he number of HSUPA UEs in the cell, as well as different QoS levels for the dimensioning targets. All simulation scenarios run for 3600 seconds. ftp Traffic Model I - 1M 15s File size Constant Distribution, 1 Mbytes Interarrival Exponential Distribution Mean: 15 seconds ftp Traffic Model II - 3GPP FTP File size Truncated Lognormal Distribution Mean: 2 Mbytes, Max: 5 Mbytes Std. Dev.: 0.722 Mbytes Interarrival Exponential Distribution Mean: 180 seconds ftp Traffic Model III - 100K 15s File size Constant Distribution, 100 Kbytes Interarrival Exponential Distribution, Mean: 15 seconds ftp Traffic Model IV - 50K 15s File size Constant Distribution, 50 Kbytes Interarrival Exponential Distribution Mean: 15 seconds ftp Traffic Model V - 10K 15s File size Constant Distribution, 10 Kbytes Interarrival Exponential Distribution Mean: 15 seconds Table A.4: Traffic Models for HSUPA Parameters values 10 ms 32 kbps 64 kbps - 1.44 Mbps other to own interference ratio 20% of users are in SHO RLC mode Acknowledge Mode Table A.5: System Parameter Configurations for HSUPA Impact of Different Traffic Models and Number of UEs This part evaluates the performance under different number of UEs and different traffic models. Figure A.14 shows the average cell throughput measured at MAC-e layer and Figure A.15 depicts the average noise rise. The results show that for the ftp traffic model II-V, the cell throughput as well as the system noise rise increases with increasing the number of Appendix HSUPA users in the cell. It also shows that for these traffic models with 20 HSUPA users the system is still not working in its full capacity since the measured system noise rise is still below the maximum value of the allowed noise rise of 6 dB. But for the ftp traffic model I where each user generates the highest traffic demand among all investigated traffic models, with more than 10 HSUPA UEs in the cell the system is fully utilized where the noise rise reaches the 6 dB upper limit. However, the obtained average cell throughput is not always incre