Admission Control in Frequency Hopping GSM Systems
Per Beming and Magnus Frodigh
Ericsson Radio Systems AB
S - 164 80 Stockholm
Sweden
Abstract: One way to improve the ability to handle
offered traffic variations in a cellular system is to use soft
capacity, i.e., to have an Admission Control. algorithm that
accepts new calls as long as the quality of the already
ongoing calls are preserved. The increased flexibility in
the use of the radio resources will increase the capacity in
the system.
In GSM, the operators continuously tightens their cell
plans. Suggestions of going to a cluster size of 3 with the
help of soft capacity exists. This paper investigates the
performance of an Admission Control algorithm based on
the number of active users in each cell. The purpose of the
Admission Control algorithm is to block some calls in
order to preserve the quality in the system. By means of
simulations it is shown that a traffic load based Admission
Control algorithm works well in a system with cluster size
of 3. The results show that the method preserves the qual-
ity both when the traffic is uniformly and non-uniformly
distributed. The system is using frequency hopping, dis-
continuous transmission and quality based power control.
I. Introduction
The fast growth of the cellular market necessitates high
capacity cellular systems. One way to increase the capacity is
to use a tighter frequency reuse plan.
It has been shown, [ 11, that a GSM operator having 5 MHz
available bandwidth can gain 190% in capacity with a fre-
quency plan using a cluster size of 3 compared to a frequency
plan using a cluster size of 12 if random frequency hopping,
quality based power control and discontinuous transmission
are used. However, going from a cluster size of 12 to 3
implies that one cannot occupy every available channel in
every cell without introducing a severe C/I situation. Thus, a
mechanism that guarantees the quality in the system by limit-
ing the utilization of the total number of available channels
must be deployed. A simple solution is to limit the utilization
of the channels by not installing more transceivers than possi-
ble from a quality point of view. However, due to the local
variations in the offered traffic (hot spots or just the variation
in time), the blocking probability with such a solution will be
unnecessary high. Hence, a solution that limits the number of
active calls based on other criteria than the number of trans-
ceivers is preferable. An Admission Control method is
needed.
In [2-41 a new user is blocked if there is no available link
0-7803-3659-3/97 $ 1 0.00 0 1 997 IEEE
giving the new call an estimated C/I over some threshold. The
methods consider power capabilities and estimated path gain
of the new call plus measured interference on the free chan-
nels when deciding whether the new call shall be blocked or
not.
In [5-61, the method of preserving the quality has another
focus, namely the handover failure rate. The methods con-
sider the number of active calls in the cell and neighbouring
region. The method in [5] blocks the new call if there are
more active calls in a cluster than a threshold (there are still
channels left, but they are reserved for handover calls). The
method in [6] blocks a new call if the estimated probability of
handover failure becomes too high. The probability is esti-
mated from the number of active calls in the cell and its
neighbour cells.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate one method of
Admission Control called Traffic Load Admission (TLA).
TLA aims to preserve the speech quality in terms of C/I as in
[2-41. TLA, however, considers the already active users,
which will be disturbed by a new call, when deciding to admit
a call or not. The blocking probability and the characteristics
of C/I are derived for two different traffic environments. The
results are compared to results obtained with hard blocking
due to limited hardware capacity (less transceivers than fre-
quencies per cell) and with a traditional hard blocking system
(a system that is not using any admission control at all). The
study is mainly intended for GSM, but when applicable the
method may also be used for other systems.
Chapter I1 defines the quality and performance criteria
while Chapter III presents the TLA algorithm. In Chapter IV
and V the performed simulations and the obtained results are
presented and finally in Chapter VI there are some conclu-
sions.
11. Definition of Quality and Performance Measures
Admission Control shall guarantee that the active users in a
system have an acceptable “quality”. The “quality” is in this
paper defined by the following criterion:
90 percentile of C/I 2 X dB, i.e. 90 percent of the
users shall have a C/I greater than or equal to X dB.
The probability of blocking a new call, P,, is used as a per-
formance measure. P, shall be compared when the criterion
is fulfilled and the comparison shall be done while the meth-
ods have approximately the same “quality” defined by the cri-
terion above.
1282
 111. Traffic Load Admission

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.

Denote the number of available channels in cell i by ci and A. System Parameters

the number of active users in cell i by ui.The utilization factor
in interference area Ai,denoted by F A , , is then:
C u.i
(3.1)
j e A,
For example, if a system using a cluster size of 3 has 12
carriers then each cell will be assigned 4 carriers. Each carrier
have 8 time slots, thus ci = 8 * 4 = 32. If the interference areas
are defined as above then the denominator in Equation (3.1)
will be 32 * 7 = 224.
In the simulations frequency hopping, discontinuoustrans-
mission and quality based power control were used. There
was no mobility. The simulator uses a cell plan with a wrap
around technique to avoid border effects. Further, the system
was interference limited.
A 5 MHz operator was assumed, i.e., 24 available frequen-
cies. 12 frequencies were used as BCCH carriers and not con-
sidered in the simulations. Hence, 12 frequencies remains.
These 12 frequencies were divided into three groups. Since 8
time slots was simulated, ci = 8 * 4 = 32. All system parame-
ters used in the simulations are summarized in Table I.
B. TrafJic Environment

C. The Algorithm
Consider a new call in cell i. The call is admitted if
FAj ' Fthreshold) V A j € Si (3.2)
Here, the threshold Fthreshold determines the trade-off
between capacity and quality in the system.
The algorithm in words: check the utilization factor in each
of the interference areas where cell i is included. If the utiliza-
tion factor in any of the interference areas in Siexceeds the
threshold, FrhreshoLd, block the call else admit the Call.
IV. Simulations
The simulator tool that is used has a birth-death process
with an arrival traffic according to a Poisson process and
exponential distributed call duration.
In this study, the Traffic Load Admission algorithm was
simulated for two different traffic environments: Uniform and
Hot spot. Uniform was realized according to the following:
The mobiles were distributed with equal probability
over the coverage area of the system.
Hot spot was realized according to the following:
50% of the mobiles were distributed with equal
probability over the coverage area of the system.
The remaining 50% of the mobile were distributed
according to a two dimensional Gaussian distribu-
tion. The standard deviations in the two dimensions
of the Gaussian distribution were both set to 1500
meters.
The cells that covers at least 90% of the traffic generated

1283
 Propagation model Okumura-Hata (35 log d)

Lognormal fading standard devia-

No of frequencies

Cluster size

Time slots used

I No of cells I 75 I
Cell radii

Antennas 3 sector

I Random Frequency Hopping I On I a) Uniform

DTX factor

Quality based Power Control

Call duration

Velocity 0 km/h

I BCCH frequency I No I
TABLE I System parameters used in the simulations.

with the two dimensional Gaussian distribution are hereafter

denoted as Hot spot cells. With this definition there was 15
Hot spot cells. The cells that are not Hot spot cells are hereaf-
ter denoted as Uniform cells.
Realizations of the traffic environments with 2000 mobiles
are shown in Figure 2. The shaded cells in the Hot spot case
are the Hot spot cells.
C. Measure of Offered Trufic
The offered traffic in Erlangkell was measured as the aver-
age traffic in Erlang over whole the coverage area of the sys-
tem divided by the ni :ber of cells in the system. Hence, X
average Erlangkell in the Hot spot case implies X/2
ErlangAJniform cell and X/2+75/15*X/2 = 3X Erlang/Hot
spot cell.
D.Threshold Setting
The threshold was set to 60% (Fthreshold := 0.6)which with
our assumptions and system parameters resulted in a 90 per-
centile of C/I above 9 dB which in this paper is assumed to
give an acceptable quality. An adjustment of the threshold
would result in another 90 percentile of C/I.
E. Reference Systems
To be able to compare the obtained results, simulations
were also done for a system using a cluster size of 3 with 60%
load/cell hard blocking (i.e. 32*0.60 = 19 channelskell) and a
system using a cluster size of 3 with 100% loadkell tradi-
tional hard blocking (i.e. 32 channels/cell).
b) Hot Spot
Figure 2. Traffic distributions: a) Uniform. b) Hot Spot.
V. Results
A. Uniform Trufic Case
In Figures 3-4, the blocking probabilities and 90 percentile
C/I levels for TLA, 60% loadkell and 100% loadkell are
shown for the Uniform traffic case.
Here it is shown that for high loads (offered traffic > 20
Erlangkell) the performance of TLA and 60% load/cell are
approximately the same. For interesting loads (offered traffic
that generates a blocking around 2%), however, TLA outper-
forms 60% loadkell. 100% loadkell outperforms TLA for all
loads (at least for blocking probabilities above 0.1%).
The quality decreases with offered traffic for all methods.
In the 100% loadkell case, the assumed 9 dB quality thresh-
old is broken. TLA and 60% loadkell, however, preserve the
90 percentiles of C/I around 9 dB even at high loads. Note
that there is no significant difference between TLA and 60%
loadkell concerning the quality.
The offered traffic can be increased from 11.9 Erlangkell
to 15.7 Erlangkell and still maintain a 2% blocking with
acceptable quality when TLA is used compared to 60%
loadkell. This is an increase with 32%.

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