VTC2009-
Spring, Barcelona, Spain, 2009
|23| SOCRATES Deliverable D5.9: 'Final Report on SelI-Organisation and its Implications
in ireless Access Networks, EU STREP SOCRATES (INFSO-ICT-216284), Dec2010
|24| Tobias Bandh, Henning Sanneck, Raphael Romeikat, 'An experimental system Ior SON
coordination, ISON IEEE 73
rd
Vehicular Technology ConIerence, Spring 2011
|25| T. Bandh, R. Romeikat, H. Sanneck, H. Tang, 'Policy-based coordination and
management oI SelI-Organizing-Network (SON) Functions, IFIP / IEEE Symposium on
Integrated Management, Dublin, Ireland, May 2011.