Channel Assignment Schemes

Contributed by John S. Davis, II, U.C. Berkeley

One main issue in cellular system design reduces to one of economics.

Essentially we have a limited resource transmission spectrum, that must be
shared by several users. Unlike wired communications which benefits from
isolation provided by cables, wireless users within close proximity of one
another can cause significant interference to one another. To address this issue,
the concept of cellular communications was introduced around in 1968 by
researchers at AT&T Bell Labs. The basic concept being that a given
geography is divided into polygons called cells.

Each cell is allocated a portion of the total frequency spectrum. As users move
into a given cell, they are then permitted to utilize the channel allocated to that
cell. The virtue of the cellular system is that different cells can use the same
channel given that the cells are separated by a minimum distance according to
the systempropagation characteristics; otherwise, intercellular or cochannel
interference occurs. The minimum distance necessary to reduce cochannel
interference is called the reuse distance. The reuse distance is defined as the
ratio of the distance, D, between cells that can use the same channel without
causing interference and the cell radius, R. Note that R is the distance from the
center of a cell to the outermost point of the cell in cases when the cells are not
circular.

Channel Allocation
Channel allocation deals with the allocation of channels to cells in a cellular
network. Once the channels are allocated, cells may then allow users within the
cell to communicate via the available channels. Channels in a wireless
communication system typically consist of time slots, frequency
bands and/or CDMA pseudo noise sequences, but in an abstract sense, they can
represent any generic transmission resource. There are three major categories
for assigning these channels to cells (or base-stations). They are

• Fixed Channel Allocation,

• Dynamic Channel Allocation and
• Hybrid Channel Allocation which is a combination of the first two
methods.
Fixed Channel Allocation

Fixed Channel Allocation (FCA) systems allocate specific channels to specific

cells. This allocation is static and can not be changed. For efficient operation,
FCA systems typically allocate channels in a manner that maximizes frequency
reuse. Thus, in a FCA system, the distance between cells using the same
channel is the minimum reuse distance for that system. The problem with FCA
systems is quite simple and occurs whenever the offered traffic to a network of
base stations is not uniform. Consider a case in which two adjacent cells are
allocated N channels each. There clearly can be situations in which one cell has
a need for N+kchannels while the adjacent cell only requires N-m channels (for
positive integers k and m). In such a case, k users in the first cell would be
blocked from making calls while m channels in the second cell would go
unused. Clearly in this situation of non-uniform spatial offered traffic, the
available channels are not being used efficiently. FCA has been implemented
on a widespread level to date.

Dynamic Channel Allocation

Dynamic Channel Allocation (DCA) attempts to alleviate the problem

mentioned for FCA systems when offered traffic is non-uniform. In DCA
systems, no set relationship exists between channels and cells. Instead,
channels are part of a pool of resources. Whenever a channel is needed by a
cell, the channel is allocated under the constraint that frequency reuse
requirements can not be violated. There are two problems that typically occur
with DCA based systems.

• First, DCA methods typically have a degree of randomness associated

with them and this leads to the fact that frequency reuse is often not
maximized unlike the case for FCA systems in which cells using the
same channel are separated by the minimum reuse distance.
• Secondly, DCA methods often involve complex algorithms for deciding
which available channel is most efficient. These algorithms can be very
 computationally intensive and may require large computing resources in
order to be real-time.

Hybrid Channel Allocation Schemes

The third category of channel allocation methods includes all systems that are
hybrids of fixed and dynamic channel allocation systems. Several methods
have been presented that fall within this category and in addition, a great deal
of comparison has been made with corresponding simulations and analyses
[Cox, Elnoubi, Jiang, Katzela, Yue, Zhang]. We will present several of the
more developed hybrid methods below.

Channel Borrowing is one of the most straightforward hybrid allocation

schemes. Here, channels are assigned to cells just as in fixed allocation
schemes. If a cell needs a channel in excess of the channels previously assigned
to it, that cell may borrow a channel from one of its neighboring cells given that
a channel is available and use of this channel won't violate frequency reuse
requirements. Note that since every channel has a predetermined relationship
with a specific cell, channel borrowing (without the extensions mentioned
below) is often categorized as a subclass of fixed allocation schemes. The
major problem with channel borrowing is that when a cell borrows a channel
from a neighboring cell, other nearby cells are prohibited from using the
borrowed channel because of co-channel interference. This can lead to
increased call blocking over time. To reduce this call blocking penalty,
algorithms are necessary to ensure that the channels are borrowed from the
most available neighboring cells; i.e., the neighboring cells with the most
unassigned channels.

Two extensions of the channel borrowing approach are Borrowing with

Channel Ordering (BCO) and Borrowing with Directional Channel
Locking (BDCL).

• Borrowing with Channel Locking was designed as an improvement over

the simpler Channel Borrowing approach as described above [Elnoubi].
BCO systems have two distinctive characteristics [Elnoubi]:
1. The ratio of fixed to dynamic channels varies with traffic load.
2. Nominal channels are ordered such that the first nominal channel
of a cell has the highest priority of being applied to a call within
the cell.

The last nominal channel is most likely to be borrowed by neighboring

channels. Once a channel is borrowed, that channel is locked in the co-
 channel cells within the reuse distance of the cell in question. To be
"locked" means that a channel can not be used or borrowed. Zhang and
Yum [Zhang] presented the BDCL scheme as an improvement over the
BCO method. From a frequency reuse standpoint, in a BCO system, a
channel may be borrowed only if it is free in the neighboring cochannel
cells. This criteria is often too strict.

• In Borrowing with Directional Channel Locking, borrowed channels are

only locked in nearby cells that are affected by the borrowing. This
differs from the BCO scheme in which a borrowed channel is locked in
every cell within the reuse distance. The benefit of BDCL is that more
channels are available in the presence of borrowing and subsequent call
blocking is reduced. A disadvantage of BDCL is that the statement
"borrowed channels are only locked in nearby cells that are affected by
the borrowing" requires a clear understanding of the term "affected."
This may require microscopic analysis of the area in which the cellular
system will be located. Ideally, a system can be general enough that
detailed analysis of specific propagation measurements is not necessary
for implementation.

A Java animation of DBCL is available. This animation page

also gives you the opportunity to try your luck as a network
operator.

A natural extension of channel borrowing is to set aside a portion of the

channels in a system as dynamic channels with the remaining (nominal)
channels being fixed to specified cells. If a cell requires an extra channel,
instead of borrowing the channel from a neighboring cell, the channel is
borrowed from the common "bank" of dynamic channels. An important
consideration in hybrid systems of this type is the ratio of dynamic channels to
fixed channels. Analysis by Cox and Reudlink [Cox - 1973] showed that given
ten channels per cell, an optimum ratio was 8 fixed channels and 2 dynamic
channels. In general, the optimum ratio depends upon the traffic load [Zhang].
In addition to BDCL, a second channel allocation method was presented by
Yum and Zhang [Zhang]. Referred to as Locally Optimized Dynamic
Assignment Strategy (LODA), this method is best described as a purely
dynamic channel allocation procedure as opposed to a hybrid method. In this
strategy there are no nominal channels; all channels are dynamic. When a given
cell needs to accommodate a call, it chooses from among the bank of available
channels according to some cost criteria. The channel with minimum cost is
assigned. In a general sense, the cost is a measure of the future blocking
probability in the vicinity of the cell given that the candidate channel is
assigned. A more detailed description of the cost function will be addressed
below.

Dynamic Channel Reassignment

Similar to the goals of dynamic channel assignment is the process of Dynamic

Channel Reassignment (DCR). Whereas a DCA scheme allocates a channel to
an initial call or handover, a DCR system switches a cell's channel (that is
currently being used) to another channel which is closer to the optimum
according to frequency reuse or other cost criteria. Thus, for example, a user
communicating with channel n may be switched to channel m during the
middle of her/his call if channel m is a more efficient use of the available
bandwidth from a frequency reuse point of view. Philosophically, DCR is
equivalent to DCA.

Simulation and Comparison of Channel Allocation Schemes

A great deal of work is available comparing various realizations of channel

allocation schemes [Cox, Elnoubi, Jiang, Katzela, Yue, Zhang]. In comparing
performance, typical system metrics include blocking probability of new calls
and blocking probability of handover calls. These metrics are written as
functions of offered traffic (where the traffic may be written in a variety of
forms). It is generally assumed that a blocked new call is preferred over a
blocked hand-off call. The idea being that with a blocked hand-off, users are
forced to terminate communication in the middle of their session. If this
blocking happens at a particularly inopportune time, the results could be
disastrous (e.g., business partners cut off in the middle of a vital negotiation).
In the case of a blocked new call, at least the business negotiation hasn't started
and the involved parties aren't interrupted. Blocking probability is an important
metric throughout the field of queueing theory and in the case
of M/M/1 queues, the Erlang-B formula is often used for analysis of blocking
probability. Because blocked calls can be very disconcerting, systems are
typically designed to have blocking probabilities of no more than 1% or 2%.
This is consistent with the assumption of small offered traffic loads.

Cox and Reudink were the first researchers to present published comparisons of
different channel allocation schemes. Their comparison was based on
simulation of an outdoor vehicular wireless communication system [Cox -
1971, Cox - 1972, Jakes]. The simulation divided a region into a grid of square
cells. The movement of vehicles had a two dimensional normal distribution
with 0 mean and 30 mph standard deviation in each of the two orthogonal
directions. Poisson arrivals were assumed for the rate of calls per vehicle and
call durations were assume to have a truncated normal distribution (truncated
on the left at zero) with a "mean" 90 seconds (true mean of 103.5 seconds).

Cox and Reudink's study considered uniform and non-uniform distributions of

spatial traffic. In the uniform case, all cells had approximately the same call
arrival rate while in the non-uniform case, some cells had a significantly higher
call arrival rate. With both the uniform and non-uniform spatial distributions,
fixed channel allocation schemes were optimally matched so that the cells with
the greatest numbers of calls had the greatest number of channels to deal with
those calls. In both cases of uniform and non-uniform traffic, results showed
that for low blocking probabilities, dynamic channel allocation schemes could
handle more calls than fixed channel allocation schemes. More specifically, in
the case of uniform traffic, the DCA approach outperformed the FCA approach
when the blocking probability was lower than 10%. At a blocking probability
of 1%, the DCA approach could handle over 10% more calls than the FCA
approach. In the case of non-uniform traffic, the DCA approach outperformed
FCA for blocking rates up to 60%. At a blocking rate of 1%, DCA could handle
almost 70% more calls per cell than FCA. Cox and Reudink performed another
comparison involving dynamic channel reassignment in [Cox - 1973]. In this
hybrid procedure, the total number of available channels is broken into two
groups: fixed and dynamic channels. When a cell requires a channel, it first
searches for an available fixed channel that is preassigned to the cell. If none of
the fixed channels are available, a dynamic channel is searched for from the
common bank of dynamic channels. If this search is in vain, the call is blocked.
When users who were assigned fixed channels end their calls, these freed fixed
channels are then assigned to users in the same cell who are currently using
dynamic channels. This frees the dynamic channel for future use and ensures
that a large number of channels being used are the optimally-spaced, fixed
channels. Results from Cox and Reudink's study of dynamic channel
reassignment showed that channel use was increased by over 60% compared to
fixed channel allocation for a blocking rate of 1%. This result corresponds to
uniform offered traffic.

Zhang and Yum compared four channel assignment strategies [Zhang and
Yum];

• Fixed Channel Assignment (FCA),

 • Borrowing with Channel Ordering (BCO),
• Borrowing with Directional Channel Locking (BDCL) and
• Locally Optimized Dynamic Assignment (LODA).

With respect to uniform offered traffic, their results showed that BDCL had the
lowest blocking probability followed by BCO, LODA and FCA. With non-
uniform offered traffic, the relative performance of the four methods was the
same with the exception that in this case, LODA performed better than BCO. It
makes sense that the ordering for BDCL, BCO and FCA was as found. Indeed,
BDCL was specifically designed as an improvement over BCO and BCO was
designed as an improvement over FCA [Zhang, Elnoubi]. The fact that the
performance of LODA varies under uniform versus non-uniform traffic is
rather interesting however. The reason behind this phenomenon is that LODA
provides optimal channel allocation only in local regions. Given non-uniform
traffic which consists of dense regions in certain local areas, LODA will
accommodate these regions of high traffic offering. However, in a global sense,
the LODA algorithm will not necessarily provide the optimal allocation. With
uniform offered traffic, LODA does not have any regions with peak traffic to
optimize; i.e., no local regions within which the benefits of LODA can be
realized. Furthermore, with respect to the entire region, the optimization is
generally not optimal in a global sense. The result is that with uniform traffic,
LODA does not have any advantage to offer over BCO. From the previous
discussion we see that one general result of all of the comparisons is that
dynamic channel allocation outperforms fixed channel allocation for low
blocking rates (below 10% in most cases). Blocking rates above 1% or 2% are
generally not tolerated. This is generally an accepted guideline throughout the
telecommunications industry and we will adhere to this design constraint as
well.

Common Principles of Channel Allocation Schemes

The large array of possible channel allocation systems can become

cumbersome. However, all channel allocation methods operate under simple,
common principles. Throughout this report we have touched on three points
which an efficient channel allocation scheme should address:

1. Channel allocation schemes must not violate minimum frequency reuse

conditions.
2. Channel allocation schemes should adapt to changing traffic conditions.
3. Channel allocation schemes should approach (from above) the minimum
frequency reuse constraints so as to efficiently utilize available
transmission resources.
As the first requirement suggests, all channel allocation schemes adhere to
condition 1. From a frequency reuse standpoint, a fixed channel allocation
system distributes frequency (or other transmission) resources to the cells in an
optimum manner; i.e., common channels are separated by the minimum
frequency reuse distance. Thus, a fixed channel allocation scheme perfectly
satisfies condition 3 as well. However, a fixed allocation scheme does not
satisfy condition 2.

Philosophically, any dynamic channel allocation scheme will meet the

requirements of all of the above three conditions to some degree. At the system
architecture level dynamic channel allocation schemes may differ widely, but
fundamentally, their only difference is in the degree to which they satisfy
condition 3. Different DCA schemes attempt to satisfy condition 3 (in addition
to conditions 1 and 2) by approaching the minimum frequency reuse constraint
arbitrarily closely, and by doing so in as short a time period as possible. The
above three conditions point to the fact that design of dynamic channel
allocation schemes falls within the general class of optimization problems.
Furthermore, since we can always assume that the available number of base
stations is finite and the transmission resources will always be countable (due
to FCC requirements if nothing else) then our problem can be reduced to the
subclass of combinatorial optimization problems. As with all combinatorial
optimization problems, there will exist a solution space and a cost function
[Aarts & Korst]. A typical element of the solution space could be a particular
layout of frequency channels among the base-stations. The cost function can be
loosely characterized as the difference between the frequency reuse of an
arbitrary solution and the frequency reuse of the optimized solution. The error
associated with a non-optimized cost is realized as a future increased blocking
probability or an otherwise unwarranted lack of channel availability. It is
typically assumed that the solution to the wireless dynamic channel allocation
problem is NP-complete [Yue, Cox - 1971]. The definition of np-completeness
follows from the conjecture made in the late 1960's that there exists a class of
combinatorial optimization problems of such inherent complexity that any
algorithm, solving each instance of such a problem to optimality, requires a
computational effort that grows superpolynomially with the size of the
problem. In the case of dynamic channel allocation, the complexity is generally
attributed to the required inclusion of cochannel interference in any analysis of
dynamic channel allocation schemes [Yue]. The author is aware of one
published article to date offering an analytical method (approximate) for
calculating the performance of dynamic channel allocation [see Yue]. Recently,
several approximation techniques have been proposed as methods for solving
condition 3 of the dynamic c