Analysis and Optimization of 5G Coverage Predictions Using a Beamforming Antenna Model and Real Drive Test Measurements

Abstract

The ability to estimate radio coverage accurately is fundamental for planning and optimizing any wireless network, notably when a new generation, as the 5 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">th</sup> Generation (5G), is in an early deployment phase. The knowledge acquired from radio planning of previous generations must be revisited, particularly the used path loss and antennas models, as the 5G propagation is intrinsically distinct. This paper analyses a new beamforming antenna model and distinct path loss models - 3 <sup xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">rd</sup> Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and Millimetre-Wave Based Mobile Radio Access Network for Fifth Generation Integrated Communications (mmMAGIC) - applying them to evaluate 5G coverage in 3-Dimensional (3D) synthetic and real scenarios, for outdoor and indoor environments. Further, real 5G Drive Tests (DTs) were used to evaluate the 3GPP path loss model accuracy in Urban Macro (UMa) scenarios. For the new antenna model, it is shown that the use of beamforming with multiple vertical beams is advantageous when the Base Station (BS) is placed below the surrounding buildings; in regular UMa surroundings, one vertical beam provides adequate indoor coverage and a maximized outdoor coverage after antenna tilt optimization. The 3GPP path loss model exhibited a Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 21.05 dB for Line-of-Sight (LoS) and 14.48 dB for Non-Line-of-Sight (NLoS), compared with real measurements. After calibration, the MAE for LoS and NLoS decreased to 5.45 dB and 7.51 dB, respectively. Moreover, the non-calibrated 3GPP path loss model led to overestimations of the 5G coverage and user throughput up to 25% and 163%, respectively, when compared to the calibrated model predictions. The use of Machine Learning (ML) algorithms resulted in path loss MAEs within the range of 4.58 dB to 5.38 dB, for LoS, and within the range of 3.70 dB to 5.96 dB, for NLoS, with the Random Forest (RF) algorithm attaining the lowest error.