Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine May 2018 - 67

a. Total target subscribers in the given region. This is essential
for planning and deciding the capacity of the core network or
Mobile Switching Center.
b. The distribution of users in the given area. This is used to evaluate the number of capacity-driven base stations (BSs) needed
and the locations of every BS across the particular area.
c. The surface area of the landscape under consideration. This
gives the value of the coverage-driven BSs to be proposed to
provide services to target locations.
d. The morphological parameters at every location in the given
area. This gives the surface density of the BSs or the closeness
of the BSs to be deployed.
e. The forbidden regions in the particular area. This is one of
the outcomes of point (d) above, where the location that cannot support BSs are identified. Such areas may be physically
challenging terrains such as hills, forests, water bodies, etc., or
strategically prohibited locations such as hospitals, preserved
landscapes, defence sectors, etc.
Each of the components of the WCN architecture is placed strategically to optimise the network and balance the tradeoff between
cost and deliverance. Figure 1 shows the details of components
placed in a service area. This is the outcome of the network planning after considering the points mentioned above. The following

section discusses the challenges associated with this conventional
planning approach.

THE INCONGRUENT PLANNING PROCEDURE
Network planning is not a one-time play, and planning is inevitably persistent throughout the life cycle of the network. Adding
new BS locations and other network elements from time to time
is often termed colloquially as a Network Rollout. But why must
network rollout occur occasionally? One of the optimistic reasons
behind the rollouts is network expansion, where newer target areas
are identified either as a geographical continuation of the existing
catered areas or as a distinct sector but falling under the control of
the same network service provider (NSP). Such rollouts not only
enhance the mobility of the existing users of an NSP but also add
new users to the particular NSP, thereby adding to its revenues.
Another significant reason that is often given to justify this
continuous process of modification is the network incongruence
[5], meaning the discrepancies between the mathematically modelled system and the actual deployment. The foremost reason for
this mismatch is our inabilities in shaping a system correctly,
though we may have a certain degree of preciseness. Therefore,
every time a mismatch between the planned approach and deployment in the field is discovered, the network planning needs to be
adjusted to accommodate the difference. Following the latter reasoning, an important question that comes up is, what makes this
network-planning and periodic rollouts
look timed after a certain length of time
of network operation has elapsed? Is the
modelling limit the only reason for the
regular rollouts, or is there something
else that has been overlooked?

PLACE TIME COVERAGE AND
CAPACITY (PTC 2)
Let us consider that there exists a fullfledged network under operation where,
coincidently, a significant number of
users have accumulated at position 1,
as shown in Figure 2. At this point, we
would like to note that these accumulations can be systematic, such as mara-

Figure 1.

Terrestrial infrastructure and user's distributions.

MAY - JUNE 2018

IEEE A&E SYSTEMS MAGAZINE

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine May 2018