Analysis of LTE Radio Load and User Throughput

International Journal of Computer Networks & Communications (IJCNC) Vol.9, No.6, November 2017
Analysis of LTE Radio Load and User
Throughput
Jari Salo1
and Eduardo Zacarías B.2
Nokia Networks 1
Taguig City, Phillipines and 2
Ulm, Germany
Abstract
A recurring topic in LTE radio planning pertains to the maximum acceptable LTE radio interface load, up to
which a targeted user data rate can be maintained. We explore this topic by using Queuing Theory elements
to express the downlink user throughput as a function of the LTE Physical Resource Block (PRB) utilization.
The resulting formulas are expressed in terms of standardized 3GPP KPIs and can be readily evaluated
from network performance counters. Examples from live networks are given to illustrate the results, and the
suitability of a linear decrease model is quantified upon data from a commercial LTE network.
Keywords
LTE, Traffic Model, Processor Sharing, Network Measurements
1. Introduction
A key topic in radio network planning concerns mapping statistics generated in the radio network
layer, to the end-user experienced performance. In practical operation, a question relating plan-
ning and current conditions often arises: “what is the maximum LTE radio load, so that the user
throughput is still at a given level?”. Somewhat surprisingly, there are no practically useful en-
gineering analyses available to this question in the literature. This is the main motivation for this
study. A simple answer to the question is available by exploiting results from IP networking litera-
ture and basic queuing theory. In order to make those results practical, this paper states the existing
theoretical results in terms of LTE radio utilization metrics, which can be easily computed from
network performance statistics available in commercial LTE base station products.
Earlier work: The user throughput for elastic traffic transmitted over fixed-bandwidth, non-wireless
links has been thoroughly investigated in engineering literature. An overview and references can be
found in [1]. Wireless CDMA network user throughput has been analyzed in [2] and in other works
of the authors thereof. Radio interface flow-level scheduler analysis from relatively theoretical
viewpoint has been presented in [3] and [4]. An overview of LTE scheduling has been presented
in [5]. The idea of modelling LTE radio scheduler using M/G/1 is obviously not unheard of, see
for example [6]. However, none of the aforementioned contributions present any validation of the
theoretical results against real-world network data or the results are presented in terms of statistics
that are not available in real-world networks.
In this paper, the focus is on the average user throughput over the LTE radio interface. In particular,
the so called M/G/1 Processor Sharing (PS) approach is used to express user throughput in terms of
LTE radio interface Physical Resource Block (PRB) utilization, the statistics of which are available
in every commercial LTE system. For details on the LTE system details, the reader is referred to
the well-established literature, such as [7, 8, 9].
DOI: 10.5121/ijcnc.2017.9603 33

Contributions: The contributions of this paper include the following.
• Formulation of LTE user throughput in terms of the M/G/1 PS model by using PRB utiliza-
tion as the load metric.
• Verification of the validity of the M/G/1 PS approach by comparing to live network mea-
surements.
• Extension to rate-capped user throughput by using the M/G/R PS model for non-integer 𝑅.
• Application to load balancing between frequency layers, including closed-form formula for
the optimal traffic balancing ratio for the two-layer case.
The results can be used for both FDD and TDD variants of LTE. Although in principle the general
approach is applicable to both downlink and uplink, the uplink case is dependent on the power con-
trol and link adaptation implementation, which leaves more degrees of freedom to be considered.
For this reason, throughout the paper ‘throughput’ refers to the downlink case, with the uplink
applicability left for further study.
In Section 2, the average user throughput is formulated as a function of the number of active data
flows sharing radio scheduler resources. In Section 3 these results are related to physical resource
block (PRB) utilization by means of the well-known M/G/1 processor sharing formula, resulting
in ∝
1
1−𝜌
degradation in user throughput with 𝜌 denoting PRB utilization of the serving cell. An
extension to the case where user throughput is externally rate-limited is also given. In Section 4
application of the result to traffic balancing between frequency layers is given. Section 5 discusses
some aspects of the impact of cell interference coupling. In Section 6 live network measurement
examples are provided to validate the results. Finally, conclusions are presented.
2. Throughput versus Number of Active Users
2.1 Basic Assumptions
The following assumptions are made:
• Full buffer traffic model so that, in the absence of other users, a single user obtains all avail-
able radio resources. For example, constant bit rate streaming traffic would not satisfy this
condition.
• If there is more than one user, the scheduler shares radio resources equally, on average,
between users. This fair sharing principle is assumed independently of the radio conditions
of the UEs sharing the scheduler resources.
The first assumption will be relaxed in Section 3.3, and the second assumption will be discussed in
Section 5. The notion of “radio resource” could be defined in various ways, but in case of the LTE
radio interface, it is convenient to choose Physical Resource Blocks (PRBs) as the resource being
shared. For LTE downlink, PRB utilization can be equated with transmit power utilization as long
as physical layer and common channel overhead are properly taken into account.
With the assumptions above, instantaneous user throughput with 𝑥 active users downloading si-
multaneously would be
1
𝑥
of the maximum throughput. A UE is said to be active if there are data
34

remaining in the transmit buffer1
. As different UEs in the cell start and finish their data transfers,
the number of active UEs (𝑥), and hence also the instantaneous user throughput, changes over time.
An interesting metric is the average throughput experienced by UEs in the cell, which is discussed
in the next section.
2.2 Two user throughput metrics
Consider a UE located somewhere in a cell and experiencing certain radio quality. In the absence
of any other users, the UE is allocated all available PRBs and receives some throughput 𝑇1, where
the subscript ‘1’ emphasizes that there is one active user (i.e., 𝑥 = 1). If there were 𝑥 > 1
active UEs in the cell, the throughput of the user would be 𝑇1/𝑥 instead. The maximum achievable
user throughput, 𝑇1, depends on the user location in the cell, radio conditions, number of transmit
antennas, and so on. The average user throughput 𝑇 𝑢𝑒 is defined as the expected value of 𝑇1/𝑥 for
positive integer 𝑥, in other words
𝑇 𝑢𝑒 = 𝐸 [
𝑇1
𝑥
] , 𝑥 ≥ 1 , (1)
where 𝐸[⋅] denotes expected value and 𝑇1 and 𝑥 ≥ 1 are the random variables being averaged.
The user radio conditions, and hence the maximum throughput 𝑇1, can be assumed statistically
independent of the number of active UEs in the cell, and (1) can thus be written as
𝑇 𝑢𝑒 = 𝐸[𝑇1]𝐸 [
1
𝑥
] , 𝑥 ≥ 1 . (2)
The term 𝐶 = 𝐸[𝑇1] will be called cell capacity in this paper.
Unfortunately, the second term 𝐸[1/𝑥], which is the average of the inverse of the number of active
UEs, cannot be always computed since it is not usually available as a radio counter. On the other
hand, the average active UEs, 𝐸[𝑥], is a standardized KPI defined in 3GPP TS 32.425 and thus
commonly implemented in commercial products. Therefore, a more practical metric results if
𝐸[1/𝑥] in (2) is replaced by 1/𝐸[𝑥], or
𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ =
𝐸[𝑇1]
𝐸[𝑥]
, 𝑥 ≥ 1 . (3)
In 3GPP TS 32.425 this is called scheduled “IP throughput”. It should be emphasized that 𝐸[𝑥] ≠
𝐸[1/𝑥] and for this reason 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ and 𝑇 𝑢𝑒 are different throughput metrics and not equal in value.
The scheduled throughput can also be written as [10]
𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ =
𝑆
𝑊
, (4)
where 𝑆 is the average file size (bytes) and 𝑊 is the average file transfer time. This form of the
scheduled throughput is often used in fixed-line IP network throughput analysis where it goes by
the name “flow throughput”. An application to wireless network setting can be found [2] and many
others published since.
The scheduled throughput 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ is always lower than user throughput 𝑇 𝑢𝑒. This is a direct result
of the concavity of 1/𝑥 and Jensen’s inequality: 𝐸[1/𝑥] > 1/𝐸[𝑥] and subsequently 𝑇 𝑢𝑒 > 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ.
1
The terms ‘UE’ and ‘user’ are used interchangeably. The number of active UEs is different from the number of
RRC-connected UEs since a UE can be RRC-connected without having any data to receive or send.
35

While typically one would be more interested in the user throughput 𝑇 𝑢𝑒, in this paper the focus
is on the scheduled throughput 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ because 𝑇 𝑢𝑒 is not usually computable from LTE base station
performance counters. A discussion on the differences between different throughput metrics can
be found in [10, 11].
3. Throughput versus PRB Utilization
In the previous section, it was shown that average scheduled throughput is inversely proportional
to the average number of active UEs. However, the number of active UEs is perhaps not the most
intuitive KPI for characterizing network load. A more commonly employed yardstick of network
load is the fraction of utilized PRBs. It would, therefore be of practical interest to have some rule
that relates PRB utilization to user throughput. Such is the topic of this section.
3.1 Definition of Radio Load
In fixed link throughput analysis, the link utilization 𝜌 is usually expressed in terms of average flow
size 𝑆 (bits) and flow arrival rate 𝜆 (1/sec) as
𝜌 =
𝜆𝑆
𝐶
, (5)
where 𝐶 is the link bandwidth (bits per second). The resource shared between users, in this case, is
the link bandwidth 𝐶. For the LTE radio interface, another option is to use LTE physical resource
blocks (PRBs) instead. In this context, the LTE cell scheduler can be considered a “processor” that
shares the PRBs equally between active UEs. Furthermore, the PRB utilization is available from
system counters in any practical LTE system.
To map bytes to PRBs, the file size 𝑆 needs to be converted to PRBs. For example, given an end
user spectral efficiency of 𝜂 = 1 bits per second per Herz, one PRB can fit 180 bits of end user
data after channel coding and physical layer overhead. Hence a one MegaByte web page would
generate scheduler PRB load of 106
× 8/180 ≈ 44000 PRBs. More generally,
𝜌 =
1
180
𝜆𝑆
𝜂𝑅prb
, (6)
where 𝜂 is the average cell spectral efficiency in bits per second per Hz, 𝑅prb is the PRB rate (e.g.,
105
PRBs per second for a 20MHz cell), and the scaling factor 180 comes from the standardized
PRB bandwidth of 180kHz.
In practice, it is not necessary to know the traffic parameters 𝜆 and 𝑆 since the PRB utilization 𝜌
can be extracted from network statistics directly. This is in contrast to cell capacity 𝐶, which is less
straightforward to estimate from counters.
3.2 Throughput versus PRB utilization via M/G/1 PS model
To relate the number of active UEs, 𝐸[𝑥] or 1/𝐸[𝑥], in (1)–(3) to PRB utilization, some statistical
assumptions on the arrival rate 𝜆 of the user data flows need to be made. In the IP engineering
literature, it is common practice to model TCP flow throughput in wireline links using the so called
M/G/1 Processor Sharing model. The M/G/1 PS model assumes that 𝜆, the number of data flow
arrivals per time unit, has Poisson distribution. This is typically assumed well-justified, one reason
being that it leads to simple formulas. In the sequel, the same approach is applied to LTE radio
throughput.
36

It is well-known from basic textbooks [12], that under the assumption of Poisson distributed 𝜆 the
proportion of time with 𝑥 active UEs is 𝜋 𝑥 = (1 − 𝜌)𝜌 𝑥
, where 𝑥 is a non-negative integer and 𝜌
is the load defined in (6). With this information, the expected values 𝐸[1/𝑥] and 𝐸[𝑥] in (2) and
(3) can be computed. The details can be found in a number of references and the result for user
throughput is [12, 10, 11, 2]
𝑇 𝑢𝑒 =
𝐶(1 − 𝜌)
𝜌
ln
1
1 − 𝜌
, (7)
while the scheduled throughput is simply
𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ = 𝐶(1 − 𝜌) . (8)
As mentioned, the measurement of user throughput 𝑇 𝑢𝑒 is not very straightforward and not typically
implemented in commercial base station products, while the scheduled throughput 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ is simpler
to compute and has been standardized by 3GPP [13].
3.3 Throughput versus PRB utilization via M/G/R PS model
Consider the case where, due to some throughput limiting mechanism, a UE is able to use only
a 1/𝑅th portion of the cell PRB resources even when there are no other active UEs. A typical
example is the mobile operator capping the rates according to contractual conditions. A suitable
model, in this case, is the M/G/R PS, where 𝑅 defines the fraction of PRBs the UE is allocated. The
M/G/R processor sharing version of the scheduled throughput in (8) can be shown [14] to become
𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ =
𝐶
1 +
𝐸2(𝑅,𝑅𝜌)
𝑅(1−𝜌)
, (9)
where 𝐸2(𝑅, 𝑦) is Erlang’s second formula:
𝐸2(𝑅, 𝑦) =
𝑦 𝑅
𝑅!
𝑅
𝑅−𝑦
∑
𝑅−1
𝑖=0
𝑅𝑖
𝑖!
+
𝑦 𝑅
𝑅!
𝑅
𝑅−𝑦
. (10)
Here 𝑅 is a positive integer and 𝑦 = 𝑅𝜌 > 0 is used for brevity. Setting 𝑅 = 1 results in the special
case of (8).
It can be observed that the seemingly innocent constraint of external throughput limitation results
in a considerably more involved formula, that can no longer be calculated using pencil-and-paper.
Another unpleasant finding is that 𝑅 is forced to be an integer which forces the single-user PRB uti-
lization 1/𝑅 to be
1
2
,
1
3
, … which is unnecessarily coarse for practical use. Fortunately, it is possible
to generalize (10) to real-valued 𝑅. For example, [15] gives the formula
𝐸2(𝑅, 𝑦) =
𝑅𝐾(𝑅, 𝑦)
𝑅 − 𝑦 [1 − 𝐾(𝑅, 𝑦)]
, (11)
where
𝐾(𝑅, 𝑦) =
𝑔(𝑅 + 1, 𝑦)
1 − 𝐺(𝑅 + 1, 𝑦)
, (12)
with 𝑔(𝛾, 𝑥) and 𝐺(𝛾, 𝑥) denoting the probability density function and cumulative density function
of the gamma distribution, respectively. In (12) 𝑅 ≥ 1 is a real number.
37

Fig. 1 illustrates the formula (9). In the figure, the user throughput on the vertical axis has been
normalized with the cell throughput 𝐶 = 𝐸[𝑇1]. It can be seen that with increasing 𝑅, the user
throughput becomes increasingly limited by the external constraint and less impacted by the load
from other users. For example, for 𝑅 = 5 the user throughput is one-fifth of the cell throughput
until it starts to decrease at around 𝜌 ≈ 0.5.
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Scheduled throughput using M/G/R PS for different R
PRB utilization, ρ (percents)
Throughput(normalizedwithC)
R = 1, 1.2, 1.5, 2, 3, 5
Figure 1: Normalized scheduled throughput versus PRB utilization, M/G/R PS model with different
rate capping settings.
4. Application: Traffic Balancing between Frequency Layers
Considering two cells on different carrier frequencies that cover the same physical area (e.g. a
‘radio sector’), an interesting question is that of how the cell loads are related to the average user
throughput of the sector. From earlier discussion, the throughput in case of a single cell is defined
as 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ =
𝑆
𝑊
where 𝑆 is the average file size and 𝑊 is the average time to transmit the file to the
UE. To average the user throughput over two cells, a traffic splitting ratio can be introduced. The
fraction of arriving data flows assigned to the first cell is denoted with 𝛾 which leaves the portion
of 1 − 𝛾 for the second cell. For a given average file size 𝑆, the average sector user throughput (8)
can be written as a weighted sum
𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐 = 𝛾𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ,1 + (1 − 𝛾)𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ,2 (13)
= 𝛾
𝑆
𝑊1
+ (1 − 𝛾)
𝑆
𝑊2
(14)
= 𝛾𝐶1(1 − 𝜌1) + (1 − 𝛾)𝐶2(1 − 𝜌2) , (15)
38

where 𝐶𝑖 and 𝜌𝑖 are the average cell throughput and load of the 𝑖th cell, respectively. The traffic
splitting ratio is assumed to apply to all traffic and thus the cell loads are2
𝜌1 = 𝛾
𝜆𝑆
𝐶1
, (16)
𝜌2 = (1 − 𝛾)
𝜆𝑆
𝐶2
. (17)
All told, the average user throughput across the two cells of the sector becomes
𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐 = 𝛾𝐶1 (1 − 𝛾
𝜆𝑆
𝐶1
)
+ (1 − 𝛾)𝐶2 (1 − (1 − 𝛾)
𝜆𝑆
𝐶2
) . (18)
Fig. 2 illustrates this result in case of 10Mbps offered traffic and 𝐶1 = 20Mbps. The average
user throughput is shown for different traffic split between layers, for a few selected values of 𝐶2.
It can be seen that an optimum traffic split maximizing user throughput exists. Interestingly, for
𝐶2 = 40Mbps all traffic should be carried by the second layer in order to maximize average user
throughput.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
traffic balancing ratio, γ
sectoraverageuserthroughput,Mbps
traffic split versus throughput, C
1
=20Mbps, λS = 10Mbps
C
2
= 10Mbps, 20Mbps, 30Mbps, 40Mbps
Figure 2: Average sector user throughput as a function of traffic split. 𝐶1 = 20Mbps, sector total
offered traffic is 10Mbps.
Fig. 2 invites the following question: if the sector offered traffic 𝜆𝑆 and the cell capacities are
fixed, what is the optimum traffic balancing factor that maximizes the sector user throughput 𝑇𝑠𝑒𝑐
2
In this section it is more convenient to express load in terms of traffic volume and cell traffic capacity, rather than
PRB utilization.
39

in (18)? Skipping some straightforward calculations, the optimum splitting ratio turns out be
𝛾opt =
1
2
+
1 −
𝐶2
𝐶1
4 ̂𝜌1
, (19)
where ̂𝜌1 =
𝜆𝑆
𝐶1
, i.e., the load of the first cell if the second cell was non-existent. The optimum
traffic split depends only on the ratio of cell capacities, not on their actual values. When 𝐶1 = 𝐶2,
the even split, 𝛾opt =
1
2
is optimum, as expected.
Fig. 3 illustrates the optimum 𝛾 for different values of
𝐶2
𝐶1
and ̂𝜌1. It can be seen that if the capacity
ratio
𝐶2
𝐶1
is higher than a certain threshold, that depends on total sector traffic via ̂𝜌1, no positive
𝛾opt exists and to maximize user throughput the first cell should not carry any traffic at all.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
ratio of cell capacities C2
/C1
optimumtrafficsplittingfactorγ
Optimum traffic balancing factor for two cells
ˆρ1 = 0.05, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 0.95, 1.0
Figure 3: Optimum traffic splitting factor 𝛾 for two cells of the same sector.
5. Discussion
In (8) the 𝜌 and 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ denote the PRB utilization and user throughput of the serving cell. Nothing
is said about the load of the surrounding cells. This raises the question of how 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ = 𝐶(1 − 𝜌)
behaves when the neighbor cell load also increases at the same time with 𝜌. Interference received
from neighbor cells degrades the spectral efficiency 𝜂 in the serving cell, hence it is expected that
the cell capacity 𝐶 decreases as neighbor cell load increases. Decreasing 𝜂 also increases the PRB
utilization (6) since the number of bits per PRB decreases (for a fixed traffic volume 𝑆 in bytes).
However, such increase in 𝜌 due to other cell interference is indistinguishable from an increase
due to traffic volume, and therefore in this sense it does not directly impact throughput calculation.
However, cell capacity 𝐶 is expected to decrease with neighbor cell interference and hence the user
40

throughput should decrease superlinearly. Such phenomena have however not been observed in
measurements of several live networks.
Increased load can also have positive impact on spectral efficiency, namely in the form of multi-user
diversity gain, where the scheduler exploits frequency selectivity of the wideband radio channel.
UEs are opportunistically scheduled on the frequency subband that has the highest relative channel
gain for that UE. The multiuser diversity increases with the number of UEs scheduled per TTI,
which was related to PRB utilization in Section 3. Cell capacity gains of up to 50% have been
simulated [16]. The impact on the present discussion is that if the serving cell load increases
at the same time with the neighbor cell load, the degradation in spectral efficiency is partially
compensated by multiuser scheduling gain.
Depending on the implementation the radio scheduler may also trade off spectral efficiency for
latency by using free PRBs to transmit with lower channel coding rate. This improves latency
since the probability of retransmission is reduced, but it also reduces spectral efficiency at low
load. On the other hand, at high load, most PRBs tend to be in use and the packet scheduler is thus
forced to operate at higher spectral efficiency. Other variations of the scheduling policies include
prioritization according to radio quality or quality of service considerations.
6. Live Network Examples
6.1 Average Active UEs versus User Throughput
Fig. 4 shows an example of two cells serving a large number of smart-phone users. The horizontal
axis is the average number of active UEs, 𝐸[𝑥], that has been extracted from hourly operations
support system (OSS) performance counters over a period of two weeks. The hourly averages
of 𝑥 have been binned to integers and for each bin, the average flow throughput is plotted. The
flow throughput shown on the vertical axis is also obtained from the OSS counters and computed
according to the scheduled throughput (𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ) definition in 3GPP TS 32.425. Each dot in the figure
is the average UE throughput for the horizontal binned value of 𝐸[𝑥]. It can be seen that the
scheduled throughput scales approximately inversely proportional to the average active UEs, as
predicted by theory.
6.2 PRB Utilization versus User Throughput, M/G/1 PS model
Fig. 5 illustrates scheduled throughput 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ for six cells from three different networks. PRB uti-
lization is extracted from hourly counter measurements collected over a period of two weeks and
binned to 2PRB granularity. Each dot presents the average scheduled throughput of the PRB bin
computed based on the 3GPP method [13]. It can be seen that the theoretical model (8) fits mea-
surements fairly well, and throughput falls approximately linearly as a function of radio utilization.
For example, at 50% utilization user throughput has dropped to half of the cell throughput while
for 75% radio load a single user receives on average only 25% of maximum throughput. Such sim-
ple rule of thumbs can provide useful capacity management guidance for LTE networks, including
traffic steering between different frequency layers.
6.3 Applicability of the M/G/1 PS model across cells
We now study the suitability of a linear decrease model between the scheduled throughput and the
cell load (such as, for example, the one in eq. 8), across the cells of one example live network. The
following results are based on hourly, cell-level performance measurement counters (PMC) for one
41

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
0.1
1
10
100
Scheduled throughput versus number of active UEs
average number of active users, x
Scheduledthroughput,Megabitspersecond
10MHz cell
20MHz cell
Figure 4: Scheduled throughput 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ versus average number of active UEs, two examples from
live network.
week.
Let 𝜓 denote the correlation coefficient for a given cell, calculated upon the hourly scheduled
throughput (𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ) and PRB utilization (𝜌) samples from the PMC. Let also 𝜌 𝑚𝑎𝑥 denote the max-
imum load observed for the cell. The values of 𝜌 have been quantized to a resolution of 2 PRBs,
and 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ computed by aggregating the per-bin samples.
At first glance, 72.4% of the cells in this example network have 𝜓 < -0.5, and could be therefore
considered as having a linear decrease for 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ as a function of 𝜌. This can be further sliced
according to 𝜌 𝑚𝑎𝑥 since lowly-loaded cells often exhibit bursty traffic patterns that do not fit with
the M/G/1/PS assumptions. Indeed, 90% of cells with 𝜌 > 0.7 have 𝜓 < -0.5. This is about 37%
of the total cells.
The two-dimensional histogram of the per-cell tuples (𝜌 𝑚𝑎𝑥, 𝜓) is shown in fig. 6. We observe
that most of the cells with good linearity (e.g., 𝜓 < -0.5) also exhibit high maximum load (e.g.,
𝜌 𝑚𝑎𝑥 > 0.7). In contrast, lowly-loaded cells (for example, 𝜌 𝑚𝑎𝑥 < 0.2) show a somewhat uniform
looking distribution of 𝜓, suggesting that the model does not apply to them because one or more
assumptions are violated.
Finally, we evaluate the mean absolute error when fitting 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ and 𝜌 to the linear model in eq. 8.
For simplicity, the cell capacity 𝐶 is estimated via simple least squares (LS) fit:
𝐶 𝐿𝑆 =
∑𝑖
(1 − 𝜌𝑖)𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑖
∑𝑖
(1 − 𝜌𝑖)2
(20)
The error associated to fitting the model for a given cell, on the other hand, is measured as an
average of the absolute value of the relative error over the 𝑁𝑠 throughput samples (after binning 𝜌
42

0 20 40 60 80 100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mbps Tsch : ψ =-0.937
CLS(1−ρ), CLS=12.1, |er| =21.1%
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mbps
Tsch : ψ =-0.962
CLS(1−ρ), CLS=21.7, |er| =17.4%
0 20 40 60 80 100
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mbps
Tsch : ψ =-0.975
CLS(1−ρ), CLS=20.4, |er| =13.7%
0 20 40 60 80 100
0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
Mbps
Tsch : ψ =-0.984
CLS(1−ρ), CLS=16.9, |er| =12.9%
0 20 40 60 80 100
PRB utilization, ρ(%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Mbps
Tsch : ψ =-0.937
CLS(1−ρ), CLS=8.8, |er| =15.4%
0 20 40 60 80 100
PRB utilization, ρ(%)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Mbps Tsch : ψ =-0.903
CLS(1−ρ), CLS=9.9, |er| =20.7%
Figure 5: Scheduled throughput versus PRB utilization, six cells from three different networks.
The correlation coefficient 𝜓 and mean absolute error of the fit are given for each cell.
to 2 PRB resolution):
𝑒 𝑟 =
1
𝑁𝑠
∑
𝑖
| ̂𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑖 − 𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑖|
𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑖
(21)
where ̂𝑇𝑠𝑐ℎ,𝑖 = 𝐶 𝐿𝑆(1 − 𝜌𝑖) is the value calculated based on the linear model in (8).
Figure 7 shows that the average of 𝑒 𝑟 among cells for the high-load, high linearity network slice is
between 5 and 27%.
7. Conclusion
This paper discussed the mapping of LTE user throughput to radio utilization. The average sched-
uled throughput, measured using the 3GPP method, was shown to be fairly accurately predicted
by the cell capacity divided by the average number of active UEs. Adding the usual assumption
that user data flow arrivals are Poisson distributed this result was expressed in terms of Physical
Resource Block utilization, the outcome being the well-known M/G/1 Processor Sharing formula
that predicts the linear decrease of user throughput with PRB utilization. An extension to exter-
nal rate limitation was given, as well as an application to load balancing between frequency layers
was discussed. Measurement data from real-world networks indicate that the scheduled throughput
degrades about linearly with the serving cell PRB utilization, and therefore the linear degradation
predicted by 𝐶(1 − 𝜌) is a useful approximation for practical network operations purposes.
43

ρmax
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Correlation coefﬁcient
−1.00
−0.75
−0.50
−0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
Histogram
0
50
100
150
200
250
Figure 6: Joint distribution of (𝜌 𝑚𝑎𝑥, 𝜓) across cells in a live network.
ρmax
0.70
0.75
0.80
0.85
0.90
0.95
1.00
Correlation coefﬁcient
−0.95
−0.90
−0.85
−0.80
Avg.meanabsoluteerror(%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
Figure 7: Average of 𝑒 𝑟 from eq. 21, in case of the linear model in eq. 8 and the LS fit for 𝐶 from
eq. 20.
References
[1] J. W. Roberts, “A survey on statistical bandwidth sharing,” Comput. Netw., vol. 45, no. 3, pp.
319–332, Jun. 2004. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2004.03.010
44

Cited on page(s): 33
[2] T. Bonald and A. Proutière, “Wireless downlink data channels: user performance and
cell dimensioning,” in Proc. ACM MOBICOM, 2003, pp. 339–352. [Online]. Available:
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/938985.939020 Cited on page(s): 33, 35, 37
[3] J. Melasniemi, P. Lassila, and S. Aalto, “Minimizing file transfer delays using SRPT in
HSDPA with terminal constraints,” in 4th Workshop on Network Control and Optimization,
Ghent, Belgium, 2010. Cited on page(s): 33
[4] G. Arvanitakis and F. Kaltenberger, “PHY and MAC layer modeling of LTE and
WiFi RATs,” Eurecom, Tech. Rep. EURECOM+4879, 03 2016. [Online]. Available:
http://www.eurecom.fr/publication/4879 Cited on page(s): 33
[5] F. Capozzi, G. Piro, L. A. Grieco, G. Boggia, and P. Camarda, “Downlink packet scheduling
in lte cellular networks: Key design issues and a survey.” IEEE Communications Surveys and
Tutorials, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 678–700, 2013. Cited on page(s): 33
[6] X. Li, U. Toseef, T. Weerawardane, W. Bigos, D. Dulas, C. Görg, A. Timm-Giel, and A. Klug,
“Dimensioning of the LTE S1 interface,” in Proc. IFIP WMNC, 2010. Cited on page(s): 33
[7] H. Holma and A. Toskala, LTE for UMTS - OFDMA and SC-FDMA Based Radio Access.
Wiley Publishing, 2009. Cited on page(s): 33
[8] F. Khan, LTE for 4G Mobile Broadband: Air Interface Technologies and Performance, 1st ed.
New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Cited on page(s): 33
[9] S. Sesia, I. Toufik, and M. Baker, LTE, The UMTS Long Term Evolution: From Theory to
Practice. Wiley Publishing, 2009. Cited on page(s): 33
[10] N. Chen and S. Jordan, “Throughput in processor-sharing queues,” IEEE Trans. Automat.
Contr., vol. 52, pp. 299–305, 2007. Cited on page(s): 35, 36, 37
[11] A. A. Kherani and A. Kumar, “Stochastic models for throughput analysis of randomly arriving
elastic flows in the Internet,” in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2002. Cited on page(s): 36, 37
[12] L. Kleinrock, Queueing Systems. Wiley Interscience, 1975, vol. 1,2. Cited on page(s): 37
[13] 3GPP, “Performance measurements Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network
(E-UTRAN),” 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), TS 32.425, 2016. Cited on
page(s): 37, 41
[14] K. Lindberger, “Balancing quality of service, pricing and utilisation in multiservice networks
with stream and elastic traffic,” in Proc. ITC 16, 1999, pp. 1127–1136. Cited on page(s): 37
[15] V. Naumov and O. Martikainen, “Queueing systems with fractional number of servers,”
The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Discussion Papers 1268, 2012. [Online].
Available: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:rif:dpaper:1268 Cited on page(s): 37
[16] A. Pokhariyal, T. E. Kolding, and P. E. Mogensen, “Performance of downlink frequency
domain packet scheduling for the UTRAN Long Term Evolution,” in Proc. IEEE PIMRC,
Helsinki, Sep. 2006. Cited on page(s): 41
45

Analysis of LTE Radio Load and User Throughput

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Analysis of LTE Radio Load and User Throughput (20)

More from IJCNCJournal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Analysis of LTE Radio Load and User Throughput