4.6 Article

An Open-Source Techno-Economic Assessment Framework for 5G Deployment

Journal

IEEE ACCESS
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages 155930-155940

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2949460

Keywords

5G mobile communication; Interference; Planning; Open source software; Tools; Buildings; 5G; techno-economic analysis; infrastructure sharing; open-source; software

Funding

  1. UKRI EPSRC Researcher in Residence Program, Digital Catapult, U.K.
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, U.K.

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Optimal network planning is crucial to ensure viable investments. However, engineering analysis and cost assessment frequently occur independently of each other. Whereas considerable research has been undertaken on 5G networks, there is a lack of openly accessible tools that integrate the engineering and cost aspects, in a techno-economic assessment framework capable of providing geospatially-explicit network analytics. Consequently, this paper details an open-source python simulator for integrated modelling of 5G (pysim5G), that enables both engineering and cost metrics to be assessed in a single unified framework. The tool includes statistical analysis of radio interference to assess the system-level performance of 4G and 5G frequency band coexistence (including millimeter wave), while simultaneously quantifying the costs of ultra-dense 5G networks. An example application of this framework explores the techno-economics of 5G infrastructure sharing strategies, finding that total deployment costs can be reduced by 30 using either passive site sharing, or passive backhaul sharing, or by up to 50 via a multi-operator radio access network. The key contribution is a fully-tested, open-source software codebase, allowing users to undertake integrated techno-economic assessment of 5G deployments in a single geospatial framework.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available