s

Introduction
of
Radio Link Control Features
in
GSM Networks
U. Rehfuess and K. Ivanov, Siemens AG, Mobile Radio
 s
Outline
 Capacity Enhancement
 Radio Link Control Options:
- Frequency Hopping (FH), Power Control (PC), Discontinuous Transmission (DTX)
 Diversity Effects of Frequency Hopping
- Frequency Diversity
- Interference Diversity
 Real Network Simulation Investigations
- Capacity gains vs. re-use
- Homogeneous vs. real network layouts
- Different hopping modes
- Recommendations with respect to operator’s bandwidth
 Conclusions
 s
General Methods for Capacity Enhancement
traffic traffic channels carriers 1 sites
     bandwidth 
area channel carrier bandwidth cluster size area

channel 8 for FR 5 per MHz Frequency Spectrum BS

usage 16 for HR (200 kHz) reuse f. operator density
GSM
 s
Capacity Enhancement by Radio Link Control Options
Power Control (PC)
 reduces interference due to minimum transmission power
Discontinuous Transmission (DTX)
 reduces interference due to no transmission during silence periods
Frequency Hopping (FH)

 mitigates frequency selective Rayleigh fading for slow MSs

 averages interference due to interference diversity
 Interference increase by tighter frequency re-use
can be compensated for by combination of FH, PC and DTX

 Tight frequency re-use yields capacity gain in existing sites at moderate cost
? How far shall re-use be tightened for optimum performance?
Planned re-use down to 4 ? Cluster 1x3 ? Cluster 1x1
 s
Radio Link Control Options in the GSM Specs
FH, PC and DTX are mandatory (for MS) GSM Phase 1 features
FH: GSM 05.02
PC, DTX: GSM 05.05 and 05.08

PC dynamic range MS (GSM 05.05):

GSM 900 phase1: 39 dBm (33 dBm typ.) - 13 dBm 8 W (2 W typ.) - 20 mW
GSM 900 phase2: 39 dBm (33 dBm typ.) - 5 dBm 8 W (2 W typ.) - 3 mW
GSM 1800/1900: 36 dBm (30 dBm typ.) - 0 dBm 4 W (1 W typ.) - 1 mW

PC dynamic range BS (GSM 05.05):

TRX Power class (GSM 900: 320 .. 2.5 W, GSM 900 Micro 250 mW .. 25 mW)
Static RF power step: 0 .. -12dB (2dB steps)
Dynamic RF power control: 0 .. -30 dB (2dB steps)
 s
Diversity Effects of Frequency Hopping
The information of one GSM speech frame is spread over
8 successive bursts
20 ms speech frame

channel coding & interleaving

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
TDMA frame
 Isolated corrupted bursts can be compensated by a strong
forward error correction by convolutional channel coding
 Soft decoding exploits mix of “good” and “bad” bursts
 s
Diversity Effects of Frequency Hopping
Frequency Diversity
Signal
Level

F1
F3

F2

MS Location Distance

 Due to multi-path fading, the radio channel is frequency

selective
 Changing the transmission frequency from burst to burst
leads to individual propagation conditions for each burst
 s
Diversity Effects of Frequency Hopping
Frequency Diversity and Velocity
SACCH period: 480 ms

TDMA frame 25 51 77 103

Speech Frame period: 20 ms

TDMA frame n n+1 n+2 n+3 n+4 n+5 n+6 n+7

 Wavelength: 900MHz ~ 30 cm, 1800MHz ~ 15 cm

 MS movement within one Speech Frame vs. SACCH period
3.6 km/h (1 m/s) 50 km/h (~14 m/s)
TCH/FS 20ms 2 cm <<  28 cm ~ 
SACCH 480ms 48 cm >  670 cm >> 
 TCH/FS performance strongly depends on FH at low speed
 SACCH perf. (radio link timeout!) fairly independent of FH
 s
Diversity Effects of Frequency Hopping
Frequency Diversity Gains S/N gains by FH for TU3 (3km/h)

 Frequency diversity
gains are limited by the
number of repetitions of
frequencies within the
interleaving depth, cyclic FH
e.g. 8 for TCH/FS random FH

 Cyclic FH reaches max. gain of e.g. 5 dB at 8 frequencies

 Random FH reaches max. gain of e.g. 5 dB at 64 frequencies
 s
Diversity Effects of Frequency Hopping
Interference Diversity - no FH
Reference Cell TRX 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
TDMA frame # n n+1 n+2 n+3 n+4 n+5

Interfering Cell TRX 1

1 1 1 1 1 1

Interfering Cell TRX 2

2 2 2 2 2 2

Interfering Cell TRX 3

3 3 3 3 3 3

Interfering Cell TRX 4

4 4 4 4 4 4
TDMA frame # m m+1 m+2 m+3 m+4 m+5

 In the non-hopping case, on all bursts the same interferer

occurs, i.e. no interference diversity
 s
Diversity Effects of Frequency Hopping
Interference Diversity - cyclic FH
Reference Cell TRX 1
1 2 3 4 1 2
TDMA frame # n n+1 n+2 n+3 n+4 n+5

Interfering Cell TRX 1

3 4 1 2 3 4

Interfering Cell TRX 2

4 1 2 3 4 1

Interfering Cell TRX 3

1 2 3 4 1 2

Interfering Cell TRX 4

2 3 4 1 2 3
TDMA frame # m m+1 m+2 m+3 m+4 m+5

 Even in the cyclic FH, on all bursts the same interferer

occurs, i.e. no interference diversity
 s
Diversity Effects of Frequency Hopping
Interference Diversity - random FH

Reference Cell TRX 1

3 1 3 2 2 4
TDMA frame # n n+1 n+2 n+3 n+4 n+5

Interfering Cell TRX 1

3 2 4 4 1 4

Interfering Cell TRX 2

4 3 1 1 2 1

Interfering Cell TRX 3

1 4 2 2 3 2

Interfering Cell TRX 4

2 1 3 3 4 3
TDMA frame # m m+1 m+2 m+3 m+4 m+5

 In the random FH case, from burst to burst different

interferers occur randomly, i.e. interference diversity
 s
System Quality in FH-GSM
C/I, raw Bit Error Rate (BER) and Frame Erasure Rate (FER)
probability probability 2% FER

Cyclic FH
Random FH
no FH

10%
C/I [dB]
per location FER [%]

With FH:  C/I decreases, raw BER and RXQUAL get worse
But:  Voice quality (FER) improves
 Simulations can evaluate FH gains
 s
Homogeneous vs. Real World Network Structures

Ideal homogeneous cell layout Real inhomogeneous cell layout

• homogeneous propagation
conditions
• homogeneous traffic distribution
etc.
 real world effects are neglected
• various propagation conditions,
depending on site position, topology,
morphology, antennae ...
• inhomogeneous traffic distribution
 real world effects are taken into account
 s
Investigated Network Structure
Network configuration:
operator bandwidth : 8.6 MHz, i.e. 43 carriers
carriers per cell (incl. BCCH) : 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 28
investigated TCH re-use factors : 21.5, 14, 9.3, 7, 4, 1x3, 1x1
237 cells
site to site 1 .. 3 km
sectorised (66° beam width @ 3dB)
50km frequency assignment strategies:
frequency groups / optimising
assignments
common band / dedicated band (15
BCCHs) / mixed re-use scheme
area of investigation:
24 representative cells have been
50km selected in downtown area
 s
The System Simulation Model “Real Network”
Radio
RadioNetwork
NetworkPlanning
Planning(Tornado)
(Tornado)
• network configuration
• pathloss predictions
• frequency plan • quality metrics, e.g. FER
• planning guidelines
• parameter settings

Real
RealNetwork
NetworkSystem
SystemLevel
LevelSimulator
Simulator
Radio
RadioNetwork
NetworkModel
Model
•• Cell
Cellselection
selection
•• MS
MSpositioning
positioning
•• implementation
implementationofofFH,FH,
PC, Statistical
StatisticalRadio
RadioLink
LinkModel
PC,DTX
DTXand and Model
GSM
GSMmulti-frame
multi-framestructure CIRburst •• mapping
mappingofofCIR
CIRburst onto
structure burst onto
•• calculation
calculationofofCIR
CIRburst BER,
BER,FER,
FER,1bRBER
1bRBER
burst
 s

Radio Network Model

Best Server Selection Algorithm Best Server Plot
grid
height of width of simulation area
simulation
coverage prediction
area
for cell 1
coverage prediction
for cell 2

x min(PL1, PL2, .., PLn)

0.0
y
coverage prediction
for cell n
 s
Radio Network Model
Snap
SnapShot
ShotSimulation
Simulation

Parameters:
Parameters:
•• log
lognormal fading:
normalfading :77dB
dB
•• handover
handovermargin:
margin:55dB dB
•• co
co++adj.
adj.ch.
ch.interference
interference
•• call
callduration:
duration:24s24s
•• locations:
locations:10000
10000
•• mainly
mainlyDL DLsimulated
simulated
•• multi
multipath
pathpropagation
propagation
profile:
profile: TU
TU33
•• FH:
FH:NHNHvs.vs.RHRHvs.vs.CH
CH
•• FH:
FH:incl.
incl.vs.
vs.excl.
excl.BCCH
BCCH
•• PC
PCoff
offvs.
vs.on
on
•• DTX
DTXoff offvs.
vs.on
on
 s
Simulation Results: Capacity Gain from Radio Link Options
Capacity is limited by the minimum of
 hard blocking, e.g. fulfilling Erlang-B Table at 2% (red dashed line - - - )
 soft blocking, e.g. fulfilling quality criterion FER  2% for 90% of the calls

Ideal Homogeneous Network Real Network

140 140
Co-Channel Interference Co-Channel Interference
120 Co- and Adj. Interference 120 Co- and Adj. Interference

100 100
5/5/5 5/5/5
Erl / Site

Erl / Site
80 80
4/4/4 4/4/4
60 60
3/3/3 3/3/3
40 40
2/2/2 2/2/2
20 20

0 0
21 14 9.3 7 4 1x3 1x1 21 14 9.3 7 4 1x3 1x1
mean TCH re-use, opt. assignment cluster mean TCH re-use, opt. assignment cluster

Operator Bandwidth: 8.6 MHz, i.e. 43 channels (15 BCCHs + 28 TCHs)

FH, PC and DTX used
 s
Cyclic Hopping vs. Random Hopping
5 hopping frequencies, 27 hopping frequencies,
re-use 7 (frequency planning) re-use 1x1
80 80
70 70
60 60
Erl / Site

Erl / Site
50 50
40 40
RH
30 CH 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
FH only PC DTX PC & DTX FH only PC DTX PC & DTX
 CH profits from better  CH cannot profit from PC and
frequency diversity DTX due to missing
 Interference diversity from interference diversity
individual freq. sets per cell
 s
Importing Simulation Results to Tornado - C/I in re-use 1x1
 s
Importing Simulation Results to Tornado - FER in re-use 1x1
 s
Effects of Simulation Assumptions on Capacity Gains

Real Network, Co- and Adj. Interference

140
Log-Normal  Absolute Erl/Site values
120
 = 3dB
Fading significantly depend on
100  = 5dB
5/5/5
simulation assumptions like
 = 7dB
Erl / Site

80 sigma of log normal fading,

4/4/4
60 QoS requirements etc.
3/3/3
40
 Relative comparisons of
2/2/2 optimum assignments vs.
20
cluster 1x3 and 1x1 hold
0
21 14 9.3 7 4 1x3 1x1
irrespective of log normal fading
mean TCH re-use, optimum assignment cluster

Operator Bandwidth: 8.6 MHz, i.e. 43 channels (15 BCCHs + 28 TCHs)

FH, PC and DTX used
 s
Comparison between different Quality of Service Criteria

80

60

erl/site 40
20

0
21 (CH) 14 (CH) 9.3 (CH) 7 (CH) 4 (RH) 3 (RH) 1 (RH)
TCH reuse

98% calls with FER < 10% 95% calls with FER < 5% 90% calls with FER < 2%
 s
Spectral Efficiency vs. Operator Bandwidth
14 14
 = 7 dB  = 5 dB
12 12
Erl / Site / MHz

Erl / Site / MHz

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 Reuse 1x1 2
Reuse 6
0 0
6 12 18 24 30 36 TCH freq. 6 12 18 24 30 36 TCH freq.

 Limited spectrum: reuse 1x1 recommended

due to higher FH gains
 Sufficient spectrum: planned reuse (e.g. 6) recommended
due to better C/I and sufficient FH gains
 Planned re-use profits more on measures to achieve homogeneous
network design
 s
Conclusions 140

120

 Significant capacity gains can be achieved 100

5/5/5
by FH, PC and DTX in dedicated TCH and

Erl/Site
80
4/4/4
BCCH bands 60
3/3/3
 Capacity and quality are determined by 40
2/2/2
a trade-off between 20

 local mean C/I in the network 0

21 14 9.3 7 4 1x3 1x1
 FH interference diversity gains mean TCH re-use, optimum assignment cluster

 Two distinct ways can be chosen to maximise capacity:

 re-use 4 in random FH for good C/I and good interference diversity
 re-use 1x1 with MAIO management in random FH for maximum interference
diversity
 Re-use 1x3 ignores 4 colour theorem leading to poor C/I and insufficient FH gains
in real networks (“bad compromise”)
 Depending on operator spectrum, re-use 1x1 is recommended for limited spectrum
and re-use 4 or higher for sufficient spectrum
 s
And who invented Frequency Hopping ???
Patented Aug. 11, 1942
UNITED   STATES   PATENT   OFFICE
2,292,387
SECRET COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
Hedy Kiesler Markey, Los Angeles, and George
Antheil, Manhattan Beach, Calif.
Application June 10, 1941, Serial No. 397,412
6 Claims.   (Cl. 250-2)

This invention relates broadly to secret communication systems involving

the use of carrier waves of different frequencies, and is especially useful
in the remote control of dirigible craft, such as torpedoes.
An object of the invention is to provide a method of secret communication
which is relatively simple and reliable in operation, but at the same time is
difficult to discover or decipher ...

Hedy Lamarr (Hedy Kiesler Markey)

1913 - 2000, actress, dancer and - engineer!
 s
Additional Information

K. Ivanov et al: Frequency Hopping Spectral Capacity Enhancement of

Cellular Networks. Proc. ISSSTA96, 1996, pp 1267-72.
U. Rehfuess, K. Ivanov, C. Lueders: A Novel Approach of Interfacing
Link and System Level Simulations with Radio Network Planning. Proc.
GLOBECOM 1998, pp 1503-08.
U. Rehfuess, K. Ivanov: Comparing Frequency Planning against 1x3 and
1x1 Re-Use in Real Frequency Hopping Networks. Proc. IEEE VTC‘99
Fall, Amsterdam, 1999, pp 1845-49.
s
 s
Simulation Results: Average C/I vs. Required C/I
Soft blocking is determined by
 experienced C/I per location, e.g. C/I @ 10% outage
 required C/I for e.g. FER = 2%
Example: 16 busy timeslots (16 Erl) on TCH TRXs per sector on average:
Ideal Homogeneous Network Real Network C/I@10%
14 14 req.C/I(2%FER)
12 12 Soft blocked
10 10
Soft capacity
potential
C/I [dB]

C/I [dB]
8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
-2 -2
CH CH CH RH RH RH CH CH CH RH RH RH
3 freq. 4 freq. 5 freq. 7 freq. 9 freq. 27 freq. 3 freq. 4 freq. 5 freq. 7 freq. 9 freq. 27 freq.
14 9.3 7 4 1x3 1x1 14 9.3 7 4 1x3 1x1
hopping mode, # frequencies, TCH re-use hopping mode, # frequencies, TCH re-use
 s
Simulation Results: C/I Distributions vs. Re-Use

cluster 1x1
cluster 1x3
random re-use
3
mean re-use 4
mean re-use 7
mean re-use 9.3
mean re-use 14
 s
4 Colour Theorem
Mean Re-Use 4 Cluster 1x3

 Real networks have sites off grid, varying propagation conditions etc.
 Cluster 1x3 may lead to large areas which actually use re-use 1 resulting in
poor voice quality and handover problems
 Cluster 1x3 cannot address omni-sites
 s
Simulation Results: Optimum Tight Re-Use
Capacity [Erl/Site] Experienced C/I [dB] vs. Required C/I [dB]
80 8
70 7
60 6
50 5
40 4
30 3
req.C/I(2%FER) [dB]
20 2
C/I@10% [dB]
10 1
0 0
RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RH RH
7 freq. 9 freq. 9 freq. 9 freq. 14 freq. 27 freq. 7 freq. 9 freq. 9 freq. 9 freq. 14 freq. 27 freq.
4 plan’d 3 plan’d 3 random clust.1x3 clust. 2x2 clust.1x1 4 plan’d 3 plan’d 3 random clust. 1x3 clust. 2x2 clust. 1x1

hopping mode, # frequencies, TCH re-use hopping mode, # frequencies, TCH re-use
 Similar capacity can be achieved in planned re-use 4, planned re-use 3,
random re-use 3 and re-use 1x1
 Clusters 1x3 and 2x2 (Nokia) perform poor due to
 degradation in experienced C/I (violation of 4 colour theorem) and
 poor interference diversity (frequency groups)
 s
RXQUAL vs. FER in FH Networks
No Frequency Hopping Cyclic FH 2 Frequencies
7 7
2% FER 2% FER
RXQUAL@90%

RXQUAL@90%
6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0,1 1 10 100 0,1 1 10 100
FER@90% [%] FER@90% [%]
Cyclic FH 4 Frequencies Cyclic FH 8 Frequencies
7 7
2% FER 2% FER

RXQUAL@90%
RXQUAL@90%

6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0,1 1 10 100 0,1 1 10 100
FER@90% [%] FER@90% [%]

RXQUAL is used in HO and PC decisions

 RXQUAL thresholds have to be adapted for FH
 s
Frequency Hopping and Concentric Cells

10% value determines capacity limit

(“90% calls shall be better than x dB”)

Therefore, measures to enhance

performance for the worst 10% calls
enhance overall capacity!

 In an interference limited scenario, performance of calls at cell boarder

(low RXLEV) may be enhanced by allocating them on BCCH TSs.
Calls closer to the BS are allocated on tight re-use hopping TCH TSs.
 Concentric cell feature yields RXLEV dependent channel allocation:
BCCH-TRX configured as “complete cell”
hopping TCH-TRXs configured as “inner cell”
 Setting of proper threshold on a per-cell basis causes effort!
 s
Measuring FH improvements in the Field
• Call drop rates cannot show full FH gains, since SACCH
performance is not strongly related to FH
• RXQUAL statistics for both uplink and downlink get worse
with FH and need to be interpreted -> required RXQUAL
• Currently no vendor supports speech quality related FER
measurements in the BSS
for downlink, no MS reporting is standardised
for uplink, BS vendor specific implementations are feasible
• TEMS drive/walk test can show FH improvement on
downlink speech quality
• BR6.0 will have measured FER statistics for the uplink and
estimated FER statistics for the downlink
 s
Typical Frequency Hopping Gains

Typical frequency hopping gain

The following table shows the typical gain from frequency
hopping in a GSM 900 network (example of the signal-to-noise
ratio required to obtain 0.2% residual BER for class 1b bits):

Frequency hopping TU3 TU50 HT100

None 11.5 7.5 6.8
2 frequency 10.0 6.5 6.7
4 frequency 8.25 6.0 6.6
8 frequency 7.5 6.0 6.6
16 frequency 6.75 6.0 6.6
Source: SIEMENS TED-BSS