MULTIPLE USE PATT
FOR FREQUENCY PLANNING IN GS
Stefan Engstrom, Thomas Johansson, Fredric Kronestedt,
Magnus Larsson, Stefan Lidbrink, H&an Olofsson
Ericsson Radio Systems AB
S-164 80 Stockholm
Sweden
-
Abstract Providing high capacity in GSM networks at low
costs using existing macrocells is of increasing importance in the
near future due to the competition between operators. This
paper shows that by applying frequency hopping in combination
with an advanced frequency planning method, Multiple Reuse
Patterns (MRP), very high traffic levels in the existing macro-
cells can be supported. Field experience from live networks
shows that an average frequencyreuse factor as low as 7.5 is pos-
sible without negatively affecting the network quality. Thus, the
network capacity can be doubled compared to a non hopping
network with reuse 4/12 using 10 MHz frequency spectrum. In a
macrocell, it is possible to carry as much as 43 Erlang at 2%
blocking.
I. INTRODUCTION
The cellular market has experienced an enormous subscriber
growth in the recent years. Today, GSM networks in more
than 100 countries serve approximately 65 million
subscribers. It is of significant importance for the network
operators to support high capacity in their networks at
minimum costs due to the increasing competition [ 11.
There are several ways to increase capacity from a cell
planning point of view. Methods in use today include cell
split, overlaidunderlaid cells and hierarchical cell structures.
In general, these methods can be divided into two groups,
where one requires addition of new cell sites, while the other
only implies installation of new transceivers in already exist-
ing base stations. Deployment of new cell sites is often a
fairly slow process, due to site acquisition problems. This,
together with the cost of new site equipment makes this
option less efficient from a cost and implementation perspec-
tive. The alternative method, to reuse existing cells and only
adding transceivers, is thus an attractive option.
Addition of transceivers to existing cells can be facilitated by
applying radio network features such as e.g. overlaid
underlaid cells, frequency hopping, power control and
Discontinuous Transmission (DTX). These features reduce
andor change the characteristics of the network interference
so that a tighter frequency plan can be applied and hence more
transceivers can be added.
In this paper, a solution for providing high capacity in GSM
using existing macrocells is highlighted. The solution, known
as Multiple Reuse Patterns (MRP) [ 1-31, uses tight frequency
reuse in combination with frequency hopping. The paper also
provides results from MRP field trials. Finally, discussions
0-7803-4320-4/98/$5.00 0 1998 E E E
regarding 1/3 frequency reuse [4-51, a similar solution, are
included.
11. FREQUENCY HOPPING
Increasing network capacity by tightening the frequency
reuse results in a heavily interfered radio environment. This
makes it more difficult to produce a frequency plan of good
quality. In the end, interference managing techniques such as
frequency hopping, power control and DTX are required in
order to secure the quality in the network. This paper considers
only the use of frequency hopping.
With frequency hopping, frequency diversity will occur,
which balances the quality between slow and fast moving
users. This implies that a cell planning margin for fast fading
(Rayleigh fading) is not needed. Thus, an approximate
coverage gain equal to the fast fading margin can be achieved
from the frequency diversity effect. Today, cell planners
typically use 3 dB as the fast fading margin.
Furthermore, frequency hopping also introduces interference
diversity [4]. Two aspects of interference diversity combine to
improve performance. Strong interferers are shared between
different users, which is often referred to as intetfierence
averaging. In addition, the time varying interference as such
increases the interleaving efficiency and thus improves
receiver performance.
Altogether, a frequency plan with tighter reuse can be
implemented in a frequency hopping network, resulting in
improved capacity compared to a non hopping network.
111. MAXIMIZING
INTERFERENCEDIVERSITY
Interference diversity due to frequency hopping can be seen
as a reduced correlation of the interference signals
experienced for consecutive bursts. Figure 1 illustrates this
signal correlation decrease for three simplified scenarios, in
which the uplink of a connection in cell A is interfered by
mobile stations in co-channel cells. Cell A is assigned
frequencies 1 and 10 in all scenarios.
In the leftmost scenario without frequency hopping, the
connection in cell A continuously uses frequency 1, and
therefore the interference I arises from the same user in cell B
all the time. The correlation of the interference signal on
consecutive bursts is thus high. If the connection has bad
quality, an improvement can only be made if the co-channel
cell stops transmitting on this frequency or if the connection in
2004 VTC ‘98
 No frequency hopping Frequency hopping Frequency bopping without
with traditional planning fixed frequency groups
I. 6
I , IO
@8
I , IO
1, IO
MS on frequency MS on frequency MS on frequency
1 in cell A. 1 and 10 in cell A. 1 and IO in cell A
Figure 1. Example of the interference diversity effects of different fre-
quency hopping strategies.
cell A is handovered (by an inter-cell or intra-cell handover).
The middle scenario shows the traditional frequency hop-
ping case, in which regular frequency groups are used. The
connection in cell A hops on two frequencies (1 and lo),
which are both used in cell B as well. Consequently, the inter-
ference origin will alter between two users in cell B, causing
the two interference signals lI and Z2. Since the strength of ll
and Z2 may be rather different, the interference signal correla-
tion may be fairly low for consecutive bursts. In other words,
the interference diversity has increased compared to the non-
hopping case.
Finally, in the rightmost scenario, an irregular frequency
plan is applied together with frequency hopping. Typical for
this case is that there are no fixed sets of frequencies used in a
cell and its co-channel cells. Thus, cell B is only a partial co-
channel cell of cell A, since they have only one frequency in
common. On the other hand, this arrangement creates an
increased number of (partial) co-channel cells, in this exam-
ple represented by cell C. In this case, different bursts of a
connection in cell A will be interfered by users in different
cells. Thus, consecutive bursts will experience the interfer-
ence signals Zl and Z2, which generally are totally uncorre-
lated. Hence, this scenario is superior to traditional planning
with regular frequency groups in terms of maximizing inter-
ference diversity.
The example above indicates that to obtain maximal inter-
ference diversity, a frequency plan without frequency groups
is preferable. However, such frequency plan has apparent
drawbacks, including the extensive re-planning necessary in a
continuously evolving network.
By applying the MRP technique, it is possible to provide
maximal interference diversity and still maintain a structured
frequency plan, as will be described in the next section.
Iv. MULTIPLEREUSE PATERNS
Multiple Reuse Patterns (MRP) is a generic method for
achieving high capacity using tight frequency reuse in combi-
nation with frequency hopping [l-31. The MRP technique
exploits the advantages from frequency hopping in order to
increase the capacity. The fundamental idea with MRP is to
apply different separate reuse patterns with different degrees
0-78034320-4/98/$5.00 0 1998 IEEE
of tightness and use frequency hopping to combine them into
an average reuse. The goal is to deploy as many transceivers
as possible in existing cells to minimize the number of costly
new sites. In this paper, only MRP using baseband frequency
hopping is considered.
A. Band split
The first step with MRP is to split the available frequency
spectrum into different bands. One band is the BCCH band
which means that a frequency used as a BCCH frequency in
one cell will not be used as a TCH frequency in another cell
and vice versa. The reasons for reserving unique BCCH fre-
quencies are:
Trafic independent BSZC decoding pelformance:
When the mobiles are trying to decode the BSIC
(Base Station Identity Code) on the SCH (Synchroni-
sation Channel), the performance will not be affected
of the traffic load in the network. The reason is that
the traffic assigned to the TCH frequencies will never
disturb any BCCH frequency on which the SCH is
mapped. BSIC decoding is very important for the
handover performance. Poor handover performance
could lead to increased number of dropped calls.
Simplified neighbor cell list planning: The number of
possible neighbor cell frequencies decreases with a
separate BCCH band. A simple strategy where all fre-
quencies except the own BCCH frequency are
included in the neighbor cell list can be used. Using
all available frequencies as BCCH frequencies may
result in longer neighbor cell lists, which has negative
impact on handover performance [6].
Full gain from power control and DTX:Only TCH
frequencies can use DTX and power control in the
downlink. With a dedicated BCCH frequency band,
full gain from power control and DTX is achieved in
the downlink [7]. This is not the case if the BCCH fre-
quencies interfere with the TCH frequencies. Thus, a
more aggressive power control approach can be
applied.
Replanning of TCH frequencies will not affect the
BCCH frequency plan: If additional transceivers are
to be added to already existing cells, the BCCH fre-
quency plan is not affected (assuming that the com-
biner spacing requirements are neglected). The only
restriction to consider is the adjacent frequency inter-
ference. Thus, it is possible to keep the same BCCH
plan even if additional transceivers are added to the
network. The network operator then knows that if the
BCCH frequency plan is good it will remain good,
independent of the TCH frequencies.
As a next step, the MRP method implies that the remaining
(TCH) frequencies are divided into different bands. Thus, one
BCCH and several TCH bands will exist. The main idea with
2005 VTC '98
 several TCH bands is to apply different reuse patterns on
different TCH transceivers. The first TCH transceiver in all
cells will use frequencies from the first TCH band and so on.
The reasons for splitting the TCH frequencies into different
bands are:
Dimension the average frequency reuse according to

8 ’e3
the transceiver distribution of the network: The trans-
ceiver distribution determines the average frequency Slow baseband hopping Slow baseband hopping
reuse that can be applied in the network. The average over 2 frequencies over 4 frequencies
( l e L6) (1 e 2 3 , 6 2 6 . 3 5 )
frequency reuse is adjusted according to the maxi-
mum number of transceivers needed per cell and the v
Cell A
v
Cell B
number of cells requiring this number. In this way, the
quality can be controlled in an effective manner in the Figure 2. An example of frequency planning with MRP.
frequency planning process.
Small impact on existing frequency plan when adding to solve this problem by changing a frequency in that cell with
an “illegal” frequency which initially is used in another
more transceivers: The TCH band split will limit the
transceiver group. However, it is recommended that the MRP
required amount of frequency planning work when
structure is followed as much as possible.
more transceivers are added. Only the cells with the
same number of transceivers or more will be affected C. Tailoring the frequency plan
if more transceivers are added. For example, adding a
fourth transceiver to a cell with three transceivers will The MRP scheme has been developed to handle the typical
only have an influence on the cells with four and more case when networks have uneven transceiver distributions.
transceivers. This is important since every cellular network differs in char-
acteristics regarding e.g. cell sizes, number of available fre-
A structured way of frequency planning: It is possible, quencies and topography. This means that some cells have
for instance, to make a frequency plan for the first many transceivers while other cells have only a few.
TCH transceiver without modifying the BCCH plan To understand how the different cells with different number
or the plans for the other TCH transceivers. This of transceivers experience different frequency reuse situa-
structure will aid the frequency planner in hisher tions, an example is shown in Table I. A 12/8/6/4 MRP con-
work by making it easier to produce a new frequency figuration which totally requires 30 frequency carriers is
plan and to detect a bad frequency plan. selected. There are 12 BCCH frequencies and 3 TCH groups
each containing 8, 6 and 4 frequencies. In the example, it is
B. Frequency Assignmenl
further assumed that different fractions of the cells (20%,
The MRP frequency assignment can be exemplified by 30% and 50%)have 2, 3 and 4 transceivers respectively.
means of Figure 2, which shows a schematic picture of how The average frequency reuse factor experienced by a cell is
the different frequencies can be allocated to an MFW defined as the total number of frequencies in the groups
configuration with maximum four transceivers per cell. The assigned to the cell divided by the number of transceivers in
example is referred to as a 12/10/8/6 plan. This means that the cell. The different cells will thus encounter different
there are 12 BCCH frequencies (frequencies 1,3,...,23), 10 average frequency reuse factors: 10 for the two transceiver
TCH frequencies in group 1 (frequencies 2,4,...,20), 8 TCH cells, 8.7 for the three transceiver cells and 7.5 for the four
frequencies in group 2 (frequencies 22,24,...,36) and 6 TCH
frequencies in group 3 (frequencies 25,27, ...,35). Figure 2 TABLE I An MRP example with 6 MHz of spectrum,
where cells have an uneven distribution of transceivers.
shows only the frequency allocations for two cells A and B
which have two and four transceivers respectively. Cell A is
assigned the BCCH frequency 1 and the TCH frequency 6.
Numberof
transceivers/cell
I( 2 1 3 0
I1 I I
Thus, cell A uses baseband frequency hopping over two
frequencies. Further, cell B is allocated the BCCH frequency Fraction of cells 20% I 30% I 50%
23 and the TCH frequencies 6, 26 and 35. Consequently, cell MRPgroups (1 12/8 I 12/8/6 I 12/8/6/4 I
B uses baseband frequency hopping over four frequencies.
Note that the frequencies defined as BCCH frequencies do not Average
frequency reuse
1 (12+8)/2
=10 I (12+8+6)/3
=87
(12+8+6+4)/4
=7.5
have to be defined as shown in Figure 2. Hence, any frequency
I I I
,I I I
4
from the available spectrum can selected as a BCCH as long
as the BCCHRCH separation is fulfilled.
Actual reuse
(upper bound)
)I 10 92 8.9

There is no need to strictly adhere to the MRF’ technique all Diversity gam small larger largest
the time. If a cell with quality problems exists, it is acceptable

0-7803-4320-4/98/$5.00 0 1998 IEEE 2006 VTC ‘98

 transceiver cells.
TCH Drop [%I 40cells, 4 transceiverslcell
The “actual” average frequency reuse experienced by a cell Reference = I5 I 15 I 15 I 15
may however be sparser, since not all cells are fully equipped. MRPl=13/12/10/10
MRP 2 = 13 I 8 / 8 / 8
For example, since the third transceiver is only used in 80% of MRP 3 = 13 I 8 I 8 I 6
3.0 MRP 4 = 13 I 8 I 6 I 6
the cells, the actual reuse on that transceiver may be as sparse I I I
as 6/0.8=7.5, depending of the geographical distribution of the I I I I
cells with the third transceiver. The upper bound for the actual
average frequency reuse for cells with three transceivers is
therefore (12+8+7.5)/3=9.2 (Table I). I Reuse 15 lReuse -11.21 Reuse-9.2 I Reuse -8.7 I Reuse-8.2
The gain from frequency hopping increases with the number 11 I I I I
of frequencies included in the hopping sequence [4]. Cells NoMReference ‘ MRPl ’ MRP2 ’ MRP3 ’ MRP 4
with a lot of transceivers may experience a tight reuse (which
Figure 3. Results from a MRP trial where the average reuse was decreased
lead to an increased interference level) but this will be from 15 to 8.2. The test area dense urban environment with 40 cells, all
balanced with a larger interference diversity gain. equipped with four transceivers.
The above example illustrates how MRP can be adjusted to
the transceiver distribution in the network. That is, the fre- performance was more or less the same when going from a
quency plan is adjusted to the network. It should be further frequency reuse of 12 down to 7.5. A different call drop
noticed that MRP do not need to be implemented over the measure is used in this plot, Erlang*Min/Drop, which reflects
entire network. MRP can just be applied in the area where how many accumulated minutes a call can be maintained
high capacity is needed. It is also possible to use different before it is dropped. Furthermore, all other performance
MRP configurations in different locations of the network. indicators, such as e.g. handover, paging and call setup
performance, showed no degradation when the frequency plan
v. RESULTS FROM FIELD MEASUREMENTS was tightened.
The MRP method is currently being used in more than a In this case, the potential capacity gain was 100% if
dozen networks. This section presents MRP experience from additional transceivers would be installed as the frequency
two typical live networks. reuse was tightened. In the implementation phase, instead of
Figure 3 shows results from a network where MRP were using 7 transceivedcell which is possible with a 7.5
tested and later implemented. The traffic in the area caused frequency reuse, 6 transceiverdcell were used. The saved
high blocking, around 10-15%, before the trial started. The frequencies were used for implementing microcells in the
test area was a dense urban area and included 40 cells, all area. Thus, unique BCCH frequencies could be used in the
equipped with four transceiverskell. The site-to-site distance microcells, as recommended for MRP networks including
was around 500 meters. microcells [ 11.
The major result is that the dropped call performance (TCH 7.5 reuse is not a lower limit for the reuse. Additional trials
drop) was unchanged when the average frequency reuse was have shown that by applying power control and DTX in the
decreased from 15 to 8.2. A low TCH drop value reflects a downlink, the average reuse can be decreased below 7. Note
good network performance and a rate of 2% is normally that the two previously shown examples were not using
acceptable. The handover performance was the same for all downlink power control or DTX. Additional capacity can
the different MRP plans. In addition, call setup, location most likely be extracted from the macrocells in these trial
updating and paging performance were not changed either areas by tightening the reuse even further.
over the course of the test. An average reuse of 8.2 was thus
possible. Erlang*Min/Drop 36 cells, 4 transceiverslcell
Reference = 12 I 12 I 12 I 12

1I
The capacity increase that the combination of frequency MRP 1 = 1 2 1 9 1 9 1 9
hopping and MRP provide is different from network to net- MRP 2 = 12 1 8 1 8 I 6
MRP3= 1 2 / 8 / 6 / 6
work. The operator in this case had access to 60 frequencies. MRP4= 1 2 1 8 1 6 1 4

.
With a average reuse of 15, four transceivers per cell was pos-
sible. This means that around 21 Erlang per cell was feasible
according to the Erlang B table with 2% blocking. With an
60

40
I I
I
I

2 o t R e u s e 12 Reuse-9.7 Reuse8.5 Reuse8 Reuse7.5

8.2 reuse, it was possible to have 7 transceivers per cell. This
figure results in 43 Erlang per cell, i.e. the capacity was dou-
bled compared to the 15 reuse configuration. Reference MRP 1 MRPZ MRP 3 MRP 4
Figure 4 includes result from MRP tests in another dense
urban area. In this case, the trial area consisted of 36 cells, all
Figure 4. Results from a second MRP trial where the average reuse was
with four transceivers. This area had a site-to-site distance of changed from 15 to 7.5.In this case, test area located in dense urban environ-
400-500 meters. Again, the results showed that the call drop ment consisted of 36 cells, each with four transceivers.

0 1998 IEEE
0-7803-4320-4/98/$5.00 2007 VTC ‘98
 The experience from live networks has revealed that the
frequency reuse limit mainly depends on three factors:
the number of available frequencies (with a large amount
of frequency spectrum, a tighter reuse can be applied
since more frequencies can be included in the hopping
sequence which increases the diversity gain);
the coverage performance (it is easier to perform the fre-
quency planning when the coverage is good); and
the site-to-site distance (it is more difficult to create a
good frequency plan when the cells are located close to
each other since each cell has many potential neigh-
bours).
In the example in Figure 3, MRP was used for boosting the
macrocell capacity only. Instead of using all frequencies in the
macrocells, some frequencies could be reserved for other cells,
e.g. microcells or indoor cells, as was the case in the second
example (Figure 4). The traffic capacity of the existing
macrocells is in this scenario not doubled, but the new cells
(microcellshndoor cells) improve the capacity even more.
Using reserved frequencies will also result in easier
implementation of the new cells, since no co-channel
interference will exist between the macrocells and the new
microcellshndoor cells.
VI. 1/3 REUSE WITH FRACTIONAL
LOADING
Another way of increasing the network capacity by applying
tight frequency reuse and frequency hopping is to use 113
reuse on the TCH frequencies 14-51 (the BCCH frequencies
must still use at least a 12 reuse). However, 1/3 reuse is just a
special case of MRP where TCH frequencies all have equal
reuse; an equivalent MRP configuration is e.g. 12/3/3/3/3.
There are some advantages and drawbacks with 1/3 reuse
compared to the MRP configurations described earlier in this
paper. One advantage with 1/3 is an extensive diversity due to
the large number of frequencies in the hopping sequence.
Furthermore, reduced frequency planning work may be
required for 1/3 reuse compared to MRP since only one TCH
frequency plan is required, assuming that no new cells are
added. More transceivers can also be added in existing cells
without additional frequency planning.
However, it might also be very difficult to produce a 1/3
frequency plan in an irregular network with off-grid cells. The
quality for a problem cell can often not be improved by
changing the frequency plan. In most cases, the problem is due
to that the cell experiences interference from a large number
of other cells. Hence, finding a dominant carrier signal in this
area may be a problem. Instead, a new site may have to be
added, since it is impossible to solve the problem by changing
one or several frequencies. In the MRP case, it is possible to
change the frequency plan in a problem cell, since a sparser
frequency reuse is applied.
A further disadvantage with 1/3 reuse is that the cells cannot
0-7803-4320-4/98/%5.000 1998 IEEE
be loaded with traffic up to 100%. Full traffic load would
result in insufficient user quality. Hence, fractional loading is
required, i.e. the traffic load must be limited in order to
maintain the quality. The number of frequencies that are used
in a cell is larger than the number of simultaneously available
traffic resources. Fractional loading can be achieved either by
using hardware or software control [8-91.
MRP with slightly sparser reuse than 1/3 allow the cells to be
fully loaded, and therefore sparser reuse factors are common
in current MRP networks.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Implementing tight frequency reuse by using Multiple Reuse
Patterns (MRP) with frequency hopping in GSM has been
proven to be an efficient way to increase the radio network
capacity with minimal costs for a network operator. Field tests
from live networks show that it is possible to implement an
average frequency reuse of 7.5 without jeopardizing the
network quality. Features like power control and DTX were
not used in the trials. For comparison reasons, a non-hopping
GSM network can at its best cope with approximately a 12
reuse in average.
With MRP, it is possible to adjust the tightness of the
frequency plan according to the transceiver distribution. At the
same time, MRP provides a robust frequency plan which is
very insensitive to changes, e.g. addition of transceivers.
REFERENCES
M. Madfors et al., “High Capacity with Limited Spectrum in Cellular
Systems“, in IEEE Communications Magazine, Aug., 1997.
J. Dahlin, “Ericsson’s Multiple Reuse Pattem For DCS 1800”, in
Mobile Communications International, Nov., 1996.
A. Kolonits, “Evaluating the Potential of Multiple Re-Use Patterns for
Optimizing Existing Network Capacity”, IIR Maximizing Capacity
Workshop,London, June, 1997.
H. Olofsson et al., “Interference Diversity as Means for Increased
Capacity in G S M , in Proceedings of 1st EPMCC, Italy, 1995, pp. 97-
102.
J. Wigard et al., “Capacity of a GSM Network with Fractional Loading
and Random Frequency Hopping”, in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE
PIMRC, 1996, pp. 723-727.
H. Olofsson, S. Magnusson, M. Almgren, “A Concept for Dynamic
Neighbor Cell List Planning in a Cellular System”, in Proceedings of
the 7th IEEE PIMRC, 1996, pp. 138-142.
F. Kronestedt and M. Frodigh, “Frequency Planning Strategies for
Frequency Hopping GSM’, in Proceedings of the 47th IEEE VTC,
1997, pp. 1862-1866.
M. Naghshineh and M Schwartz, “Distributed Call Admission Control
In MobilelWireless Networks”, in Proceedings of the 6th IEEE PIMRC,
1995, pp 289-293
P. Beming and M. Frodigh, “Admission Control in Frequency Hopping
GSM Systems”, in Proceedings of 47th IEEE VTC, 1997, pp. 1282-
1286.
2008 VTC ‘98