ndwidth. Traffic Model III (100K 15s) 20 UE (different traffic models) 5 UEs 10 UEs 1M 15s 3GPP FTP 15 UEs 100K 15s 20 UEs 50K 15s 10K 15s Application QoS target (normalized app. throughput) Application QoS target (normalized app. throughput) Figure A.20: Dimensioning factor vs. QoS target The left diagram gives an example of different number of HSUPA UEs with the traffic model III, and the right one shows the results of 20 UEs with various traffic models. From both figures, it is seen that in general the required dimensioning factor increases with the increased QoS requirement. But the increment curve differs for different number of UEs as well as for different traffic models. By fixing the traffic model, more UEs results in a lower dimensioning factor range; by fixing the number of UEs, less traffic demand per UE leads to a higher dimensioning factor and the tendency of increment over the QoS increases as well. Appendix From the above dimensioning results of HSUPA obtained from simulations, it can be concluded that the dimensioned lub bandwidth is not a linear relation to the offered HSPA traffic demand, but strongly dependent on the aggregated lub traffic characteristic, which is an outcome of the HSPA scheduling influenced by different number of HSPA users distributed in the cell and the traffic demand of each UE. For a general dimensioning approach, we suggest following steps: (1) For the configured traffic model and number of UEs in the cell, calculate the total HSPA traffic demand in the cell, depicted as p; (2) For the configured traffic model and number of UEs in the cell, estimate the bursty level of the aggregated traffic in terms of coefficient of variation of the cell throughput, depicted as B. It is dependent on the implementation of HSPA scheduler that determines each user's data rate; (3) Determine the dimensioning factor n for different traffic bursty levels. The calculation of n is a function of the bursty level in terms of coefficient of variation of the cell throughput B, the transport network