Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS AUTHORS R. SIVARAJ, A. PANDE, K. ZENG, K. GOVINDAN, P. MOHAPATRA.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS AUTHORS R. SIVARAJ, A. PANDE, K. ZENG, K. GOVINDAN, P. MOHAPATRA."— Presentation transcript:

1 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 http://spirit.cs.ucdavis.edu 1

2 AGENDA OF THE PRESENTATION INTRODUCTION ISSUES IN EXISTING LITERATURE PROBLEM STATEMENT KEY CONTRIBUTIONS WHY UPLINK? SYSTEM MODEL CARRIER AGGREGATION SCHEDULING PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DISCUSSION CONCLUSION 2

3 INTRODUCTION TO LONG TERM EVOLUTION 800 MHz 1525 MHz 1900 MHz 2025 MHz 2600 MHz 10 MHz CC 15 MHz CC 20 MHz CC 5 MHz CC 1.4 MHz CC 90 3

4 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) 4

5 CARRIER AGGREGATION SESSION ADMISSION CONTROL L3 – CC ASSIGNMENT L2 – PACKET SCHEDULING LINK ADAPTATION HARQ MAC CC 5

6 ISSUES IN EXISTING LITERATURE I wanna stream a HD video Am in here for a video conferencing A VoIP call to my manager Ah !!!! Jus wanna surf Facebook Send an email to my boss applying for leave Video gaming with my friends for the next half-hour Edge UEs contribute to a bulkier data Center/Close to center UEs contribute to less UL traffic Now I wanna surf Facebook Same number of resources for both ? 6

7  Grouping of UEs based on spatial correlation – Similar channel conditions and radio characteristics UE GROUPING CQI 7

8 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 8

9 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 9

10 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 10

11 CALCULATE AMBR SYSTEM MODEL  NON-ADJACENT INTER-BAND CARRIER AGGREGATION (800 MHz, 1525 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2025 MHz, 2600 MHz)  FOR ANY UE, ASSIGNABLE CC SET 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 11

12 DISTRIBUTION OF ASSIGNABLE CCs TO UEs CC1 CC2 CC3 CC4 CC5 UE1 UE2 UE3 UE4 UE5 N 12

13 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 ASSIGNED TO THE BINS FEASIBLE SOLUTION: SOLUTION WITH MAXIMUM PROFIT (ACHIEVED UPLINK THROUGHPUT) CC 1 CC 2 CC i …CC n ITEMS BINS G1G1 G2G2 GjGj …GmGm W 1 W 2 W j … W m p ij β ij 13

14 HEURISTICS PRIORITIZING THE SPATIAL GROUPS : = SET OF ASSIGNABLE CCs FOR UE r IN GROUP G i i:= SET OF ASSIGNABLE CCs FOR GROUP G i PRIORITY METRIC := LEAST PRIORITIZATION OF CELL-CENTER UEs IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION – COULD STILL GUARANTEE ALLOCATION OF GOOD CCs 800 1525 1800 2025 2600 G1G1 G2G2 GjGj … GmGm MGiMGi 14

15 PROOF OF CORRECTNESS – THE INTUITION ASSIGNABLE RESOURCES FOR GROUP G i : ASSIGNABLE RESOURCES FOR GROUP G j : ASSUME G j GETS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN G i (by contradiction): A,B,C COULD BE ASSIGNED TO G j (worst case traffic requirement) ASSIGNABLE RESOURCES FOR G i – EXHAUSTED (SHOULD BE SCHEDULED IN THE NEXT TIME SLOT) IF G i GETS A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN G j A,B,C COULD BE ASSIGNED TO G i (worst case traffic requirement) D,E COULD STILL BE ASSIGNED TO G j HIGHER ADVERSE IMPACT FOR THE FORMER CASE – NOT A NEARLY OPTIMAL SOLUTION A BC A BCD E 15

16 PRB ASSIGNMENT GOAL To allocate the best set of contiguous channels to the UE groups To minimize resource contention and dependency on scheduling Already assigned resource/CC – considered for re-assignment to another group only while lack of choice for the other group FORMULATION: Sum of estimated bandwidths of UEs of group G i y ij := Fraction of the total number of PRBs in CC j allocated to G i := Available bandwidth in CC j for group G i β ij 16

17 PRB ASSIGNMENT Traffic requirement for any group G i : Estimate the SINR, CQI and MCS – Spectral Efficiency values for all the PRBs across each assignable CC for a given UE transmission power and path loss model Spectral Efficiency is given by: Channel allocation follows Maximum Throughput algorithm using the computed MCS levels 17

18 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 G1G1 G2G2 COMMON RESOURCES t1 t2 18

19 SCHEDULING INTRA-GROUP FREQUENCY-DOMAIN PFPS: UE with maximum FD metric : Total number of PRB combinations: UE 1 UE 3 UE 2 19

20 SIMULATION DETAILS 1. NS3 LENA – LTE/EPC NETWORK SIMULATOR 2. FULLY-IMPLEMENTED LTE UPLINK PHY AND MAC FUNCTIONALITIES 3. 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 dBM eNB TRANSMISSION POWER, -120 dBM THRESHOLD PATH LOSS, -174 dBM/Hz NOISE SPECTRAL DENSITY 20

21 TRAFFIC DETAILS 21

22 RESULTS CC ASSIGNMENT (IMPR 33%, 15%) INTER- AND INTRA-GROUP PFPS (IMPR 15%, 21%) 22

23 RESULTS CC ASSIGNMENT IN UNIFORM SCENARIO CC ASSIGNMENT (EDGE UEs) (IMPR. 64%, 54%) 23

24 RESULTS INTER- AND INTRA-GROUP PFPS (EDGE UEs IMPR. 62%) UNIFORM CC ASSIGNMENT (EDGE UEs IMPR. 10%) 24

25 RESULTS CDF OF LTE-A UPLINK THROUGHPUT (IMPR. 20%, SD 14%) ACHIEVED GBR (91.7%, 87.4%) 25

26 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 26

27 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 27

28 QUERIES?? 28

29 THANK YOU 29


Download ppt "EDGE-PRIORITIZED CHANNEL- AND TRAFFIC-AWARE UPLINK CARRIER AGGREGATION IN LTE-ADVANCED SYSTEMS AUTHORS R. SIVARAJ, A. PANDE, K. ZENG, K. GOVINDAN, P. MOHAPATRA."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google