8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

1/48

SPOTS PROBLEM ANALYSIS

1. SURABAYA INNER 1

1.1. DROP CALL RATE

1.1.1 Gading Fajar

Problem DescriptionDrop call rate often occurred when MSs served by Gading Fajar_2.

Figure 1. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA downlink Gading Fajar_2TCH Loss Distribution Gading Fajar_2

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.43%

5.71%

8.57%

40.00%

44.29%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

Intra

Dist.

HAF

RTF

Seq_error

DM_resp

T_MSRFPCI

T200

Other

RLF

Inter

Figure 2. TCH loss distribution Gading Fajar_2

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

2/48

AnalysisFrom figure above, we can know the coverage for Gading Fajar_2 is too far. Mscan be served by this cell with TA=20 (10 km) but RXLEV under -95dBm.Thissituation give the big portion for drop call occur. Many TCH loss that caused byRLF. From Antenna adjustment and tuning database is needed to solve thisproblem.

Recommendation Check antenna orientation and tilting if possible. Tuning database to fix value. Check relation to neighbour sites.

1.1.2 Driyorejo

Problem DescriptionLow performance of drop call rate for Driyorejo_3.

Figure 3. Correlation between RXLEV vs TA downlink Driyorejo_3

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

3/48

TCH Loss Distribution Driyorejo_3

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.75%

7.02%

19.30%

21.05%

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Intra

Dist.

HAF

RTF

T_MSRFPCI

DM_resp

Seq_error

T200

RLF

Other

Figure 4. TCH loss distribution Driyorejo_3

AnalysisMany TCH loss are caused by its far coverage. From TCH loss distribution, wecan see that the main problem for drop is by other cause. This may be causebecause inter cell inter bsc handover fail. Tuning database to fix value may helpto solve this problem.

Recommendation Tuning adjacent parameter.

Check antenna orientation and tilting if its possible.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

4/48

1.2. HOSR

1.2.1 Menganti Kedamaian

Problem DescriptionLow HOSR is occurred when MSs served by Menganti Kedamaian_1 and 3.

HO Fail Distribution Menganti Kedamaian_1

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.32%

4.74%

4.98%

13.03%

73.93%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00%

Dist.

DR

FUL

DS

BC

DQ

UQ

US

Figure 5. HO fail distribution Menganti Kedamaian_1HO Fail Distribution Menganti Kedamaian_3

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.49%

2.99%

2.99%

5.97%

86.57%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Dist.

DR

FUL

BC

DS

UQ

DQ

US

Figure 6. HO fail distribution Menganti Kedamaian_3

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

5/48

AnalysisFrom figure above, we can see the most problem for handover fail is caused byuplink strength. This may be caused by too far coverage, missing adjacent ordatabase that is not fit. Tuning database first and further investigation aboutadjacent can help us to improve HOSR.

Recommendation Adjust parameter : HAND, ADJC.

Update adjacent if there is adjacent thats not fit.

Adjust antenna if there is suspected overcoverage.

1.3. SDSR

1.3.1 Wonokoyo

Problem DescriptionSDSR Wonokoyo_1

67.24%

69.45%

73.52%

80.65%

86.53%

71.54%

89.95%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

2/1/06 2/2/06 2/3/06 2/4/06 2/5/06 2/6/06 2/7/06

Figure 7. SDSR Wonokoyo_1

AnalysisThis site is located in SFH 1 x 1 area. The main problem in this area may becaused by overshoot from another site that interfere frequency Wonokoyo_1.Check site and drivetest first to know whether there is any overcoverage fromanother sites.

Recommendation Adjust antenna Wonokoyo_1 or another site that overcoverage to the

area that should be covered by Wonokoyo_1.

1.4. Locked Sites

There is two locked sites in cluster Surabaya Inner 1 because of lowperformance: Kedung Peluk and Lebo Sidoarjo.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

6/48

2. SURABAYA OUTER 2

2.1. DROP CALL RATE

2.1.1 Solokuro

Problem DescriptionNo traffic handled by Solokuro sector 2 while using TCH channel.

Figure 8. Low Level Downlink by Solokuro_2Solokuro RETO_2 TCH Drop Call

3.9

5%

13

.77%

12

.79%

10

.47%

7.8

7% 9

.88%

9.2

3%

15

.42%

1.00%

3.00%5.00%

7.00%

9.00%

11.00%

13.00%

15.00%

17.00%

Figure 9. Solokuro_2 TCH Drop Call Rate

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

7/48

AnalysisSite Solokuro_2 has low power at near area, and cannot handle traffic. TCHChannels are already created in database, probability there is hardware problemdue to low power CU or defect in other module.

Recommendation Measure CU power for Solokuro_2. Change hardware thats suspected fail.

2.1.2 Tikung

Problem DescriptionHigh TCH drop call performed by Tikung_3.

Figure 10.Over Coverage by Tikung_3 Analysis

Tikung is categorized as rural area, the terrain contour is flat. High TCH Blockingand drop call probably caused by its coverage and parameters related toadjacent. Improvement of HOSR may reduced drop call. Tikung_3 has low powerin surrounding, hardware is need to be checked whether there are alarms orflickers.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

8/48

Figure 11.Tikung Area

Tikung_3 TCH Drop Call

2.43

%

2

.98%

2.0

2%

2.1

0%

3.4

5%

5.0

9%

3.6

3 % 4

.34%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

Figure 12.TCH drop rate Tikung_3

Recommendation Downtilt antenna all sectors for Tikung_1. Update adjacent parameters for Tikung 1,2 and 3. Check hardware alarm and flicker for Tikung_3.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

9/48

2.1.3 Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah

Problem DescriptionHigh TCH drop call and TCH Blocking performed by Ds Melirang ex DukunBungah_1,2 and 3.

Figure 13.Over Coverage by Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_1

Figure 14.Over Coverage by Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_2

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

10/48

Figure 15.Over Coverage by Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_3

Ds Melirang_1 TCH Drop Call

1.0

4%

1.1

0%

1.28

%

1.1

6% 1

.23%

1.5

3%

1.3

3%

1.3

8%

1.00%

1.10%

1.20%

1.30%

1.40%

1.50%

1.60%

1.70%

Figure 16.

Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_1 TCH Drop Call Rate

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

11/48

Ds Melirang_2 TCH Drop Call

2.0

1%

1.6

5%

1.6

1%

1.8

0%

2.5

7%

2.0

2%

2.4

4%

1.50%

1.70%

1.90%

2.10%

2.30%

2.50%

2.70%

Figure 17.Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_2 TCH Drop Call Rate

Ds Melirang_3 TCH Drop Call

1.0

9%

1.29

%

0.9

0%

1.3

4%

1.32%

1.7

2%

1.5

4%

1.2

6%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

1.60%

1.80%

2.00%

Figure 18.

Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah_3 TCH Drop Call Rate Analysis

Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah is categorized as rural area, the terrain contour isflat. High TCH Blocking and drop call probably caused by its coverage andparameters related to adjacent.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

12/48

Figure 19.Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah Area

Recommendation Downtilt antenna all sectors for Ds Melirang. Update adjacent parameters for Ds Melirang ex Dukun Bungah.

2.2. HOSR

2.2.1 Solokuro

Problem DescriptionLow HOSR by Solokuro_2.

Figure 20.Low Level Downlink by Solokuro_2

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

13/48

Figure 21.Solokuro_2 Area

Solokuro RETO_2 HOSR

75.0

0%

62.3

8%

62

.63%

62.9

9%

52.7

6%

76.6

2%

68.7

5%

64.6

3%

50.00%

55.00%

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

Figure 22.Solokuro_2 HOSR

AnalysisSite Solokuro_2 has low power at near area, and cannot handover to itsneighbour. probability there is hardware problem due to low power CU or defectin other module.

Recommendation Measure CU power for Solokuro_2.

Change hardware thats suspected fail. Adjust database set ADJC.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

14/48

2.2.2 Laren

Problem DescriptionHigh TCH drop call performed by Laren_1. Low HOSR for both sectors.

Figure 23.Coverage by Laren_1

Figure 24.Coverage by Laren_2

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

15/48

Figure 25.Adjacent for Laren_1

Figure 26.Adjacent for Laren_2

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

16/48

Laren_1 HOSR

69

.14%

71

.07%

71

.47%

71

.06%

73

.96%

71

.02%

72.8

2%

71

.91%

69.00%

70.00%

71.00%

72.00%

73.00%

74.00%

75.00%

Figure 27.Laren_1 HOSRLaren_2 HOSR

73

.40%

73.92%

73.83%

75

.87%

76

.79%

76

.11%

78

.48%

78

.93%

73.00%

74.00%

75.00%

76.00%

77.00%

78.00%

79.00%

80.00%

Figure 28.Laren_2 HOSR

AnalysisLaren is categorized as rural area, the terrain contour is flat. High TCH drop call

on sector 1 is probably caused by handover failure to its neighbour (Solokuro_2)which is still under repairement. To improve HOSR for Laren_2, there arenecessary to create adjacent to Sekaran_3, Sungai Lebak_1 and Sungai Lebak_3.

Recommendation Repair Solokuro_2 to improve HOSR for Laren_1. Create adjacent from Laren_2 to Sekaran_3, Sungai Lebak_1 and

Sungai Lebak_3. Adjust database related to adjacent for Laren_1 and Laren_2.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

17/48

2.2.3 Pucuk

Problem DescriptionLow HOSR perform by Pucuk_1.

Figure 29.Pucuk_1 Scan CTRX

Figure 30.Pucuk_1 Area

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

18/48

Pucuk_1 HOSR

83.3

3%

77

.78%

75

.00%

91

.67%

69

.23%

62

.50%

83.3

3%

60.00%

65.00%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

Figure 31.Pucuk_1 HOSR

AnalysisPucuk_1 is located on flat area, there is adjacent to Sukodadi as figure above.Sukodadi is located about 6 kilometers. From ScanCTRX we can see thatPucuk_1 only serves until TA 2, about 1 kilometer. Antenna Tilting is needed toimprove the coverage for Pucuk_1 or place antenna on higher position.

Recommendation Uptilt antenna for Pucuk_1. Make antenna position higher for Pucuk_1.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

19/48

2.3. SDSR

2.3.1 Karang Geneng

Problem DescriptionLow SDSR performed by Karang Geneng_1.

Figure 32.Coverage by Karang Geneng_1

Figure 33.Adjacent Necessary for Karang Geneng_1

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

20/48

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

21/48

2.3.2 Dawar Blandong

Problem DescriptionLow SDSR performed by Dawar Blandong_1.

Figure 35.ScanTRX Dawar Blandong_1

Figure 36.Dawar Blandong area

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

22/48

Dawar Blandong_1 SDSR

98.64%

98.48%

98.12%

98.39%

97.27%

76.65%

76.82%

84.52%

70.00%

75.00%

80.00%

85.00%

90.00%

95.00%

100.00%

Figure 37.SDSR Dawar Blandong_1

AnalysisDawar Blandong is located on flat area. Low SDSR may caused by overshootfrom sector 1. Adjust antenna tilting may increase SDSR.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting for Dawar Blandong_1. Create adjacent to Balong Panggang_2, Balong_Panggang_3 and

Benjeng_3.

2.3.3 STO Kandangan

Problem DescriptionLow SDSR by STO Kandangan sector 3 due to quality vs level downlink by STOKandangan sector 3 TRX 1.

Figure 38.STO Kandangan_3 area

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

23/48

STO Kandangan_3 SDSR

97

.81

%

98

.01

%

98.55%

96

.32%

97

.15%

86

.74%

97

.75%

94

.74%

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

98.00%

Figure 39.STO Kandangan_3 SDSR

AnalysisSTO Kandangan located in dense population area, the level for downlink should

be high because there are many buildings surrounding this area. Adjust antennatilting and orientation may increase SDSR.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting and orientation for STO Kandangan_3. Check hardware flicker.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

24/48

3. Jember

3.1. DROP CALL RATE

3.1.1 Sukorambi

Problem DescriptionSukorambi_1 has high TCH Drop Rate problem.

Figure 40.Correlation between RXLev and TA of Sukorambi_1TCH Loss Distribution Sukorambi_1

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

3.33%

20.00%

23.33%

53.33%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Intra

Other

Dist.

RTF

Seq_error

T_MSRFPCI

DM_resp

HAF

T200

RLF

Inter

Figure 41.Graph of TCH Loss distribution Sukorambi_1

AnalysisFrom figures above, we can find that Sukorambi_1 probably has low TCH DropRate due to unfit database parameter.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

25/48

Recommendation Database tuning.

3.1.2 Tegalampel

Problem DescriptionTegalampel_3 has high TCH Drop Rate problem.

Figure 42.Correlation between RxLev and TA of Tegalampel_3TCH Loss Distribution Tegalampel_3

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.59%

1.76%

2.94%

9.41%

31.76%

53.53%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Dist.

RTF

Seq_error

T_MSRFPCI

DM_resp

Other

HAF

Intra

T200

RLF

Inter

Figure 43.Graph of TCH Loss distribution Tegalampel_3

AnalysisFrom figures above, we can find that Tegalampel_3 probably has low TCH DropRate due to unfit database parameter.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

26/48

Recommendation Database tuning.

3.1.3 Giri

Problem DescriptionGiri_3 has high TCH Drop Rate problem.

Figure 44.Correlation between RxLev and TA of Giri_3TCH Loss Distribution Giri_3

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

1.89%

15.09%

41.51%

41.51%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Other

Dist.

HAF

RTF

Seq_error

T_MSRFPCI

DM_resp

Intra

Inter

RLF

T200

Figure 45.Graph of TCH Loss distribution Giri_3

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

27/48

AnalysisFrom figures above, we can find that Tegalampel_3 probably has low TCH DropRate due to unfit database parameter.

Recommendation Database tuning.

3.1.4 Sumber ex Sumberasih

Problem DescriptionSumber ex Sumberasih_2 has poor coverage.

Figure 46.Correlation between RxLev and TA of Sumber ex Sumberasih_2

Figure 47.Sumber ex Sumberasih_2 area

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

28/48

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

29/48

TCH Drop Krejengan 2

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.85%

1.69%

1.69%

33.05%

62.71%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Other

Dist.

RTF

Seq_error

T_MSRFPCI

DM_resp

Intra

HAF

T200

Inter

RLF

Figure 50.TCH drop distribution Krejengan_2

Figure 51.Correlation between RXLEV vs TA Krejengan_2

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

30/48

TCH Drop Krejengan 3

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.04%

8.08%

87.88%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Intra

Other

Dist.

RTF

Seq_error

T_MSRFPCI

T200

DM_resp

HAF

Inter

RLF

Figure 52.TCH drop distribution Krejengan_3

Figure 53.Correlation between RXLEV vs TA Krejengan_3 Analysis

From figure above, we can see that for Krejengan all sectors have same problem

with RLF. This is caused by overcoverage to another site that make drop calloften occurred here.

Recommendation Database tuning. Antenna tilting.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

31/48

3.1.6 STO Benculuk

Problem Description

TCH Drop STO Benculuk 3

0.00%0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.36%

0.72%

12.19%

12.19%

74.55%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

OtherDist.

RTF

Seq_error

DM_resp

Intra

T_MSRFPCI

HAF

T200

Inter

RLF

Figure 54.TCH drop distribution STO Benculuk_3

Figure 55.Correlation between RXLEV vs TA STO Benculuk_3

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

32/48

Figure 56.Possibly interference between STO Benculuk_3 with Srono_2

AnalysisThere are problem with STO Benculuk sector 3 site. The most cause TCH Drop atSTO Benculuk can be shown that the problem is Radio Link Failure (74.55 %).The main problem is interference STO Benculuk sector 3 with Srono site sector 2(use frequency 55).

Recommendation Retune frequency.

3.1.7 RS Hidayatullah DCS Problem Description

TCH Drop RS Hidayatullah DCS 3

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.73%

5.61%

8.78%

84.88%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00%

Other

Dist.

RTF

Seq_errorT_MSRFPCI

DM_resp

Intra

HAF

Inter

T200

RLF

Figure 57.TCH drop distribution RS Hidayatullah DCS_3

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

33/48

Figure 58.Correlation between RXLEV vs TA RS Hidayatullah DCS_3

AnalysisThere are problem with RS Hidayatullah DCS sector 3 site. The most cause TCHDrop at RS Hidayatullah DCS can be shown that the problem is Radio Link Failure(84.88 %). The main problem at RS Hidayatullah is Hardware Problem.

Recommendation Check hardware problem.

3.2. HOSR

3.2.1 Jatiroto Problem Description

HOSR Jatiroto 1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 59.HOSR Jatiroto_1

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

34/48

HOSR Jatiroto 3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 60.HOSR Jatiroto_3 Analysis

There are problem with Jatiroto sector 1 and 3 site. The HOSR below 50 % fom7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOverthat is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning

3.2.2 Sumber Baru

Problem DescriptionHOSR Sumber Baru 1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 61.HOSR Sumber Baru_1

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

35/48

AnalysisThere are problem with Sumber Baru sector 1 site. The HOSR below 55 % over 7day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOverthat is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning

3.2.3 Jember 4

Problem DescriptionHOSR Jember 4 2

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 62.HOSR Jember 4_2

Figure 63.Unfit adjacent between Jember 4_2 with Tempurejo_1

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

36/48

AnalysisThere are problem with Jember 4 sector 2 site. The HOSR below 60 % over 7day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOverthat is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality. There is unfit adjacent betweenJember 4_2 and Tempurejo_1.

Recommendation Database tuning.

Update adjacent.

Adjust antenna.

3.2.4 Sempol-Puncak Ijen

Problem DescriptionHOSR Sempol-Puncak Ijen 3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.80.9

1

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 64.HOSR Sempol-Puncak Ijen_3 Analysis

There are problem with Sempol-Puncak Ijen sector 3 site. The HOSR drop tobelow 60 % over 7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the mostFailure of HandOver that is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning.

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

37/48

3.2.5 Kuripan

Problem DescriptionHOSR Kuripan 2

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 65.HOSR Kuripan_2

AnalysisThere are problem with Kuripan sector 2 site. The HOSR below 80 % over 7 day(1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOver that isUplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning.

3.2.6 Yosowilangun

Problem DescriptionHOSR Yosowilangun 2

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 66.HOSR Yosowilangun_2

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

38/48

AnalysisThere are problem with Yosowilangun sector 2 site. The HOSR below 70 % over7 day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOverthat is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning.

3.2.7 Sukorambi

Problem DescriptionHOSR Sukorambi 3

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.50.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 67.HOSR Sukorambi_3

Figure 68.Unfit adjacent between Sukorambi_3 with Jember Bukit_3 and Combat Panti Jember_1

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

39/48

AnalysisThere are problem with Sukorambi sector 3 site. The HOSR below 70 % over 7day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOverthat is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning. Update adjacent.

3.2.8 Sukapura

Problem DescriptionHOSR Sukapura 1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.70.8

0.9

1

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 69.HOSR Sukapura_1

Figure 70.Unfit adjacent at Sukapura_1

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

40/48

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

41/48

AnalysisThere are problem with Krejengan sector 1 site. The HOSR below 50 % fom 7day (1-7 February 2006). It can be shown that the most Failure of HandOverthat is Uplink Strenght and Downlink Quality.

Recommendation Database tuning. Update adjacent.

3.3. SDSR

3.3.1 Sukorambi

Problem DescriptionSukorambi_1 has low SDSR problem.

Figure 73.Correlation between RXLev and RxQual of Sukorambi_1SDSR of Sukorambi_1

80.34%

81.54%

81.02%

81.91%

81.02% 81.19%

83.15%

78.00%

79.00%

80.00%

81.00%

82.00%

83.00%

84.00%

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 74.Graph of SDSR Sukorambi_1

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

42/48

AnalysisFrom figures above, we can find that Sukorambi_1 probably have interferenceproblem from another surrounding site. Do the drive test to make sure that thereis no interference at Sukorambi_1 direction.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting and orientation either Sukorambi_1 or othersurrounding sites.

3.3.2 Sumber Baru

Problem DescriptionSumber Baru has poor quality downlink.

Figure 75.Correlation between RxLev and RxQual of Sumber Baru_1

Figure 76.Sumber Baru_1 area

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

43/48

AnalysisFrom Batrana CTRX and map, we can find that Sumber Baru_1 probably havepoor quality downlink due to high terrain contour.

Recommendation Adjust Antenna tilting and orientation.

3.3.3 Sukorambi

Problem DescriptionSukorambi_3 has low SDSR problem.

Figure 77.Sukorambi_3 area

SDSR of Sukorambi_3

85.71% 85.69%

86.37%

85.33%

84.59%

85.78%

87.14%

84.50%

85.00%

85.50%

86.00%

86.50%

87.00%

87.50%

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 78.Graph of SDSR Sukorambi_3

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

44/48

AnalysisFrom figures above, we can find that Sukorambi_3 probably has interferenceproblem from surrounding sites. Do the drive test to make sure thatSukorambi_3 has no over coverage from surrounding sites.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting and orientation either Sukorambi_3 or othersurrounding site.

3.3.4 Grati

Problem DescriptionGrati_2 has poor coverage.

Figure 79.Correlation between RxLev and TA of Grati_2

Figure 80.Grati_2 area

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

45/48

AnalysisFrom Batrana CTRX and from map, we can find that Grati_2 has over coverageto Lumbang Pasuruan ex Ds Selorejo_1.

Recommendation Antenna tilting.

3.3.5 Puger

Problem DescriptionPuger_3 has poor coverage.

Figure 81.Correlation between RxLev and TA of Puger_3

Figure 82.Puger_3 area

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

46/48

AnalysisFrom Batrana CTRX and map, we can find that Puger_3 probably has poorcoverage to Gumukmas ex Rajapoloh Tanggul_2.

Recommendation Antenna tilting.

3.3.6 Banyu Anyar

Problem DescriptionBanyu Anyar_2 has poor coverage problem.

Figure 83.Correlation between RxLev and TA of Banyu Anyar_2

Figure 84.Banyu Anyar_2 area

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

47/48

AnalysisFrom Batrana CTRX and map, we can find that Banyu Anyar_2 has overcoverage to Letjes_1.

Recommendation Antenna Tilting.

3.3.7 Jember 3 (Mangli)

Problem DescriptionJember 3 (Mangli)_3 has low SDSR problem.

Figure 85.Correlation between RxLev and RxQual of Jember 3 (Mangli)_3

SDSR of Jember 3 (mangli)_3

85.33%

86.00%85.90%

86.02%

87.14%

86.17%

85.80%

85.00%

85.50%

86.00%

86.50%

87.00%

87.50%

2/1/2006 2/2/2006 2/3/2006 2/4/2006 2/5/2006 2/6/2006 2/7/2006

Figure 86.Graph of SDSR Jember 3 (Mangli)_3

8/8/2019 Spot Problem Analysis

48/48

AnalysisFrom figures above, we can find that Jember 3 (Mangli)_3 probably haveinterference problem from another surrounding site. Do the drive test to makesure that there is no interference at Jember 3 (Mangli)_3 direction.

Recommendation Adjust antenna tilting and orientation either Jember 3 (Mangli)_3 orother surrounding sites.