Optimizing Frequency Camping in Huawei LTE: CIO Adjustment or ANR?

4G LTE
, , ,
1

Hello everyone!

In a Huawei LTE network with L1800 20M + L1800 10M + L900 5M, we’ve configured frequency camping priority (EUTRANINTERNFREQ). However, a significant number of users are still camping on L900.

Would it be better to adjust inter-frequency neighbor relations individually (e.g., using CIO), or is there a way to handle this through ANR?

Thanks!

Optimizing Frequency Camping in Huawei LTE: CIO Adjustment or ANR
Optimizing Frequency Camping in Huawei LTE: CIO Adjustment or ANR1024×1024 119 KB

2

Those are likely indoor users.

You can adjust the cell selection/reselection parameters to make camping on L900 more restrictive.

Also, review the antenna tilt, as L900 typically propagates farther than the upper bands.

3

Thank you, Mohamed!

Are you referring to CELLSEL/CELLRESEL?

4

You’re welcome!
And yes.

5

Users in areas with weak signals or at the cell edge may connect to L900 for coverage. Additionally, if L1800 is heavily utilized, users might fall back to L900.

To further prioritize L1800 over L900, you can adjust the Cell Individual Offset or related parameters.

6

Cell selection and reselection priorities should be checked to ensure L1800 is set higher. Additionally, tilt adjustments should be made based on the band, and DL RS boost needs optimization.

In Nokia, the AMLE (Active Mode Load Equalization) feature is available, and a similar feature may exist in Huawei, which can also be utilized.

7

In this context, under urban conditions, I set PDSCH to 18.2 for the L1800 carrier and 16.2 for L900, with Pb set to 1 for all.

What are your thoughts on this?

Great! I also believe it should be similar to Huawei’s MLB (Mobility Load Balance).

8

Your power settings appear well-balanced for an urban environment, considering:

  • L1800, with its higher capacity and smaller coverage footprint, is allocated more power (18.2 dBm).
  • L900, providing wider coverage, is set at a slightly lower power (16.2 dBm) to prevent over-prioritization.
  • This setup ensures a balance between capacity (L1800) and coverage (L900).

However, please verify that the higher PDSCH power on L1800 does not introduce excessive interference to neighboring cells.

9

Thank you for the feedback!

Are you referring to UL interference or cell overlapping?

10

Both factors are important, and which one to prioritize depends on the network symptoms:

  • If you notice poor UL SINR or throughput, focus on mitigating UL interference.
  • If frequent handovers, poor SINR, or overlapping cell dominance occur, address cell overlapping.
11

In your case, adjusting inter-frequency neighbor relations individually using Cell Individual Offset (CIO) could be more effective than relying solely on Automatic Neighbor Relations (ANR). Here’s why:

  1. ANR Limitations: ANR primarily automates neighbor additions and deletions but does not control frequency priority or UE camping behavior effectively.
  2. CIO Adjustments: By increasing the CIO of L1800 (20M and 10M) relative to L900, you can bias users toward higher-capacity layers while keeping L900 as a fallback.
  3. Reselection Parameters: Fine-tuning A3/A5 event thresholds and Reselection priorities (s-NonIntraSearch, q-RxLevMin, q-QualMin) can further influence UE behavior.
  4. Coverage & Load Balancing: Ensure L1800 has proper coverage and PRB availability, as poor SINR may push users to L900 despite priority settings.

A practical approach would be:

  • Increase CIO for L1800 (e.g., +4 to +6 dB).
  • Lower CIO for L900 (e.g., -2 to -4 dB).
  • Optimize A5 thresholds to trigger inter-frequency handovers at the right time.