Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A. Intelference Areas
The basic idea in this method is to divide the cell plan into
intelference areas, i.e. each cell together with the co-channel
cells that generates the dominating interference (e.g. the six
nearest co-channel cells) build an interference area.
Consider for example the system using a cluster size of 3 in
Figure 1. Here, cell number 22 build together with cell num-
ber IO, 11, 21, 23, 33 and 34 one interference area if we
define an interference area as the cell itself and its six nearest
co-channel neighbours. Denote this set of cells by A22. Now
consider the interference area corresponding to cell number
34, A34. This interference area consists of the cells 22,23,33,
34,35,42 and 43. Note that cell number 22 is a part of AS,+ It
is easy to see that cell number 22 is a part of the interference
areas AI,, All, A,,, A,,, A23, A33 and A34. Call this set of
interference areas where cell 22 is included by S22. Generaliz-
Figure 1. Interference areas in a system using a cluster size of 3. A cell,
ing this, there is a set of interference areas coupled to each together with its six nearest co-channel cells, build an interference area. Cell
cell, i.e., Si is the set of interference areas including cell i. number 22, together with cell number 10, 1I, 21,23,33 and 34, build an
interference area. Note that cell number 22 belongs to seven different inter-
B. Utilization Factor ference areas together with the shaded cells.
C. The Algorithm In this study, the Traffic Load Admission algorithm was
simulated for two different traffic environments: Uniform and
Consider a new call in cell i. The call is admitted if Hot spot. Uniform was realized according to the following:
FAj ' Fthreshold) V A j € Si (3.2) The mobiles were distributed with equal probability
over the coverage area of the system.
Here, the threshold Fthreshold determines the trade-off
between capacity and quality in the system. Hot spot was realized according to the following:
The algorithm in words: check the utilization factor in each 50% of the mobiles were distributed with equal
of the interference areas where cell i is included. If the utiliza- probability over the coverage area of the system.
tion factor in any of the interference areas in Siexceeds the
The remaining 50% of the mobile were distributed
threshold, FrhreshoLd, block the call else admit the Call.
according to a two dimensional Gaussian distribu-
IV. Simulations tion. The standard deviations in the two dimensions
of the Gaussian distribution were both set to 1500
The simulator tool that is used has a birth-death process meters.
with an arrival traffic according to a Poisson process and
exponential distributed call duration. The cells that covers at least 90% of the traffic generated
1283
Propagation model Okumura-Hata (35 log d)
No of frequencies
Cluster size
I No of cells I 75 I
Cell radii
Antennas 3 sector
DTX factor
Call duration
Velocity 0 km/h
I BCCH frequency I No I
TABLE I System parameters used in the simulations.
1284
B. Hot Spot TrafJic Case
Blocking probabilityvs offeredtraffic. Uniform
1on In Figures 5 - 6, the blocking probabilities and 90 percen-
tile C/I levels for TLA, 60% loadcell and 100% load/cell are
shown in the Hot spot traffic case. The results comprise the
total system regardless of cell type.
10.'
Here it is shown that for high loads (offered traffic > 20
ff
- average Erlangkell), the performance for TLA and 60%
D
D
2 loadkell are approximately the same. For the interesting
m
-
x
loads (offered traffics that generates a blocking around 2%),
8 the TLA and the 100%loadkell have almost identical perfor-
5
10
mance.
The quality decreases with average offered traffic for all
methods. In the 100%loadcell case, the assumed 9 dB qual-
ity threshold is broken. TLA and 60% loadkell, however, pre-
I,
I
I
1o-3 , , I
serve the 90 percentiles of C/I around 9 dB even at high loads.
5 10 15 20 25 30
Offered traffic (Erlang/cell)
With preserved quality, the average offered traffic can be
increased from 1.62 Erlangkell to 2.41 Erlangkell with TLA
Figure 3. Blocking probability for uniform traffic distribution compared to 60% load/cell at 2% blocking. This is an
increase with 49%.
90 percentileof C/I vs. offered traffic - Downlink, Uniform
151 I C. Hot Spot TrafJic Case - Hot Spot and Uniform Cells
For the Hot spot case, the blocking probability and 90 per-
centile of C/I levels are shown in Figures 7 - 8 for Uniform
and Hot spot cells.
Here it is shown that the blocking probability in the Uni-
form cells are considerable lower than in the Hot spot cells. In
fact, comparing Figure 7 with Figure 5 shows that the block-
ing in the Hot spot cells dominates the total blocking proba-
bility.
The quality decreases with the average offered traffic but it
is preserved for both Uniform and Hot spot cells in the down-
link. In the uplink, the quality falls below the 9 dB quality
threshold for the Hot spot cells. However, antenna diversity
will reduce the necessary threshold in the uplink. Thus, it is
no problem to have a worse uplink than downlink.
:
13 -
90 percentile of C/I vs offered traffic - Uplink, Uniform
VI. Conclusions
The Traffic Load Admission (TLA) algorithm is shown to
preserve the quality in the system. Further, TLA is shown to
work well in an non uniform traffic environment. However, a
system which does not have an Admission Control algorithm
-
g12-
is shown to violate the 90 percentile quality criterion for high
m-
loads regardless of traffic environment.
-
I
510-
The TLA algorithm is shown to have better performance in
e - _ _ -- - - - - - - -1
a terms of blocking compared to a hard blocking method where
z 9- the number of installed transceivers limits the served traffic
\
8-
(TLA can handle 32% more traffic than 60% loadkell). The
-60% load/cell
-_ gain with the TLA algorithm increases when the traffic is not
7- - - 100% loadlcell -- uniformly distributed (from 32% to 49%, even more if only
Hot spot cells are considered). Further, TLA is shown to have
6
almost optimum performance for a non uniformly distributed
traffic scenario if the blocking probability is kept at a reason-
able level (around 2%).
Figure 4. 90 percentiles of CII for Uniform traffic distribution
1285
Blocking probability vs offered traffic, Hot spot
-
Blockina DrObabllltv VS. offered trafflc TLA. Hot SDOI
1oo
10.’
-
>1
-
2e p
a
g” 10-2
t 5 io
I
15
,
20
Offered traffic (average Eriang/ceil)
25 30
1
Figure 7. Blocking probability for Uniform and Hot spot cells, Hot spot
1o -~
5 10 15 20 25 30 traffic distribution.
Offered traffic (average Erlanglcell)
Figure 5. Blocking probability for Hot spot traffic distribution. 90 percentile of CA YS. offered traffic - TLA, Hot spot
15
14
90 percentile of Cll vs. offered traffic - Downlink, Hot spot
13
g12
I
$11
-5
-
m
10
8 9
8 91 6
5 10 15 20 25 30
Offered traffic (average Erlang/ceii)
-60% loadlcell Figure 8. 90 percentiles of C/I for Uniform and Hot spot cells, Hot spot
traffic distribution.
- - 100% loadlcell
10 15 20 25 30
VII. References
Offered traffic (average Erlanglcell)
[I]H Olofsson, J Naslund, B Ritzen & J Skold, “Interference Diversity as
90 percentile of CII vs offered traffic - Uplink, tiot spot
Means for Increased Capacity in GSM’, In Proceedings of the 1st
European Personal and Mobile Communications Conference, 1995, pp.
97-102.
[2]Chen Nee Chuah, Roy D. Yates and David J. Goodman, “Integrated
Dynamic Radio Resource Management”, In proceedings of the VTC 95,
pp. 584-588.
[3]Y Argyropoulos, S Jordan and S P R Kumar, “Dynamic Channel
Allocation Performance under uneven Traffic Distribution Conditions”,
In proceedings of the ICC 95, pp. 1855-1859.
[4]M Andersin, M Frodigh and K-E Sunell, “Distributed Radio Resource
Allocation in Highway Microcellular Systems”, In proceedings of the
60% load/cell 5th Winlab workshop, April 1995, pp. 77-85.
- - TLA
- - 100% loadlcell [5]M Naghshineh and A S Acampora, “Design and Control of Micro-
Cellular Networks with QOS Provisioning for Real-Time Traffic”, In
5 10 15 20 25 30
proceedings of the ICUPC 94, pp.376-381.
Offeredtraffic (average Erlanglcell)
[6]M Naghshineh and M Schwartz, “Distributed Call Admission in
MobilelWireless Networks”, In proceeding of the PIMRC 95, pp. 289-
Figure 6. 90 percentiles of C/I for Hot spot traffic distribution 293.
1286