slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 29

EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 93 Views
  • Uploaded on

EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS. AUTHORS R. SIVARAJ, A. PANDE, K. ZENG, K. GOVINDAN, P. MOHAPATRA . PRESENTER R. SIVARAJ, Ph.D student in CS, UC DAVIS, CA, USA Email: rsivaraj AT ucdavis DOT edu

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS' - cree


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS

AUTHORS

R. SIVARAJ, A. PANDE, K. ZENG, K. GOVINDAN,

P. MOHAPATRA

PRESENTER

R. SIVARAJ,

Ph.D student in CS,

UC DAVIS, CA, USA

Email: rsivaraj AT ucdavisDOT edu

http://spirit.cs.ucdavis.edu

slide2

AGENDA OF THE PRESENTATION

  • INTRODUCTION
  • ISSUES IN EXISTING LITERATURE
  • PROBLEM STATEMENT
  • KEY CONTRIBUTIONS
  • WHY UPLINK?
  • SYSTEM MODEL
  • CARRIER AGGREGATION
  • SCHEDULING
  • PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
  • DISCUSSION
  • CONCLUSION
slide3

INTRODUCTION TO LONG TERM EVOLUTION

90

1.4 MHz CC

2600 MHz

5 MHz CC

2025 MHz

20 MHz CC

1900 MHz

15 MHz CC

1525 MHz

10 MHz CC

800 MHz

slide4

INTRODUCTION TO LTE-ADVANCED

  • LTE RELEASE 10 (4G CELLULAR NETWORK – EVOLVED FROM OFDMA LTE)
  • PROVISIONING NEXT-GEN TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES
  • PEAK DATA RATES:
    • DOWNLINK (Low Mobility): 1 Gbps
    • UPLINK (Low Mobility): 500 Mbps
    • DOWNLINK (High Mobility): 100 Mbps
  • PEAK BANDWIDTH: 100 MHz
    • AGGREGATION OF UPTO 5 COMPONENT CARRIERS
    • SCALABLE LTE BANDWIDTHS RANGING FROM 1.4 MHz to 20 MHz
  • PHYSICAL RESOURCE BLOCKS (PRB)
    • CONSTITUENT OF 12 SUB-CARRIERS (EACH 18 kHz) – MINIMUM RESOURCE ALLOCATION UNIT FOR ANY UE
    • DOWNLINK: CONTIGUOUS/DIS-CONTIGUOUS SUB-CARRIERS FOR A SINGLE PRB (CHANNEL)
    • UPLINK: CONTIGUOUS SUB-CARRIERS FOR A SINGLE PRB (RECOMMENDED)
slide5

CARRIER AGGREGATION

SESSION ADMISSION CONTROL

L3 – CC ASSIGNMENT

L2 – PACKET SCHEDULING

L2 – PACKET SCHEDULING

L2 – PACKET SCHEDULING

LINK ADAPTATION

LINK ADAPTATION

LINK ADAPTATION

HARQ

HARQ

HARQ

MAC

MAC

MAC

CC

CC

CC

slide6

ISSUES IN EXISTING LITERATURE

Am in here for a video conferencing

Same number of resources for both ?

Send an email to my boss applying for leave

Now I wanna surf Facebook

Video gaming with my friends for the next half-hour

Ah !!!! Jus wanna surf Facebook

Iwanna stream a HD video

A VoIP call to my manager

Center/Close to center UEs contribute to less UL traffic

Edge UEs contribute to a bulkier data

slide7

UE GROUPING

  • Grouping of UEs based on spatial correlation – Similar channel conditions and radio characteristics

CQI

CQI

CQI

CQI

CQI

CQI

key contributions of the paper
KEY CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE PAPER

PROBLEM STATEMENT:

How to optimally provision next-generation telecommunication services in LTE-Advanced uplink ?

APPROACH:

Prioritization of cell-edge UE groups for channel- and Traffic-aware Carrier Aggregation

Effectively accommodates log-normal shadowing, channel fading and propagation losses which adversely impact edge throughput

Efficient representation of under-represented weak terminals

Profile-based Proportional Fair Packet Scheduling

Resolves contention of resources using inter- and intra-group scheduling on a time-domain and frequency-domain basis

slide9

MOTIVATION - WHY UPLINK ?

  • HIGHER UPLINK TRAFFIC WITH THE EVOLUTION OF WEB 2.0
  • UPLINK COULD POSSIBLY EXCEED DOWNLINK IN 2020 (CISCO ESTIMATES)
  • MOBILE TERMINALS – MORE POWER-LIMITED THAN THE eNodeB
  • RADIO CHANNEL CHARACTERISTICS (LIKE PATH LOSS) INFLUENCE UE TRANSMISSION POWER
  • FREQUENCY DIVERSITY AND AMC : NOT EFFECTIVELY-UTILIZED IN THE UPLINK
  • MOTIVATION FOR SUBSCRIBERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO UPLINK TRAFFIC FROM THEIR HAND-HELD DEVICES
slide10

MOTIVATION - WHY CHANNEL-AWARE AND EDGE ?

  • 41% INCREASE IN THROUGHPUT OVER CHANNEL-BLIND ASSIGNMENT
  • 57% INCREASE IN EDGE UE THROUGHPUT
  • PATH LOSS-BASED ASSIGNMENT FOR CHANNEL AWARENESS
slide11

SYSTEM MODEL

  • NON-ADJACENT INTER-BAND CARRIER AGGREGATION (800 MHz, 1525 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2025 MHz, 2600 MHz)
  • FOR ANY UE, ASSIGNABLE CCSET CONTAINS CCs WHOSE PATH LOSS IS LESS THAN A PRE-DEFINED THRESHOLD
  • ASSIGN RESOURCES ONLY FROM ASSIGNABLE CCs TO UE GROUPS
  • UEs FROM EACH GROUP SEND QCI TO eNB (TRAFFIC SUBSCRIPTION)
  • DETERMINATION OF AMBR REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH GROUP
  • EQUAL POWER ALLOCATION ON ALL FREQUENCY BANDS WITH SINR, CQI AND SPECTRAL EFFICIENCY COMPUTATIONS:

QCI

CALCULATE

AMBR

QCI

slide12

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSIGNABLECCsTO UEs

CC1

UE1

UE2

CC2

CC3

UE3

N

CC4

UE4

CC5

UE5

slide13

CARRIER AGGREGATION – THE OBJECTIVE

  • AGGREGATING THE CCs AND ASSIGNING THEIR PRBs TO THE GROUPS
  • Theoretical Formulation: NP-Hard Generalized Assignment Problem:
    • SOLUTION : SUBSET OF ITEMS (AGGREGATED CARRIER U) TO BE ASSIGNEDTO THE BINS
    • FEASIBLE SOLUTION: SOLUTION WITH MAXIMUM PROFIT (ACHIEVED UPLINK THROUGHPUT)

CC1

CC2

CCi

CCn

ITEMS

βij

pij

G1

G2

Gj

Gm

BINS

W1

W2

Wj

Wm

slide14

HEURISTICS

  • PRIORITIZING THE SPATIAL GROUPS
    • : = SET OF ASSIGNABLE CCsFOR UE r IN GROUP Gi
    • i:= SET OF ASSIGNABLE CCs FOR GROUP Gi
    • PRIORITY METRIC :=
    • LEAST PRIORITIZATION OF CELL-CENTER UEs IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION – COULD STILL GUARANTEE ALLOCATION OF GOOD CCs

800

G1

1525

G2

1800

Gj

MGi

2025

2600

Gm

proof of correctness the intuition
PROOF OF CORRECTNESS – THE INTUITION
  • ASSIGNABLE RESOURCES FOR GROUP Gi :
  • ASSIGNABLE RESOURCES FOR GROUP Gj:
  • ASSUME GjGETS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN Gi (by contradiction):
    • A,B,C COULD BE ASSIGNED TO Gj(worst case trafficrequirement)
    • ASSIGNABLE RESOURCES FOR Gi – EXHAUSTED (SHOULD BE SCHEDULED IN THE NEXT TIME SLOT)
  • IF Gi GETS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN Gj
    • A,B,C COULD BE ASSIGNED TO Gi(worst case trafficrequirement)
    • D,E COULD STILL BE ASSIGNED TO Gj
  • HIGHER ADVERSE IMPACT FOR THE FORMER CASE – NOT A NEARLY OPTIMAL SOLUTION

A

B

C

B

C

D

E

A

slide16

PRB ASSIGNMENT

  • GOAL
    • To allocate the best set of contiguouschannels to the UE groups
    • To minimizeresource contention and dependency on scheduling
    • Alreadyassignedresource/CC – considered for re-assignment to another group onlywhilelack of choice for the other group
  • FORMULATION:
    • Sum of estimatedbandwidths of UEs of group Gi
    • yij := Fraction of the total number of PRBs in CC j allocated to Gi
    • := Availablebandwidth in CC j for group Gi

βij

slide17

PRB ASSIGNMENT

  • Trafficrequirement for any group Gi:
  • Estimate the SINR, CQI and MCS – Spectral Efficiency values for all the PRBsacrosseachassignable CC for a given UE transmission power and pathloss model
  • Spectral Efficiencyisgiven by:
  • Channel allocation followsMaximum Throughputalgorithmusing the computed MCS levels
scheduling
SCHEDULING
  • TO RESOLVE CONTENTION AMONGST THE UE GROUPS AND INDIVIDUAL UEs
  • PHASE I : TIME DOMAIN-BASED INTER-GROUP PFPS
  • PROFILE-BASED TD METRIC:
  • SERVICE PRIORITIZATION

COMMON RESOURCES

t2

t1

G1

G2

scheduling1
SCHEDULING

INTRA-GROUP FREQUENCY-DOMAIN PFPS:

UE with maximum FD metric :

Total number of PRB combinations:

UE1

UE3

UE2

slide20

SIMULATION DETAILS

  • NS3 LENA – LTE/EPC NETWORK SIMULATOR
  • FULLY-IMPLEMENTED LTE UPLINK PHY AND MAC FUNCTIONALITIES
  • FEATURES INCLUDE MODELING THE AMC, PATH LOSS MEASUREMENTS, CHANNEL-STATE INFORMATION FEEDBACK
  • CELL SIZE 1 km
  • NON-ADJACENT FREQUENCY BANDS = 10 (5 CCs CHOSEN FOR CA)
  • FREQUENCY BANDS : 800, 1525, 1800, 2025, 2600 MHz
  • CONSTANT POSITION MOBILITY MODEL FOR eNB, CONSTANT VELOCITY MOBILITY MODEL FOR Ues
  • UNIFORM UE DISTRIBUTION ACROSS THE CELL
  • MAXIMUM 10 UEs PER CELL, (MAX. 5 HIGH-END TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS PER UE), GBR TRAFFIC APPLICATIONS
  • JAKES FADING MODEL, LOG NORMAL SHADOWING, 23 dBM UE TRANSMISSION POWER, 43 dBMeNB TRANSMISSION POWER, -120 dBM THRESHOLD PATH LOSS, -174 dBM/Hz NOISE SPECTRAL DENSITY
slide22

RESULTS

INTER- AND INTRA-GROUP PFPS (IMPR 15%, 21%)

CC ASSIGNMENT (IMPR 33%, 15%)

slide23

RESULTS

CC ASSIGNMENT IN UNIFORM SCENARIO

CC ASSIGNMENT (EDGE UEs) (IMPR. 64%, 54%)

slide24

RESULTS

INTER- AND INTRA-GROUP PFPS (EDGE UEs IMPR. 62%)

UNIFORM CC ASSIGNMENT (EDGE UEs IMPR. 10%)

slide25

RESULTS

CDF OF LTE-A UPLINK THROUGHPUT (IMPR. 20%, SD 14%)

ACHIEVED GBR (91.7%, 87.4%)

slide26

DISCUSSIONLUSIONS

  • IMPACT ON POWER OPTIMIZATION :
    • ESTIMATED TRANSMISSION POWER FOR UE ON ANY CC:
    • LOW VALUES OF M AND PL FROM OUR PROPOSED MECHANISMS – MINIMIZES POWER CONSUMPTION
    • REST OF THE PARAMETERS ARE CC-SPECIFIC OPEN-LOOP AND CLOSED-LOOP VALUES
    • NOT APPLICABLE TO HIGH-SPEED MOBILE UEs – NO DISTINCT CELL-CENTER AND CELL-EDGE UEs, IRRELEVANT FEEDBACK
    • REQUIRES COORDINATION AMIDST MULTIPLE, NEIGHBORING eNBs
slide27

CONCLUSIONS

  • CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARENESS IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION FOR LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS
  • FOCUS ON UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION – CC ASSIGNMENT AND PFPS
  • MOTIVATION FOR GROUPING OF UEs
  • CC ASSIGNMENT – PROBLEM THEORETICALLY-MODELLED AS NP-HARD GENERALIZED ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM
  • PROPOSAL OF EDGE-PRIORITIZED CC ASSIGNMENT
  • PROPOSAL OF TIME-DOMAIN INTER-GROUP AND FREQUENCY-DOMAIN INTRA-GROUP PFPS
  • PERFORMANCE EVALUATION – 33% IMPR IN CC ASSIGNMENT AND 15% IMPROVEMENT IN SCHEDULING MECHANISMS
  • DOWNLINK LTE-ADVANCED MULTICAST, HIGH-SPEED SCENARIO – ENVISIONED FOR FUTURE WORK