3G Scrambling Code Planning as part of the RNC

databuild (on the Downlink)

Scrambling code planning is usually associated with assigning a downlink primary scrambling
code to each cell. It can also be associated with assigning groups of uplink scrambling codes to
each RNC. The resultant uplink and downlink scrambling code plans form part of the RNC
databuild.
3GPP TS 25.213 specifies 512 downlink primary scrambling codes. Each primary scrambling
code has 15 secondary scrambling codes. Each primary and each secondary scrambling code has
a left alternative scrambling code and a right alternative scrambling code. Secondary scrambling
codes may be used for beamforming whereas left and right alternative scrambling codes may be
used by SF/2 compressed mode.
Each cell belonging to the radio network plan must be assigned one primary scrambling code.
This defines the set of 15 secondary scrambling codes as well as the set of left and right
alternative scrambling codes. The fundamental requirement for scrambling code planning is that
the isolation between cells which are assigned the same scrambling code should be sufficiently
great to ensure that a UE never simultaneously receives the same scrambling code from more
than a single cell.
Scrambling code planning should be completed in combination with neighbour list planning to
ensure that neighbour lists never include duplicate scrambling codes. This is important because
RRC signalling procedures can use the scrambling code as a way to reference each neighbour.
The RNC will face an ambiguity if the UE reports measurements from a neighbour which has a
duplicate scrambling code within the neighbour list, i.e. the RNC will be unable to deduce from
which neighbour the measurements were recorded. The illustration below shows the scenario
where multiple neighbours have been allocated the same scrambling code.

The RNC implementation may be designed to combine neighbour lists when UE are in
softhandover. Neighbour list combining helps to reduce the potential for missing neighbours and
so helps to improve network performance. The illustration here shows a UE which is in
softhandover with cells A and B. If neighbour list combining has been implemented the UE will

be provided with a neighbour list generated from the combination of the

neighbour listsbelonging to cells A and B.

If both cells have neighbours with the same scrambling code, the RNC will be unable to deduce
from which cell UE measurements have been recorded. This scenario requires that when cells A
and B are neighboured there should not be any duplicate scrambling codes within the
neighbour lists belonging to cells A and B. A second example scenario is presented below.

In this case, cell A is neighboured with cells B and C while cells B and C are not necessarily
neighboured with one another. The UE could trigger an active set update which results in the
active set
including cells B and C. The neighbour lists belonging to cells B and C would then be combined
and a
duplicate scrambling code introduced. In general, neighbour list auditing should be completed
after
scrambling code planning to exclude the possibility of neighbour lists including duplicate
scrambling
codes.
Scrambling code planning can also have an impact upon the cell synchronisation procedure. This
procedure is used whenever a UE needs to access a cell or measure the quality of a cell, e.g.
neighbour cell measurements. 3GPP TS 25.213 specifies that the 512 primary scrambling codes
are organised into 64 groups of 8. The cell synchronisation procedure is based upon this
grouping and the following three
steps:
1. The P-SCH is used to achieve slot synchronisation.
2. The S-SCH is used to achieve frame synchronisation and identify the primary scrambling code
group.

3. The CPICH is used to identify the primary scrambling code.

The first step is relatively independent of the scrambling code plan although there is some
potential to improve performance if the scrambling codes assigned to each cell of a Node B are
from the same scrambling code group. If all cells belong to the same scrambling code group then
both the P-SCH and S-SCH will be identical for each cell. If all cells are configured with a Tcell
of 0 chips then each cell will transmit the P-SCH and S-SCH with the same timing. This helps to
improve the signal quality of the P-SCH and S-SCH in the softer handover regions and so
improves the reliability of the cell synchronisation procedure. The effectiveness of this
approach depends upon the UE implementation.
There is a danger that after receiving a single P-SCH from a Node B the UE will assume there is
only a single cell. In this case, the UE would identify only one scrambling code during step 3
instead of potentially two or more scrambling codes.
Step 2 of the synchronisation procedure involves selecting 1 scrambling code group out of 64,
whereas step 3 involves selecting 1 scrambling code out of 8. Step 3 is likely to be more
reliable because there are fewer alternatives. Step 3 is also likely to require greater UE
processing and so have a greater impact upon UE battery life. Both of these factors are UE
implementation dependent and the impact upon UE battery life needs to be kept in perspective
relative to other procedures. Nevertheless, it is possible to adopt a scrambling code planning
strategy which places the emphasis upon either step 2 or step 3. Placing the emphasis upon step 2
has the potential to reduce UE power consumption whereas placing the emphasis upon step 3 has
the potential to improve cell synchronisation reliability. Placing the emphasis upon step 2 can be
achieved by planning the scrambling codes such that each neighbour belongs to a different
scrambling code group. In this case, the UE has tocheck for a relatively large number of different
S-SCH during step 2, but once the scrambling code group has been identified the scrambling
code is also known. Step 3 would serve as a check to ensure that the cell being measured
is actually the cell within the neighbour list (rather than a missing neighbour belonging to the
same scrambling code group). Placing the emphasis upon step 3 can be achieved by planning the
scrambling codes such that neighbours tend to belong to the same scrambling code group. In this
case, the UE has to check for a relatively small number of different S-SCH during step 2, but a
relatively large number of scrambling codes within each group during step 3.
The illustration below shows the concept of planning scrambling codes to minimise the number
of neighbours belonging to different scrambling code groups, i.e. placing the emphasis upon step
3 of the cell synchronisation procedure. Clusters of cells are assigned scrambling codes
belonging to the same group. However, it is not possible to generate a scrambling code plan in
which all neighbours belong to the same scrambling code group. In practice, it is likely that
neighbour lists would include cells belonging to three or four different scrambling code groups.

The illusttration below presents a simpler scrambling code planning strategy based upon
assigning a different scrambling code group to each Node B. This approach avoids the
requirement to plan clusters of cells and reduces the scrambling code planning process to the
allocation of 1 out of 64 scrambling code groups, i.e. a scrambling code re-use pattern of 64. It is
possible that each scrambling code group is divided into two for the purposes of scrambling code
planning. This would generate 128 scrambling code subgroups and a corresponding re-use
pattern of 128. Adjacent Node B could be assigned subgroups belonging to the same group to
approximate clusters of cells belonging to the same code group.

The scrambling code planning strategy should also account for future network expansion. Future
network expansion could mean the inclusion of additional Node B or increased sectorisation of
existing Node B. Scrambling codes should be excluded from the original plan so they can be
assigned when additional cells are introduced.
Additional rules for scrambling code planning are required at locations close to international
borders where there may be another 3G operator using the same RF carrier. These rules are often
specified by regulatory organisations. For example, in Europe the Electronic Communications
Committee (ECC) within the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications
Administrations (CEPT) has specified ERC Recommendation 01-01, Border Coordination of

UMTS. This recommendation prioritises the use of specific scrambling code groups on either
side of an international border. It also recommends maximum allowed signal strengths for
transmissions which cross international borders.
Scrambling code planning can be completed independently for different RF carriers. If a radio
network includes Node B which are configured with two or three RF carriers the same
scrambling code plan can be assigned to each carrier. This approach helps to reduce the quantity
of work associated with scrambling code planning and reduces system complexity.