IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 57, NO.
4, JULY 2008
Automated Wireless Coverage Optimization
With Controlled Overlap
Donna Fagen, Senior Member, IEEE, Pablo A. Vicharelli, and Jay Weitzen, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—Optimizing wireless networks represents a complex
task, which directly affects quality, cost, coverage, and capacity. In
this paper, we propose a new automated method of simultaneously
maximizing coverage while minimizing interference for a desired
level of coverage overlap. The proposed method represents a
novel approach, as it focuses on network parameters that can
be represented by continuous variables and applies classical op-
timization methods. A new figure of merit for coverage, i.e., the
coverage coefficient, is also introduced. Results are presented for
the case of transmit power optimization. A sample network of
36 sites showed an average coverage coefficient improvement of
approximately 47%. By determining the desired network coverage
with a controlled amount of overlap, this method automatically
decreases interference and, thus, improves network performance
parameters such as carrier-to-noise-and-interference ratio (C/I),
ratio of received signal bit energy to interference plus noise
power spectral density (Eb/Io), signal-to-interference-plus-noise
ratio (SINR), and bit error rate (BER).
Index Terms—Interference, optimization methods, propagation,
radio resource management.
I. I NTRODUCTION
T HE DESIGN, optimization, and operation of wireless net-
works has become increasingly complex. Ideally, a well-
designed network will cover the targeted geographical area,
exhibit minimal interference, provide the required capacity,
offer good quality of service (QoS), and be cost effective.
Typically, these objectives compete with each other, and a wide
variety of tradeoffs needs to be examined to ensure a high-
quality cost-effective network.
When designing a wireless network, there are numerous pa-
rameters that one can adjust to optimize network performance
[1], [2]. Some of these parameters are within the control of the
designer, e.g., which access technology, transmit (Tx) power
levels, or antennas should be used, along with their orientation
and tilt, and so on. Some parameters, however, are beyond the
control of the designer. In the latter category, we find examples
such as zoning regulations that might restrict the location of a
base station or the height of an antenna.
Manuscript received December 1, 2006; revised July 31, 2007 and
August 29, 2007. The review of this paper was coordinated by Dr. J. Misic.
D. Fagen and P. A. Vicharelli are with Equilateral Technologies Inc.,
Lexington, MA 02420 USA (e-mail: df@equilateral.com; pv@equilateral.
com).
J. Weitzen is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer-
ing, University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA 01854 USA (e-mail: jay_
weitzen@uml.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2007.912329
0018-9545/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
2395
The literature [3]–[16] describes several methods of optimiz-
ing wireless network coverage, which use genetic algorithms,
greedy algorithms, and simulated annealing. Much of the pre-
vious work has focused on minimizing the number of base
stations for an area and on determining their ideal locations
[3]–[7]. This type of optimization, although it is applicable to
theoretical networks, is usually not practical for operating net-
works. Base stations are subject to a wide variety of restrictions,
including zoning and power emissions, and they cannot always
be placed at theoretical optimal locations.
Recent work such as [12] has described a two-step method
in which an initial simple mathematical model is developed
to describe the problem to be solved, e.g., coverage, facility
location, and assignment. This is followed by continuous im-
provement of the mathematical model by iteratively assessing
the model’s merits by using realistic data. The model is then
solved using mixed integer linear programming tools. In [13],
an optimization method for Universal Mobile Telecommunica-
tions System (UMTS) networks, which focuses on coverage
and antenna configuration by using simulated annealing/tabu
search, is described. In [14], a tabu multiobjective algorithm
is used to determine a series of solutions of access point loca-
tions for wireless local area networks (WLANs) to maximize
coverage and QoS. The network planner then selects from
the series of solutions based on the desired tradeoffs. In [15],
a multicriteria genetic algorithm is presented, which selects
base stations from candidate sets, with the goal of maximizing
infrastructure cost efficiency and coverage while constrain-
ing pairwise cell overlap. A range of alternative solutions is
produced, which approximate a Pareto front. An approximate
percentage of the desired overlap for maximum financial benefit
is then calculated for uniform and random networks. In [16],
a graph-based approach is used to determine the location of
a minimum number of omnidirectional base stations that are
needed to provide coverage while controlling the permissible
pairwise overlap.
This paper approaches a wireless network design as a con-
strained optimization problem and assumes fixed base station
locations. Basically, we select some metrics that characterize
network performance and adjust base station settings in such
a way that an optimum network configuration is obtained. As
we do so, we ensure that any specified constraints are satisfied.
This type of optimization involves a large number of adjustable
parameters and is impractical, if not impossible, to manually
carry out. Therefore, another goal of this paper is to automate
the optimization process so that once the input parameters and
target requirements are set, minimal or no intervention from the
network designer is needed.
2396 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 57, NO. 4, JULY 2008

Although our approach is applicable to a variety of network

parameters such as Tx power levels, antenna tilt, height, and
azimuth, this paper will focus on optimizing Tx powers while
reducing coverage area overlap to some specified amount. The
optimization can be done for the whole network, individual base
stations, or arbitrarily defined clusters of base stations. Thus,
we can apply it to networkwide retunes, station-by-station
network growth, and, with some modifications, even to green-
field deployment. Of primary interest are areas where individual
coverage regions overlap. Although, in some cases, e.g., code-
division multiple access (CDMA) soft handoff, some overlap-
ping of radio frequency coverage can be used to our advantage,
generally, overlap is detrimental to network performance, as
it represents excess power that spills over other base station’s
coverage regions. For systems that are based on frequency-
division multiple access (FDMA) or time-division multiple
access (TDMA), this excess power complicates frequency plan-
ning, as areas of overlap cannot be assigned cochannels or Fig. 1. Isolated base station best server/coverage region. The round marker
adjacent or neighboring channels, resulting in decreased ca- indicates the location of the transmitter.
pacity. For CDMA-type systems, excess overlap complicates
pseudonoise (PN) offset planning and increases pilot pollu-
tion. In UMTS systems, minimizing the common pilot channel
power allows for more power for traffic channels, in addition to
lessening interference.
The algorithm is applicable to a wide variety of wireless
technologies, including WLANs and third-generation technolo-
gies. A network that has been optimized for coverage with
a controlled amount of overlap will have improved carrier-
to-noise-and-interference ratio (C/I), ratio of received signal
bit energy to interference plus noise power spectral density
(Eb/Io), signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), bit error
rate (BER), etc. Coverage and overlap results are shown for
a sample network before and after optimization. This sample
network is then evaluated for interference. A dramatic improve-
ment in C/I is observed after optimization.

II. A PPROACH
We assume that our network is composed of fixed base
stations and mobile users. In this context, we define a base
station’s coverage area or footprint as the geographical region
where the base station’s transmitted signal can be received
by a mobile receiver at a signal strength that is greater than
some specified threshold. We could call this the forward-link
coverage area. For simplicity and without loss of generality, we
will consider the coverage area that will be defined in terms of
the forward link.
Carrying out a coverage calculation for an isolated base
station A, we obtain a coverage footprint such as that shown
in Fig. 1. Here, a shaded area has been overlaid on a terrain
relief map to indicate where the received power is above the
specified threshold. Once the base station parameters have been
set, only the distance away from the base station and other
environmental factors such as terrain obstacles and land cover
affect the size and shape of the footprint. However, as we add
more base stations, their footprints might overlap, and when
that happens, we need to make a decision about which station
should establish a link with a mobile station in the overlap
Fig. 2. Network that shows overlapping base station coverage areas.
region. In this paper, we simply compare the various powers
that are received by the mobile station and pick the largest.
In other words, we say that the base station that provides the
strongest signal is the “best server.” Fig. 2 shows a best server
coverage map for the original isolated station A, with four
additional neighboring omnidirectional base stations. It is clear
that because of its competition with its neighbors, the best
server area of A now looks smaller than when it was the only
station in our network. However, since we have not changed any
of its power settings or its antenna, its signal still goes beyond
its serving area, potentially causing interference.
To characterize and control this overlap, the following per-
formance metric is used, i.e., the coverage coefficient for the
ith base station, which is defined as
ci = βi /αi (1)
where βi is the best server coverage area in the presence of
neighboring stations, αi is the coverage area in isolation, and
FAGEN et al.: AUTOMATED WIRELESS COVERAGE OPTIMIZATION WITH CONTROLLED OVERLAP 2397

coverage calculation with the optimized power settings. The

resulting coverage map will contain only as much overlap as
we requested and will remove or moderate the holes in the
coverage, depending on the selected overlap.
One key aspect of our approach is that the overlap should
be reduced to some specified level. Thus, if our starting point
involves nonoverlapping coverage, e.g., extremely low powers
or base stations that are very far apart, then the overlap min-
imization is already done, because the coverage coefficients
already have a value of unity. In such cases, we could artificially
increase the power levels so that some overlap is available
at the start. This modification, which is explored further in
Section IV-A, would allow us to use this technique with green-
field deployments once the candidate sites have been fixed.

III. M ATHEMATICAL M ODEL

The optimization problem that we address involves parame-
ters such as antenna height, antenna tilt, antenna orientation,
and transmitter output power. These parameters can continu-
ously be adjusted, allowing for optimization methods [17] that
are not applicable to discrete variable optimization for wireless
networks, such as frequency planning, PN offset planning, and
Fig. 3. Flowchart of the basic algorithm. antenna selection. As an illustration of the capabilities of our
approach, we present here a derivation of the transmitted power
αi ≥ βi . The range of the coverage coefficient is 0 ≤ ci ≤ 1, as our independent variable. The extension to other parameters
with a value of unity indicating that the best server area in a is straightforward.
network matches the best server area in isolation, i.e., there is Each individual transmitter will have its own power setting,
no overlap with other coverage areas. For the example in Figs. 1 which we will arrange into the following design vector:
and 2, we can integrate the covered area and find a best server
region of 45 km2 and an isolated coverage region of 209 km2
for base station A, leading to a coverage coefficient of 0.22 for p = [p1 , p2 , p3 , . . . , pN ] (2)
this station.
One of our design goals is for every base station’s coverage where pi is the Tx power of the ith transmitter, with 1 ≤ i ≤ N ,
coefficient to be as close to unity as possible. This would and N is the total number of transmitters in the network that is
provide the maximum coverage area that is combined with the being optimized. Our goal is a design vector p that minimizes
minimum overlap area. Although unity may not be possible in the overlapping areas while maximizing the coverage, i.e., have
all cases due to cells being in close proximity to each other, the coverage coefficient ci be as close to 1 as possible for each
optimizing the network by maximizing each base station’s sector.
coverage coefficient is the goal. Now, we arrange these coverage coefficients into
At the same time, we do not wish to entirely eliminate vector R(p), which is given by
overlap—this would lead to holes in the coverage, and there
is a need for some overlap to properly carry out the handoff  
1 − c1
of a mobile station from one serving area to another. What is
 1 − c2 
needed is a means of controlling the overlap so that it reaches  
R(p) =  1 − c3 . (3)
levels that are set by the network designer. Our approach is  .. 
 . 
described in Fig. 3. In step 1), we begin by determining the
best server threshold based on link budget calculations. As an 1 − cN
example, −95 dBm might be a typical value. In step 2), we
specify how much overlap power is required or can be tolerated. Then, the computational problem is stated as follows. Find
To illustrate, assume that we want 4 dB of overlap. In step 3), the vector p that minimizes R(p), which is subject to the
we temporarily subtract this overlap power from the best server following constraints:
threshold, so in this example, we would have −91 dBm. In
step 4), we optimize the base station power settings so that
the overlap is minimized, and we obtain a network with the pmin
i ≤ pi ≤ pmax
i , i = 1, . . . , N (4)
coverage edges that just touch, which will lead to some holes
in the coverage. Finally, in step 5), we restore the best server where pmin
i and pmax
i represent the minimum and maximum
threshold that was modified in step 3) and run a forward powers for the ith transmitter, respectively.
2398 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 57, NO. 4, JULY 2008

It is more convenient to minimize the square of the norm of

R, which is given by


N 
N
R2 = R2i = (1 − ci )2 . (5)
i=1 i=1

We will use the Newton–Raphson method to accomplish this.

First, we will Taylor-expand the R vector about some estimate,
which is labeled k. We will use the following notation:

R(k) = R p(k) (6)

where p(k) is the kth estimate of the p vector. Therefore, the

expansion takes the following form:

R(k+1) = R(k) + J(k) ∆p(k+1) + · · · (7)

where

∆p(k+1) = p(k+1) − p(k) (8)

and J is the N × N Jacobian matrix, whose elements are

given by

(k) ∂Ri

Jij = . (9)
∂pj
p(k)

In the conventional Newton–Raphson method, the left-hand

side of (7) is set to zero, and the higher order terms are ne-
glected. Here, we will require that R is a minimum, in the least
squares sense, to calculate the next iteration. In other words
 2
d R(k+1)  Fig. 4. Flowchart of the detailed algorithm.
= 0. (10)
dp that each parameter satisfies the constraints before we evaluate
Thus the overlap/coverage vector R. If an updated parameter falls
outside its prescribed minimum or maximum, it will be clipped

T 
T 
at the appropriate minimum or maximum.
J(k) R(k) + J(k) J(k) ∆p(k+1) = 0. (11)
Once the design vector is updated, we repeat the whole cal-
culation until the results converge. We consider the algorithm
Next, we use the following notation: to have converged when

T 

Q(k) = J(k) J(k)  N  2
(12)   (k)
 p − p(k+1)

T  k−1
G(k) = − J(k) R(k) .
The linear system that we need to solve for this iteration is
Q(k) ∆p(k+1) = G(k)
and once the correction ∆p(k+1) has been calculated, the array
of network parameters p is updated as
p(k+1) = p(k) + ∆p(k+1) .
The system in (14) needs to be solved at every iteration,
which is subject to the constraints listed in (4). Thus, we need to
examine the updated network parameter vector p(k+1) to ensure
(13) <= TOL (16)
N
where TOL is some specified convergence tolerance.
To illustrate the algorithm, the iterative steps are outlined in
(14) the flowchart in Fig. 4.
In step 1), we begin by calculating the coverage coefficients
for the network. This gives us an indicator of the quality.
The closer the values of the coverage coefficients are to unity,
the less the overlap, and hence, the less the interference that
(15) can be expected. In step 2), we calculate the Jacobian matrix.
This is the most time-consuming part of the calculation, as the
derivatives are calculated by finite differences. In step 3), we
iteratively solve the linear system of (14) to calculate the power
corrections that will be applied to each transmitter. Next, we
FAGEN et al.: AUTOMATED WIRELESS COVERAGE OPTIMIZATION WITH CONTROLLED OVERLAP 2399

TABLE I
NETWORK PARAMETERS

add the power corrections to each of the transmitters, except

for the locked ones. The algorithm allows a network designer
to indicate which transmitters will remain fixed, as oftentimes,
there are practical restrictions about which transmitters can be
modified. As shown in step 4), for the case where the power of
a transmitter has been fixed or locked, we ignore the calculated Fig. 5. Status of the three-cell flat-terrain sample network at step 4) of
correction and do not add it in for that particular transmitter. the basic algorithm (no overlap). The markers indicate the location and the
Next, in step 5), we verify that by applying the calculated orientation of the transmitting antennas.
correction above, no transmitter is above or below its allowed
designated minimum or maximum level. For example, there
are minimum and maximum power levels within which the
equipment must operate. If we are not within range, then the
particular transmitter gets clipped to either its minimum or
its maximum power. In step 6), we evaluate the convergence
parameter, i.e., examine whether the root mean square (rms)
correction of the new transmitted power levels are less than or
equal to the specified tolerance. If we have converged, the op-
timization is complete; otherwise, we continue back to step 1)
by using the newly modified Tx power levels to calculate the
coverage coefficients for all transmitting stations.

IV. R ESULTS
A. Three-Cell-Network Flat-Terrain Model
To examine the validity of this new method, we begin by con-
sidering a simple network that consists of only three identical
cells with an initial power setting of 10 W, setting the desired
overlap power to 4 dB and using a flat-terrain model. The best
server threshold, frequency, and availability are as noted in
Table I.
We follow the steps in Fig. 3. In this case, the results for
step 4) of the algorithm can be predicted—one would expect
each of the sites’ coverage regions to just touch the other sites’
coverage region edge. Here, we converge to 3.29, 2.48, and
1.16 W for transmitters B1, B2, and B3, respectively. The total
covered area is 96.7 km2 . The calculated coverage coefficient
is 1, which is up from an initial value of 0.67, as expected.
Fig. 5 graphically shows the results. Note that the sites are not
equidistant from each other; if that were the case, the algorithm
would converge with equal powers and equal coverage areas.
Note that, since we are requesting coverage coefficients of
unity at this stage, there is no overlap between cell sites. The
individual coverage regions have rearranged themselves (i.e.,
the power levels have been adjusted) just to the point of contact
with another cell site(s). We note that the coverage regions of
B1 and B2 just touch, as do the coverage regions of B1 and B3.
Fig. 6. Three-cell flat-terrain sample network with a 4-dB overlap.
The gap between B2 and B3 is correct, because for a specified
overlap of zero, we have designed the algorithm to stop just
before there is any overlap, and for B2 and B3 to touch, overlap
would occur with B1.
Next, we restore the best server threshold, as indicated in
step 5) in Fig. 3, and we see a proportionate increase in overlap
between the three sites. As shown in Fig. 6, the calculated
results are as expected. The total area that was covered has
increased, whereas the coverage coefficient has decreased. The
new values are 124 km2 and 0.79, respectively. Although the
coverage coefficient has dropped versus the network in Fig. 5,
the network with overlap, having a larger footprint and no holes
between sites, would be more practical.
We expect a robust algorithm to reach a minimum point
after starting from an arbitrary set of initial parameters. As a
convergence check, we repeated the three-site calculation for
several initial power settings and always arrived at the same
solution. Consistent with the discussion at the end of Section II,
the initial individual coverage areas all had some overlap. To
summarize the convergence behavior for this algorithm, we
2400 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 57, NO. 4, JULY 2008

TABLE II
Tx POWER PARAMETERS

Fig. 7. Average Tx power history for the three-cell flat-terrain sample network
optimization problem.

monitored the average power as the calculation progressed.

Fig. 7 shows the results. Here, we see that the algorithm con-
sistently reduces the excess power until the requested amount
of coverage overlap is achieved in each instance, and the
same power levels are obtained. The convergence behavior is
essentially monotonic, with some minor variations induced by
possible power–coverage tradeoffs that have been investigated
for the three interacting sites.

B. Realistic Network
Next, we model a subset of a wireless network by using
actual terrain and propagation models. These models have been
developed for use in general mixed environments, which may
include paths over a flat rugged terrain, with or without foliage,
water bodies, and urban and suburban areas.
Table I lists the parameters that describe this network. A
sectored antenna with an 11.8-dBd gain is used at each of the
base stations, and a 3-dBd omnidirectional antenna is used at
the mobile.
The test network has 36 transmitters (i.e., 12 base stations,
with three sectors each), each with a fixed location, whose
initial power settings were manually optimized over the years.
These initial power settings are summarized in Table II. Note of the network footprint to have fixed power settings. This
that these settings were obtained from an actual operating keeps the edges of the coverage unchanged and focuses the
network and were not, in any way, modified for this paper. processing on the core base stations where most of the overlap
This network originally had only three power level settings: occurs. After fixing nine sectors, there were 25 power levels
1) 6.61 W; 2) 3.3 W; and 3) 2.48 W. Thus, it seemed like a good to be optimized. Note that although these nine sectors’ powers
choice for an optimization study, as intuitively, when comparing remain fixed, their coverage and overlap regions affect the
the power settings between sites, one would expect them to sectors that were being optimized and are included in the
be much more dissimilar due to terrain effects. To establish a calculation.
baseline for comparison, we calculated the coverage for this Note that we use a best server threshold value of −95 dBm
nonoptimized actual network. here, along with a requested overlap of 4 dB. Thus, we de-
As we might do in a live network optimization run, we sign the network such that the coverage regions just touch at
constrained some of the base station sectors along the periphery −91 dBm, i.e., −95 dBm + 4 dB. As outlined in Fig. 3, once
FAGEN et al.: AUTOMATED WIRELESS COVERAGE OPTIMIZATION WITH CONTROLLED OVERLAP
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF COVERAGE RESULTS
Fig. 8. Network with new Tx power settings. The markers indicate the loca-
tion and orientation of the transmitting antennas. The transmitter identifications
are numbered 1 through 3 in the clockwise direction and have orientations of
30◦ , 150◦ , and 270◦ relative to the North, respectively.
optimization is complete, we readjust the best server threshold
back to −95 dBm and rerun our coverage calculation with the
powers as set by the algorithm to get out final results.
Before optimization, this network had a coverage area of
562 km2 , an average overlap area of 76.2 km2 , and an average
coverage coefficient of 0.15. After optimization, we obtain a
new set of Tx powers, which produced the coverage results
listed in Table III. Since the average initial Tx power setting
was 5.2 W, we requested a value of TOL = 0.15 W, which
represents about a 3% relative tolerance on the average.
Using a 3-GHz Pentium 4 computer, the algorithm converged
after 65 iterations and took 76 min to execute. Table II summa-
rizes the optimized network’s Tx powers. Fig. 8 shows the new
coverage regions, which look virtually identical to the original.
Although we suffered a 3% decrease in the overall cover-
age, the average coverage coefficient increased by 47%. This
represents a significant reduction in overlap, and the resulting
optimized network provides a good base for now applying
frequency planning solutions or PN offset planning algorithms,
for example.
Naturally, any reduction in coverage area is undesirable, al-
though, when working with real networks, tradeoffs force com-
promises, as this example illustrates. The competing objectives
here are to maximize coverage, while, at the same time, keeping
the overlap to 4 dB, which resulted in a very small reduction in
coverage. We could eliminate this coverage reduction by simply
allowing a higher overlap and, therefore, higher Tx powers.
2401
Fig. 9. Average Tx power history for the realistic sample network optimiza-
tion problem.
This, however, would lead to a lower coverage coefficient and,
hence, more interference. The algorithm is flexible enough to
allow the exploration of these tradeoffs.
We also investigated the convergence behavior for this larger
network. Fig. 9 displays the values of the average Tx power
and the coverage coefficient as the calculation progressed. Here,
we find results that are very similar to those of the simpler
flat-terrain example in Fig. 7. The two curves display the
expected behavior that, as we proceed with the iterations, the
Tx power is gradually lowered while the coverage coefficient
simultaneously increases. The calculation is considered to have
converged when the average power approaches a constant level,
which coincides with a leveling off of the coverage coefficient.
It is important to recognize that to a network designer, any of the
intermediate results are useful, and we could envision a more
conservative power selection approach, where, e.g., the results
for iteration 30 are selected. For this case, we obtain a reduction
of about a factor of 2 in power without sacrificing any coverage.
This might not be an optimum result, but it would lead to a
considerable network performance improvement.
As with any constrained optimization problem, unreasonable
constraints might not lead to a reasonable solution. Even then,
our algorithm will always lead to practical Tx powers that do
not diverge. This is because we bracket the allowed minimum
and maximum powers to mimic the actual hardware that was
installed in a base station.
As a further example of the benefits that were derived from
this technique, we assigned the same frequency to each sector
in our baseline sample network and ran an interference analysis
calculation. Fig. 10 summarizes the results in terms of the
percentage of area that experiences C/I values that are below
some threshold. For example, if we pick a C/I of 10 dB, we
see that, for the original Tx powers, approximately 61% of the
coverage area is below this value. Following the application of
our coverage optimization algorithm, the interference analysis
was rerun and showed that only 3% of the coverage is below the
2402
Fig. 10. Interference comparison.
target. These results should not be taken to imply that frequency
planning is no longer required. Other constraints such as re-
strictions on which frequencies can neighbor other frequencies
need to be considered. In addition, the 3% of the service area
where we do not meet the 10-dB C/I criterion happens to be
in the overlapping handoff areas. Nonetheless, this technique
is a powerful method of optimizing network parameters so that,
when frequency planning, PN offset planning, etc., are used, the
network is already in a good state to have the least interference
possible.
For networks that employ power control, this method can
provide maximum power settings at each sector. This would
prevent any one sector from adjusting its power very high and
would also keep the network more balanced.
V. C ONCLUSION
We have presented a new automated method of simultane-
ously maximizing coverage while minimizing interference for
a controlled level of overlap. A new metric, namely, the cover-
age coefficient, has been introduced. The presented algorithm
iteratively adjusts the network parameters in question until
the coverage regions just touch, thereby maximizing coverage
while simultaneously minimizing interference. Following the
convergence of the algorithm, the desired overlap is added
back, and the coverage calculation is rerun for the final re-
sults. As an illustration, a derivation has been presented for
Tx power optimization. The application of this method to
a sample network of 36 sites showed an average coverage
coefficient improvement of approximately 47%. The network
footprint decreased by a small amount, i.e., 3%, whereas the
overlap dramatically decreased by 42%. Our future work will
extend the model to simultaneously include other continuous
network variables such as antenna tilt, height, and azimuth.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 57, NO. 4, JULY 2008
R EFERENCES
[1] A. R. Mishra, Ed., Advanced Cellular Network Planning and
Optimisation. Chichester, U.K.: Wiley, 2007.
[2] A. W. Graham, N. C. Kirkman, and P. M. Paul, Mobile Radio Network
Design in the VHF and UHF Bands: A Practical Approach. Chichester,
U.K.: Wiley, 2007.
[3] F. A. Agelet, A. M. M. Varela, L. J. Alvarez-Vazquez, J. M. Hernando,
and A. Formella, “Optimization methods for optimal transmitter locations
in a mobile wireless system,” in Proc. Biennial IEEE Conf. Electromagn.
Field Comput., 2000, pp. 441–452.
[4] A. Molina, A. R. Nix, and G. E. Athanasiadou, “Optimised base-station
location algorithm for next generation microcellular networks,” Electron.
Lett., vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 668–669, Mar. 2000.
[5] P. Calegari, F. Guidec, P. Kuonen, and D. Wagner, “Genetic approach to
radio network optimization for mobile systems,” in Proc. 47th IEEE Veh.
Technol. Conf., 1997, vol. 2, pp. 755–759.
[6] J. K. Han, B. S. Park, Y. S. Choi, and H. K. Park, “Genetic approach with
a new representation base station placement in mobile communications,”
in Proc. 54th IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., 2001, vol. 4, pp. 2703–2707.
[7] L. J. Ibbetson and L. B. Lopes, “An automatic base station placement
algorithm,” in Proc. 49th IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., 1997, pp. 770–774.
[8] K. Tutschku, “Interference minimization using automatic design of cellu-
lar communications networks,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., 1998,
pp. 634–638.
[9] S. Hurley, “Planning effective cellular mobile radio networks,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 243–253, Mar. 2002.
[10] S. Hurley, “Automatic base station selection and configuration in mobile
networks,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., 2000, pp. 2585–2592.
[11] R. Whitaker and S. Hurley, “Evolution of planning for wireless commu-
nication systems,” in Proc. 36th HICSS, 2003, pp. 296–305.
[12] A. Eisenblatter and H.-F. Geerdes, “Wireless network design: Solution-
oriented modeling and mathematical optimization,” IEEE Wireless
Commun., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 8–14, Dec. 2006.
[13] I. Siomina, P. Varbrand, and D. Yuan, “Automated optimization of service
coverage and base station antenna configuration in UMTS networks,”
IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 16–25, Dec. 2006.
[14] K. Jaffres-Runser, J.-M. Gorce, and S. Ubeda, “QoS-constrained wireless
LAN optimization within a multiobjective framework,” IEEE Wireless
Commun., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 26–33, Dec. 2006.
[15] R. Whitaker, L. Raisanen, and S. Hurley, “The infrastructure efficiency of
cellular wireless networks,” Comput. Netw., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 941–959,
Aug. 2005.
[16] R. Whitaker and S. Hurley, “On the optimality of facility location for
wireless transmission infrastructure,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 46, no. 1,
pp. 171–191, Mar. 2005.
[17] J. S. Arora, Introduction to Optimum Design. New York: McGraw-Hill,
1989.
Donna Fagen (M’84–SM’99) received the B.Eng.
degree in electrical engineering from McGill Univer-
sity, Montreal, QC, Canada, in 1984 and the M.S.
degree in electrical engineering from Boston Univer-
sity, Boston, MA, in 1989. She is currently working
toward the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
with the University of Massachusetts, Lowell.
From 1989 to 2000, she was with GTE Labora-
tories (now Verizon Laboratories), Waltham, MA,
where she led a team of researchers in wireless
network optimization. Before joining GTE Labora-
tories, she was with Central Dynamics, Pointe Claire, QC, working on video
switching, and with CAE Electronics, Montreal, working on flight simulation.
She is a Cofounder of Equilateral Technologies, Lexington, MA, where she has
been the Chief Technical Officer since 2001. She is the holder of four patents
in wireless communications. Her research interests include wireless commu-
nications, particularly wireless network optimization, 3G cellular networks,
frequency spectrum management, and numerical analysis.
FAGEN et al.: AUTOMATED WIRELESS COVERAGE OPTIMIZATION WITH CONTROLLED OVERLAP
Pablo A. Vicharelli received the B.S. degree in
physics and the B.A. degree in chemistry from
Southwestern University, Georgetown, TX, in 1976,
the M.S. degree in physics from Southern Methodist
University, Dallas, TX, in 1978, and the Ph.D. degree
in physics from the University of Texas, Dallas,
in 1981.
He held a postdoctoral position with the Joint
Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics, National In-
stitute of Science and Technology, University of
Colorado, Boulder. He also held a visiting position
with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder. Then, he was
with GTE Laboratories (now Verizon Laboratories), Waltham, MA, working
on computer modeling of electrical discharges, physical optics, and electro-
magnetic wave propagation. He is currently with Equilateral Technologies,
Lexington, MA, conducting research on RF propagation, antenna design,
wireless network optimization, and scientific visualization. He has published
more than 40 papers and is the holder of 11 patents.
2403
Jay Weitzen (M’85–SM’89) was born in
Milwaukee, WI. He received the B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E.,
and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Wisconsin,
Madison, in 1977, 1979, and 1983, respectively.
In 1986, he joined the faculty of the University of
Massachusetts, Lowell, where he was promoted as
an Associate Professor in 1989, has been a Professor
with the Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering since 1992, and has an active research
program in wireless communication. In addition to
his academic experience, he has extensive mili-
tary and commercial industrial experience with several companies, including
Signatron, Meteor Communications Company, GTE Laboratories, Nextwave
Wireless, Adaptive Broadband, U.S. Department of Transportation, and
Airvana, Chelmsford, MA, where he is currently working on the characteri-
zation of the performance of 1xEV-DO networks. He has published more than
80 papers in the open literature and is the holder of two patents. His research
interests include the performance of large wireless networks; how QoS-enabled
services perform over wireless, and the development of tools for advanced
network modeling and prediction.
Dr. Weitzen is a member and was a Reviewer for the IEEE Communications
and Vehicular Technology Societies. He was an Associate Editor of the IEEE
TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS.