Está en la página 1de 22

AMR

AMR (Adaptive Multi Rate) consists of a family of codecs with different bit-rates operating in GSM FR and HR The aim is to improve channel (FR/HR) quality by adapting the most appropriate channel codec based on current radio condition Codec mode adaptation (link adaptation) is based on received channel quality in both MS and BTS (the codec adaptation possible each 40ms) The basic AMR codec mode sets for MS and BTS are provided by BSC via layer 3 signalling MS shall support all speech codec modes, although only a set of up to 4 speech codec modes are used during a call

AMR Introduction
Provides a number of full-rate and half-rate modes
Code rate adapts to channel conditions (40 ms) Up to four FR and three HR modes can be specified for a call, modifiable with a handover AMR Capacity benefits: Improved robustness in Full Rate allows tightening of re-use patterns - increased spectral efficiency Operation of Half Rate channels will free available capacity for data traffic - reduced blocking AMR Coverage benefits: Improved performance at cell edge

Adaptive Multi Rate


Channel cross bit-rate is 22.8 kbit/s in GSM FR/EFR: 13 kbit/s speech coding and 9.8 kbit /channel coding (HR channel gross bit rate 11.4 kbit/s) In the AMR case, codec mode can be changed and more error correction bits can be used whenever channel requires.

AMR Codec Modes

RF Performance

HR Performance

MOS & FER

AMR Link Adaptation


Codec mode adaptation, BTS level
Codec mode changed according to channel conditions (UL/DL C/I) Only up to four codecs can be used during a call Goal the highest MOS (Mean Opinion Score) Mode indications inform the receiver about the currently applied codec mode Mode Command informs MS about the codec mode to be applied on the uplink Channel Mode Adaptation FR<-> HR changed by handover (packing and unpacking) Based on BTS load (BSC level) and channel condition (RxQual)

Benefits Of AMR 1/3


Speech quality enhancement: AMR maintains good
speech quality in the situation where the connection faces low C/I or low signal level Capacity and coverage gain: Link level simulation results illustrated improvement in terms of TCH FER (up to 6dB at 1% FER in C/I) Signalling channel performance: due to retransmissions schemes used by these channels the probability of signalling success maintain very high even for very degraded conditions

Benefits of AMR 2/3


Improved BCCH plan: tighter frequency reuse or better quality with same

frequency reuse. since the average C/I found in a cell area can be measurably less than that used in a non AMR network and still provide comparable quality to EFR, the existing clean BCCH layer can be tightened, potentially releasing frequencies to be used on the non-BCCH layer Mixed EFR AMR traffic networks: use more aggressive power control for AMR mobiles in order to decrease the average interference level in the network. Due to better error correction capability against the channel errors lower C/I target can be set for AMR mobiles hence lower PC thresholds can be used. Therefore, the overall interference decreases in the network (smaller average transmission power) and thus the quality of the existing EFR connections increase.

Benefits of AMR 3/3


HR utilizations
doubles the capacity of the cell since two half-rate connections can be allocated to fill only one timeslot. When compare AMR HR to previous GSM HR codec, it is noticed that AMR HR obtains remarkable better speech quality

AMR Simulation in one-layer network

TCH FER decreases considerably when AMR penetration increases


Increased TCH quality can be turned into capacity by allowing more traffic to the network About 145% traffic increase is attained with 100% AMR penetration

AMR Simulation in one-layer network


Most of the practical cases there will be mixed AMR and EFR mobiles in the network at the same time Therefore, very tight frequency plan may not be allowed in order to maintain good speech quality with existing EFR calls

AMR Simulation in two-layer network

on the one-layer case all the connections are using the same frequencies In the IFH case the calls are distributed to the layers based on current quality thus it is easier to serve an adequate quality for all users in the network IFH AMR is a way to utilize the AMR gain in the case of mixed EFR - AMR traffic

AMR Simulation in two-layer network


Maximum capacity with different AMR penetrations 17% capacity increase with penetration of 25% 35% capacity increase with penetration of 50% 57% capacity increase with penetration of 75% The required number of super TRXs to maintain hard blocking at 2% is shown

Potential impacts Of AMR on Network Figures

AMR Effect on HO_QUALITY


RXLEV and Power Budget HO parameters identical for AMR and EFR AMR call would handover at the same point as an EFR call. Separate RXQUAL threshold settings for AMR Default set to worse values than EFR. (e.g. EFR =4, AMR = 5) With these default settings AMR calls would be expected to have fewer HO due to quality No difference in RXQUAL measurement method between EFR and AMR EFR call and AMR call in identical location should show identical RXQUAL measurements Packing/Unpacking Unpacking from HR to FR is always based on RX quality

AMR Effect on HO_QUALITY


Default Unpacking RXQUAL threshold same as default EFR RXQUAL HO threshold In congested cell with no available TS for unpacking, Inter-cell HO required based on RXQUAL Conclusion Unpacking algorithm, under congested conditions may negatively impact HO_QUAL Other AMR parameters should have no negative impact in a network designed for EFR

AMR Effect on HO_Failures


Improved robustness in AMR over EFR AMR better able to handle poor radio conditions - low RXLEV, poor RXQUAL, low C/I Separate RXQUAL HO threshold for AMR Effort to squeeze more performance from AMR could have temporary negative impact. Packing/Unpacking Congestion could cause negative impact to HO_Fail No available TS for unpacking within cell. Inter-cell HO required Lower robustness of HR versus FR - could result in Inter-cell HO fail. Conclusion Optimization of separate AMR parameters is important to ensure no negative impact to HO_Failures Unpacking algorithm under congested conditions may negatively impact HO_Failures

Conclusions
AMR can be an effective quality- and capacity-enhancing feature. AMR FR speech quality (MOS) significantly better than GSM FR/EFR at low C/I. AMR HR speech quality (MOS) significantly better than GSM HR and comparable with GSM FR. Link adaptation thresholds are important factors in overall quality dependent on network configuration (hopping/non-hopping, fractional load..) (cf GPRS). AMR can be very effective in IUO/IFH configurations where the superlayer coverage can be extended providing high absorption

También podría gustarte