1

Co-Channel Interference in Digital Cellular TDMA

Networks

Savo G. Glisic and Pekka Pirinen

Telecommunication Laboratory, University of Oulu

Abstract
This Chapter focuses on co-channel interference in cellular TDMA networks. Both the
generation of co-channel interference and the appropriate interference suppression
methods are considered. Contributions of frequency reuse, spatial filtering and time
domain interference cancellation on the residual interference are described. Effects of
variable propagation parameters (especially lognormal shadowing), cluster sizes and
interference parameters to the outage probability are illustrated. Furthermore, the
spectrum efficiency examples are shown in the form of the Erlang capacity at variable
cluster sizes and quality-of-service criteria.

Key words - frequency reuse, outage probability, lognormal shadowing, spectrum
efficiency, spatial filtering, interference cancellation

1. Introduction

In cellular TDMA networks co-channel interference is generated in surrounding cells
using the same carrier frequency. For this reason a careful planning of sectors and
surrounding layers allowed to reuse the same frequency is required. In addition to
sectorization (3 sectors per cell), narrower antenna lobes can be used to further reduce the
angular sectors of the receiving antennas so that the interference can be spatially filtered.
2
Usually none of these measures are efficient enough so that an additional action should
be taken to deal with the interference by using different cancellation techniques either in
time, frequency or spatial domain. Having this in mind we can represent the residual
interference signal power as
) , , , ( ) 1 )( 1 )( 1 (
) , , , ( ) 1 )( 1 )( 1 )( 1 ( ) , , , (
t f r I C C C
t f r I C C C C t f r I
t r
t p f r
=
=

(1)
where C
f
, C
p
, C

and C
t
are frequency, propagation (distance + shadowing + fading),
angle (space), and time isolation coefficients, respectively. ) , , , ( t f r I is the interference
signal power without any suppression techniques. For perfect isolation at least one of
these coefficients is equal to one and the interference has no influence on the received
signal. In practice, it is rather difficult and economically impractical to reach the point
where C
i
= 1. Instead, the product (1 - C
r
)(1 - C

)(1 - C
t
) depending on these coefficients
should be kept as low as possible with an affordable effort measured by cost, power
consumption and physical size of the hardware required for the solution.
Coefficient C
f
is related to frequency assignment in the cellular network while
coefficient C
p
is related to the propagation conditions. C
f
= 1 if the interfering signal
frequency is different from the frequency of the useful signal. C
p
= 1 if, due to
propagation losses, the interfering signal can not reach the site of the useful reference
signal. In general, the same frequency can be used in two cells only if the propagation
losses between the two cells are high enough so that the interfering signals are attenuated
to the acceptable level. This will be characterized by the frequency reuse coefficient C
r

defined as (1 - C
r
) = (1 - C
f
)(1 - C
p
) and it will be discussed in Section 2. Coefficient C

is related to antenna beamforming and possibilities of reducing the interference level by
3
spatial filtering that is discussed in Section 3. Finally, interference cancellation and
equalization in time domain, which is included in coefficient C
t
, will be discussed in
Section 4.

2. Network planning and frequency reuse

Depending on the cell size, three different categories of cellular networks can be
distinguished. Macrocells are the largest with a cell radius of 1 km up to 35 km or more.
Base station antennas are located well above the rooftop level. The commonly used
macrocellular modeling structure assumes a uniform grid of hexagonal cells [1]. Part of
the hexagonal cellular layout is illustrated in Fig. 1. In Fig. 1a) frequencies are reused in
each cluster of seven cells and in Fig. 1b) the cluster size is three.
The hexagonal grid is optimal in the sense that there is no overlap between cells. In
addition, hexagons closely approximate circles. This kind of modeling is highly
theoretical since effective cell coverage areas vary considerably depending on factors
such as terrain, buildings, weather and time. Cellular models can be further classified
according to base station antenna directivity. In the case of omnidirectional antennas,
base stations can be located in the cell centres as illustrated in Fig. 2a). When directional
antennas are used cells can be divided into wide-beam sectors as shown in Fig. 2b).
Directional antenna patterns can also be modeled by corner-illuminated base stations with
three narrow antenna lobes per base station. One advantage of this approach is lower cost.
Fewer base stations are required over a certain geographical area than with direct
sectorization. Corner- illuminated cells or the so-called three leaf clover structure is
illustrated in Fig. 2c).
4
Microcells are smaller than macrocells with a typical cell radius from 20 m up to 300
m. In this scenario base station antennas are usually below the mean rooftop level. In
urban areas microcells are often characterized as a Manhattan type of grid, where the base
stations are in the crossings of linear streets as shown in Fig.1c). Picocells or indoor cells
cover usually indoor areas (rooms, halls) with typical cell radius of 5 - 30 m. These
scenarios are not covered in this Chapter.
Frequency reuse is an essential element in cellular networks. It means that the same
frequencies are reused in the system within a certain distance depending on the reuse
factor. This reuse factor can be represented as a cluster size, which includes the group of
cells where all different available channels are used. Regular cluster sizes K [1] can be
calculated according to
2 2
j ij i K + + = (2)
where i and j are non-negative integers. Equation (2) leads to balanced cluster sizes K =
1, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, If D is defined as the distance between the closest co-channel centers
and R is the cell radius (see Fig.1a)) the frequency reuse factor D/R and the cluster size K
are related as [1]
( )
2 / 1
3 / K R D = . (3)
In order to increase network capacity the cluster size has to be reduced. The more
aggressive reuse (smaller the cluster size) the higher the level of co-channel interference
that will be generated and vice versa. For these reasons the frequency reuse has been
studied extensively in the literature [1-4]. The problem becomes even more challenging if
macrocells and microcells are overlaid [5].

5
A. Co-channel interference distributions

From the previous discussion one can see that no matter what cluster size is chosen a
certain level of co-channel interference (CCI) can not be avoided. For the analysis of co-
channel interference statistics, the CCI distribution function is required. Co-channel
interference can be seen as a superposition of distance-dependent attenuation (path loss),
short-term fluctuations and long-term variations. The long-term or large-scale signal
variation (shadowing, slow fading) can be characterized by the lognormal distribution.
The short-term signal variation (fast fading), on the other hand, may fit to some other
distributions like Rayleigh, Rice or Nakagami. An overview on fading distributions
related to CCI can be found in [6]. In the sequel, the lognormal shadowing is assumed.
The total interference power is often accumulated from several co-channel signals.
Unfortunately, there is no known closed form expression for the distribution of the sum
of lognormally distributed random variables. However, several approximations have been
derived. A common feature for all of these approximations is that they estimate the sum
of lognormal random variables by another lognormally distributed random variable [7].
This can be represented as
z
i
n
i
y
e L e L
i
= =

=1
(4)
where y
i
's are Gaussian random variables. In the Fenton-Wilkinson (FW) approximation
[7-10], the mean
z
m and the standard deviation
z
of z are derived by matching the first
two moments of the both sides of (4). If the first moment of ) ... (
2 1 n
L L L + + + is
denoted by u
1
and the second by u
2
, the following expression is obtained after moment
matching [9]
6
2 1
ln
2
1
ln 2 u u m
z
= (5)
1 2
2
ln 2 ln u u
z
= . (6)
The Fenton-Wilkinson approach is applicable when the standard deviations of the
lognormal components are lower than 4 dB for uncorrelated signal components [11]. For
higher deviation values, this approximation tends to underestimate the mean and
overestimate the variance of the sum distribution. When there is correlation between the
components, the FW approximation is quite accurate for higher deviation values (up to 12
dB) too [9].
The Schwartz-Yeh (SY) method [7, 9-11] is also based on the assumption that the
power sum is lognormally distributed. The SY approximation is different in the use of the
exact expressions for the first two moments of the sum of two lognormal random
variables. Nesting and recursion techniques are then used to extend the approach to a
larger number of cumulative random variables. Originally, the SY method was developed
for the sum of independent lognormal random variables. However, it has been extended
to the case of correlated lognormal random variables with some modifications [9].
The Schwartz-Yeh approximation can be best applied when the range of the standard
deviation is 4 12 dB. If all components in the summation are identically distributed,
this approximation tends to underestimate the variance in the resulting signal distribution.
The error increases as a function of the number of added components.
In addition to the Fenton-Wilkinson and Schwartz-Yeh approaches there are some
other approximations for the sum of lognormal components. For example Farleys
approximation is a strict lower bound for the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of a
sum of independent lognormal random variables [7]. For further studies on lognormal
7
sum approximations the reader is referred to the additional reading listed at the end of the
Chapter.
B. Co-channel interference and outage probabilities

By following [12, 10] the co-channel interference probability is defined as
( ) ( ) ( )

=
n
n c c
n P n I P I P (7)
where ( ) n P
n
is the probability of n co-channel interferers being active and ( ) n I P
c
is the
corresponding conditional CCI probability.
The conditional CCI probability can be defined as
( )
|
.
|

\
|
< =
I
C
P n I P
c
(8)
where C is the instantaneous power of the desired signal (carrier), I is the joint
interference power from n active co-channel users and is the specified co-channel
interference protection ratio.
( ) n P
n
can be represented by the binomial distribution in terms of carried traffic per
channel
n N
c
n
c n
a a
n
N
n P

|
|
.
|

\
|
= ) 1 ( ) ( (9)
where N is the number of effective co-channel interferers (N = 6 if only the closest ring
co-channel interferers are taken into account) and
t c
m m a
1
= is carried traffic per
channel [Erlang/channel]. Parameters m
1
and m
t
are discussed in more detail in the next
subsection. It is assumed that the number of traffic channels is equal for all cells.
The outage probability
out
P for the desired user can be defined as the probability of
failing to achieve a bit error probability
e
P lower than a fixed threshold
0 e
P , namely
8
( )
0 e e out
P P P P > = . (10)
If only the effects of co-channel interference are taken into account, the received carrier-
to-interference ratio C/I is the key parameter. If the minimum required carrier-to-
interference ratio is and it corresponds to the bit error probability
0 e e
P P = , the outage
probability is the same as the conditional CCI probability defined by (8).
Following the procedure in [9], the outage probability of the lognormally distributed
signals can be represented in the form
( )
( )
|
|
|
.
|

\
|
+
+
= =
2 / 1
2 2
2
ln ln
1
n n
n
z d yz z d
z d
c out
r
m
Q n I P P (11)
where
d
is the area mean desired signal power,
n
z
m is the area mean joint interference
power of n interferers,
d
is the standard deviation of the desired signal,
n
z
is the
standard deviation of the joint interference from n interferers and
yz
r is the correlation
coefficient of the desired signal and joint interference. The initial mean single interferer
power in the worst geometrical case can be approximated by
( ) ( )
(

=

1 3 ln
2 / 1
1
K m
w
z
. (12)
In the average geometrical case, the exact interferer power is of the form
( ) [ ]
2
3 ln
1

= K m
a
z
. (13)
The desired signal area mean power
d
can be represented as
( )

= R r
d
. (14)
In equations (12) - (14), denotes the path loss exponent, K is the cluster size and r/R
(0, 1] is the normalized distance between the desired mobile station and the base station.
9
The combined effect of frequency allocation and propagation conditions, characterized
implicitly by the parameter (1 - C
r
), is illustrated in Fig. 3. The figure shows the outage
probability defined by (11) with the maximum number of first tier interferers as a
function of cluster size (worst and average case geometries) with variable path loss
exponents . The standard deviation of each lognormal component is 6 dB. All signals
are uncorrelated. The Fenton-Wilkinson method has been used for the mean and variance
approximations.
It can be noted that in free-space propagation conditions ( = 2), co-channel
interference can be very severe even for large cluster sizes. On the other hand, in dense
urban areas, where the path loss attenuation slope is steep, small cluster sizes can be
supported. That allows larger system capacity for highly populated cities where it is the
most desirable. The outage probability is very sensitive to the changes in the propagation
environment.
Fig. 4 shows the strong impact of normalized mobile distance (14) on conditioned full
load CCI probability (outage probability) in the presence of lognormal shadowing ( = 6
dB, FW approximation). It can be seen that without power control, outage events are
more likely near the cell edges. Larger cluster sizes guarantee lower outage probabilities.
The gap between worst and average case interference geometries diminishes as the
cluster size increases.
C. Spectrum efficiency

Spectrum efficiency describes how effectively a system can utilize limited frequency
resources. In general, spectrum efficiency can be seen as a ratio between benefit (number
of traffic channels, data rate) and cost (bandwidth) [13]. Spectrum efficiency is usually
10
measured in units related to system capacity. Problems may arise if system capacities of
different systems have been calculated with different assumptions or if they are
represented in different units. A fair comparison of different systems is often
cumbersome. In reference [13], the effect of some working assumptions on spectrum
efficiency, and ways to allow a fair comparison, are discussed.
The system capacity of a voice-oriented network is related to the grade-of-service by
the Erlang-B formula
) , (
!
!
1
0
1
1
m m
n m
m m
P
t
m
n
m
t
m
B
t
t
t
= =

=
(15)
where
B
P is blocking probability,
1
m is the offered traffic (capacity) [Erlang] and
t
m is
the total number of traffic channels. The blocking probability
B
P refers to the probability
that a new call attempt will not find an available channel in a trunk of channels and is
dropped. Thus, there is no queueing in the system. The Erlang formula was originally
developed for wired telephone traffic. It is not strictly applicable to cellular systems,
because it does not take into account the handover traffic. An additional assumption of
this model is that the total offered traffic is constant, which is not valid in the cell where
the traffic is time varying due to moving subscribers. Despite the limitations of the Erlang
formula, it can be used for relative comparison purposes; however, one must be careful in
interpreting the absolute values.
The spectrum efficiency and capacity evaluation are based on the radio capacity m
t

introduced by W. C. Y. Lee [14]. The radio capacity of the omnicellular TDMA system is
defined as
11
K
M
I
C
M
I
C
B
B N
m
t
s
t
s
c
t s
t
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
2 / 1 2 / 1
3
2
3
2
[frequency channels/cell] (16)
where
t
B is the total allocated spectrum for the system,
c
B is the channel bandwidth,
( )
s
I C is the minimum required carrier-to-interference ratio, M
t
is the total number of
frequency channels multiplied by the number of TDMA slots N
s
and K is the cluster size.
Radio capacity can be represented in different units as presented in [14]. These new
measures can be derived from the general radio capacity definition and they depend on
issues such as service area, call duration, number of calls and total bandwidth. Other
commonly used units for spectrum efficiency are [Erlang/MHz/km
2
] and
[Erlang/cell/MHz].
For the system with parameters given in Table 1 maximum capacity obtained from
(15) is presented in Table 2. By using (15) and (16), Fig. 5 illustrates real Erlang
capacities for TDMA omnicellular uplink with several cluster sizes in a Rayleigh fading
environment. Fig. 6 presents uplink Erlang capacities when both the desired signal and
co-channel interferers are lognormally shadowed with standard deviation = 6 dB.
Curves in Fig. 6 show that the performance is very close to the Rayleigh only case.
For larger cluster sizes, lognormal shadowing only ( = 6 dB) will give more optimistic
results than the pure Rayleigh case. Horizontal parts of the curves indicate that the
maximum capacity limit m
1
, for the particular cluster size, has been reached (hard
capacity limit). Elsewhere, the Erlang capacity is softly limited by the highest tolerated
CCI probability.
12
A slightly different definition of spectrum efficiency, the area spectral efficiency
(ASE), is considered in [15]. It is better suited for variable rate data transmissions, where
the total throughput is of interest. The measure for average area spectral efficiency is the
sum of the maximum average data rates divided by the bandwidth and the unit area for
the system, i.e., [b/s/Hz/m
2
]. The analytical framework provides theoretical limits for area
spectral efficiency versus reuse distance for adaptive data rate cellular systems, where the
rate adaptation depends on fading and interference conditions. Users' random locations,
impact of propagation parameters, cell size, carrier frequency and sectorization both in
macrocells and microcells are taken into account. Furthermore, the loading in the cells is
varied. Best and worst case analytical results are verified via average case Monte Carlo
simulations.
Results based on the worst case interference geometry show that the optimal reuse
distance is close to four. The area efficiency decreases as an exponential of a fourth-order
polynomial relative to the cell size. Shadowing and fading reduce the absolute ASE, but
do not affect the relative behavior as the function of reuse distance. Moreover, it is noted
that the fading parameters of the desired user have stronger contribution on the ASE than
the fading parameters of the interferers [15].

3. Spatial filtering

Spatial domain processing included in the term (1 - C

) can be used to combat co-channel

interference. At least at the base station there is a possibility to steer radiation/reception to
the desired directions. Firstly, spatially directed transmission can enhance signal coverage
13
and quality. Secondly, interference coming outside from the antenna main lobe is
suppressed significantly in the reception.
A. Sectorization

One conventional way to improve cellular system capacity is cell splitting, i.e., sub-
dividing the coverage area of one base station to be covered by several base stations
(smaller cells) [1]. Another simple and widely applied technique to reduce interference
spatially is to divide cells into sectors, e.g., three 120 sectors. These sectors are covered
by one or several directional antenna elements. Effects of sectorization to spectrum
efficiency are studied in [16]. The conclusion in [16] is that sectorization reduces co-
channel interference and improves signal-to-noise ratio of the desired link at the given
cluster size. However, at the same time the trunking efficiency is decreased. Due to the
improved link quality a tighter frequency reuse satisfies the performance criterion in
comparison to the omnicellular case. Therefore, the net effect of sectorization is positive
at least for large cells and high traffic densities.
B. Adaptive antennas

By using M-element antenna arrays at the base station the spatial filtering effect can be
further improved. The multiple beam adaptive array would not reduce the network
trunking efficiency unlike sectorization and cell splitting [17]. These adaptive or smart
antenna techniques can be divided into switched-beam, phased array and pure adaptive
antenna systems. Advanced adaptive systems are also called spatial division multiple
access (SDMA) systems. Advanced SDMA systems maximize the gain towards the
desired mobile user and minimize the gain towards interfering signals in real time.
According to [18], by applying a four-element adaptive array at the TDMA uplink,
frequencies can be reused in every cell (three-sector system) and sevenfold capacity
14
increase is achieved. Correspondingly, a four-beam antenna leads to reuse of three or four
and doubled capacity at small angular spread.
Some practical examples of the impact of the use of advanced antenna techniques on
the existing cellular standards are described in [19] and [20]. In [19] the reference system
is AMPS and in [20] GSM. The analysis in [19] uses ideal and flat-top beamformers. The
main lobe of the ideal beamformer is flat and there are no sidelobes whereas the flat-top
beamformer has a fixed sidelobe level. The ideal beamformer can be seen as a realization
of the underloaded system, i.e., there are less interferers than there are elements in the
array. The overloaded case is better modeled by the flat-top beamformer because all
interferers cannot be nulled and sidelobe level is increased. Performance results show that
a reuse factor of one is not feasible in AMPS, but reuse factors of four and three can be
achieved with uniform linear arrays (ULA) with five and eight elements, respectively.
Paper [20] concentrates on the design and performance of the frequency hopping GSM
network using conventional beamforming. Most of the results are based on simulated and
measured data of eight-element ULA. The simulated C/I improvement follows closely the
theoretical gain at low azimuth spreads. In urban macrocells the C/I gain is reduced from
the theoretical value 9 dB down to approximately 5.5 - 7.5 dB. The designed direction of
arrival (DoA) algorithm is shown to be very robust to co-channel interference. The
potential capacity enhancement is reported to be threefold in a 1/3 reuse FH-GSM
network for an array size of M = 4 - 6.



15
4. Interference cancellation in time domain

For the purpose of this section, the overall received signal, which is a superposition of N
co-channel components received through M antennas, can be represented in the
simplified case, when all signals are received bit synchronously as
g c h
n h a r
r r r r
n m m n
m n m n
N
n
m
M
*
) ,..., , , (
) , ( ) , (
) ( ) , ( ) (
1
) (
1 ) ( ) 3 ( ) 2 ( ) 1 (
=
+ =
=

r
(17)
where a
(n)
is data of user n, g is the pulse shape and c
(m,n)
is the channel transfer function
between the co-channel signal source n and receiving antenna m. The corresponding
vector representation is
n Ha r + = (18)
where a and n are vectors with components a
(n)
and n
(m)
, respectively, and H is the matrix
with elements h
(n,m)
. In a real situation the received co-channel signals are not bit
synchronous and (18) should be modified to include two additional components
representing the impact of the previous and subsequent bits accordingly, similar to
asynchronous CDMA detectors [21]. Details may be found in [22]. In accordance with
(14) the system capacity can be increased by using more advanced demodulation
techniques that provide the same quality-of-service (QoS) with lower ( )
s
I C . A number
of algorithms have been presented in the literature.
When used for DS-CDMA systems, the objective of multiuser detection (MUD) is
primarily to jointly detect signals that originate from the same cell (intracell interference)
because the most critical interference comes from there. This is quite the opposite of the
16
situation in a TDMA network where the interest is focused on the interference coming
from the adjacent cells.
An optimum detector has been introduced in [23] as a joint demodulator of co-channel
signals. This detector is based on already known solutions for optimum single user
detection with intersymbol interference and Gaussian noise for M-inputs and M-outputs
(MIMO) systems [24, 25] and joint maximum-likelihood sequence estimation (MLSE)
[26]. A similar approach is used for CDMA systems [27]. Practical results for Japanese
PDC system are shown in [28] and for GSM in [29]. The joint MLSE for a hybrid
CDMA/TDMA based on the GSM system is presented in [30].
MLSE type of detectors are too complex and impractical so that a number of blind
detector algorithms are considered. These algorithms do not require knowledge of the
other signal parameters. See the additional reading section for further information about
blind CCI cancellation.
The latest results include co-channel interference suppression with successive
cancellation [31], which is a technique already well established in CDMA systems.
Performance results show that the cancellation succeeds poorly when the signal levels are
comparable. Timing differences can be used for initial signal separation in order to
improve performance. Soft subtraction provides further improvement.
When M signals
) (m
r from (17) are combined by using maximal ratio combining, then
a reliable estimate of the channel coefficients is required. One of the latest references
dealing with this problem is [32].
Recent development in turbo decoding has inspired research in the field of iterative
multiuser detection, macrodiversity combining and decoding for the TDMA cellular
17
uplink [22]. In this approach, as the first step, each base station (BS) in a cluster of co-
channel cells performs soft-output multiuser detection of the desired signal (originating
from its cell) and the interfering signals (originating from other cells in the cluster). So,
the multiuser detector will produce a log-likelihood ratio (LLR) for each mobile in the
cluster. These LLRs for each user are then summed up across the BS cluster, which in
effect produces a diversity combining signal. After that the signal may be deinterleaved
and decoded. If the decoder also produces soft outputs, then this may be reinterleaved
and fed back to the multiuser detector to be used as priori information in the next
iteration. Once again one should be aware that the system places an additional burden on
the backhaul links. Since soft information is now shared among BSs more capacity is
needed on the links between BSs and the base station controller (BSC).

References
[1] V. H. MacDonald, The cellular concept, Bell Syst. Tech. J., 58: 15-41, 1979.
[2] I. Katzela and M. Nagshineh, Channel assignment schemes for cellular mobile
telecommunication systems: A comprehensive survey, IEEE Personal Commun.,
3: 10-31, 1996.
[3] S. W. Halpern, Reuse partitioning in cellular systems, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
32: 322-327, 1983.
[4] P. M. Blair, G. C. Polyzos, and M. Zorzi, Plane cover multiple access: a new
approach to maximizing cellular system capacity, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.,
19: 2131-2141, 2001.
18
[5] R. Coombs and R. Steele, Introducing microcells into macrocellular networks: a
case study, IEEE Trans. Commun., 47: 568-576, 1999.
[6] M. D. Yacoub, Fading distributions and co-channel interference in wireless
systems, IEEE Antennas and Propagation Magazine, 42: 150-159, 2000.
[7] G. L. Stber, Principles of Mobile Communication, Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1996.
[8] A. A. Abu-Dayya and N. C. Beaulieu, Outage probabilities in the presence of
correlated lognormal interferers, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 43: 164-173, 1994.
[9] L. F. Fenton, The sum of log-normal probability distributions in scatter
transmission systems, IRE Trans. Commun., CS-8: 57-67, 1960.
[10] R. Prasad and A. Kegel, Improved assessment of interference limits in cellular
radio performance, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 40: 412-419, 1991.
[11] S. Schwartz and Y. S. Yeh, On the distribution function and moments of power
sums with log-normal components, Bell Syst. Tech. J., 61: 1441-1462, 1982.
[12] R. Muammar and S. C. Gupta, Cochannel interference in high-capacity mobile
radio systems. IEEE Trans. Commun., 30: 1973-1978, 1982.
[13] G. Falciasecca, C. Caini, G. Riva, and M. Frullone, General approach for the
comparison of spectrum efficiency of digital mobile radio systems, European
Trans. Telecommun., 5: 77-83, 1994.
[14] W. C. Y. Lee, Spectrum efficiency in cellular, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 38: 69-
75, 1989.
[15] M.-S. Alouini and A. J. Goldsmith, Area spectral efficiency of cellular mobile
radio systems. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 48: 1047-1066, 1999.
19
[16] G. K. Chan, Effects of sectorization on the spectrum efficiency of cellular radio
systems, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 41: 217-225, 1992.
[17] S. C. Swales, M. A. Beach, D. J. Edwards, and J. P. McGeehan, The performance
enhancement of multibeam adaptive base station antennas for cellular land mobile
radio systems, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 39: 56-67, 1990.
[18] J. H. Winters, Smart antennas for wireless systems, IEEE Personal Commun., 5:
23-27, 1998.
[19] P. Petrus, R. B. Ertel, and J. H. Reed, Capacity enhancement using adaptive arrays
in an AMPS system, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 47: 717-727, 1998.
[20] P. E. Mogensen, P. L. Espensen, P. Zetterberg, K. I. Pedersen, and F. Frederiksen,
Performance of adaptive antennas in FH-GSM using conventional beamforming,
Wireless Personal Commun., 14: 255-274, 2000.
[21] S. Verd, Multiuser Detection. U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.
[22] M. C. Valenti and B. D. Woerner, Iterative multiuser detection, macrodiversity
combining, and decoding for the TDMA cellular uplink. IEEE J. Select. Areas
Commun., 19: 1570-1583, 2001.
[23] W. van Etten, Maximum likelihood receiver for multiple channel transmission
systems, IEEE Trans. Commun., COM-24: 276-283, 1976.
[24] D. Forney, Maximum likelihood sequence estimation of digital sequences in the
presence of intersymbol interference, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, IT-18: 363-
378, 1972.
[25] G. Ungerboeck, Adaptive maximum likelihood receiver for carrier modulated data
transmission systems, IEEE Trans. Commun., COM-22: 624-636, 1974.
20
[26] K. Giridhar, J. J. Shynk, A. Mathur, S. Chari, and R. P. Gooch, Nonlinear
techniques for the joint estimation of cochannel signals, IEEE Trans. Commun.,
COM-45: 473-484, 1997.
[27] S. Verd, Minimum probability of error for asynchronous Gaussian multiple
access channels, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, IT-32: 85-96, 1986.
[28] H. Yoshino, K. Fukawa, and H. Suzuki, Interference canceling equalizer (ICE) for
mobile radio communication, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 46: 849-861, 1997.
[29] S. W. Wales, Technique for cochannel interference suppression in TDMA mobile
radio systems, IEE Proc. Commun., 142: 106-114, 1995.
[30] J. Blanz, A. Klein, M. Na han, and A. Steil, Performance of a cellular hybrid
C/TDMA mobile radio system applying joint detection and coherent receiver
antenna diversity, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., 12: 568-579,1994.
[31] H. Arslan and K. Molnar, Cochannel interference suppression with successive
cancellation in narrow-band systems. IEEE Commun. Lett., 5: 37-39, 2001.
[32] S. J. Grant and J. K Cavers, Multiuser channel estimation for detection of
cochannel signals. IEEE Trans. Commun., 49: 1845-1855, 2001.

Additional reading
Co-channel interference distributions
R. Prasad and A. Kegel, Effects of Rician faded and log-normal shadowed signals on
spectrum efficiency in microcellular radio, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 42: 274-281,
1993.
21
A. A. Abu-Dayya and N. C. Beaulieu, Outage probabilities of cellular mobile radio
systems with multiple Nakagami interferers. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 40: 757-768,
1991.
C.-L. Ho, Calculating the mean and variance of power sums with two log-normal
components. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 44: 756-762, 1995.
P. Cardieri and T. S. Rappaport, Statistical analysis of co-channel interference in wireless
communications systems, Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput., 1: 111-121, 2001.
A. Safak, Statistical analysis of the power sum of multiple correlated log-normal
components, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 42: 58-61, 1993.
D. Schleher, Generalized Gram-Charlier series with application to the sum of lognormal
variates, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, 23: 275-280, 1977.
J. B. Punt and D. Sparreboom, Summing received signal powers with arbitrary
probability density functions on a logarithmic scale, Wireless Personal Commun., 3: 215-
224, 1996.
R. C. French, The effect of fading and shadowing on channel reuse in mobile radio. IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., VT-28: 171-181, 1979.
C.-C. Lee and R. Steele, Signal-to-interference calculations for modern TDMA cellular
communication systems. IEE Proc. Commun., 142: 21-30, 1995.
Outage probability
C. Caini, G. Immovilli, and M. L. Merani, Outage probability in FDMA/TDMA mobile
communication networks, European Trans. Telecommun., 5: 59-68, 1994.
22
C. Caini, G. Immovilli, and M. L. Merani, Outage probability for cellular mobile radio
systems: simplified analytical evaluation and simulation results, Electron. Lett., 28: 669-
671, 1992.
G. Immovilli and M. L. Merani, Simplified evaluation of outage probability for cellular
mobile radio systems, Electron. Lett., 27: 1365-1367, 1991.
K. W. Sowerby and A. G. Williamson, Outage probability calculations for multiple
cochannel interferers in cellular mobile radio systems, Proc. IEE Commun., 135: 208-
215, 1988.
J.-P. M. G. Linnartz, Exact analysis of the outage probability in multiple-user mobile
radio, IEEE Trans. Commun., 40: 20-23, 1992.
K. W. Sowerby and A. G. Williamson, Outage probability calculations for mobile radio
systems with multiple interferers, Electron. Lett., 24: 1073-1075, 1988.
K. W. Sowerby and A. G. Williamson, Outage probabilities in mobile radio systems
suffering cochannel interference, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., 10: 516-522, 1992.
Y.-S. Yeh and S. C. Schwartz, Outage probability in mobile telephone due to multiple
log-normal interferers, IEEE Trans. Commun., 32: 380-388, 1984.
Spectrum efficiency
M. V. Clark, V. Erceg, and L. J. Greenstein, Reuse efficiency in urban microcellular
networks. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 46: 279 - 288, 1997.
Y. Nagata and Y. Akaiwa, Analysis for spectrum efficiency in single cell trunked and
cellular mobile radio, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 35: 100-113, 1987.
R. Prasad and J. C. Arnbak, Comments on Analysis for spectrum efficiency in single
cell trunked and cellular mobile radio, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 37: 220-222, 1988.
23
Spatial filtering
A. J. Paulraj and C. B. Papadias, Space-time processing for wireless communications,
IEEE Signal Processing Mag., 14: 49-83, 1997.
L. C. Godara, Applications of antenna arrays to mobile communications, part I:
performance improvement, feasibility, and system considerations, Proc. IEEE, 85: 1031-
1060, 1997.
J. Litva and T. K.-Y. Lo, Digital beamforming in wireless communications. Boston:
Artech House, 1996.
J. H. Winters, Optimum combining in digital mobile radio with cochannel interference,
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., VT-33: 144-155, 1984.
P. Zetterberg, A comparison of two systems for downlink communication with base
station antenna arrays, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 48: 1356-1370, 1999.
P. Zetterberg and B. Ottersten, The spectrum efficiency of a base station antenna array
system for spatially selective transmission, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 44: 651-660,
1995.
W. S. Au, R. D. Murch, and C. T. Lea, Comparison between the spectral efficiency of
SDMA systems and sectorized systems, Wireless Personal Commun., 16: 15-67, 2001.
L.-C. Wang, K. Chawla, and L. J. Greenstein, Performance studies of narrow-beam
trisector cellular systems, Int. J. Wireless Inform. Networks, 5: 89-102, 1998.
I. Howitt and Y. M. Hawwar, Evaluation of outage probability due to cochannel
interference in fading for a TDMA system with a beamformer, Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol.
Conf., 520-524, 1998.

24
Interference cancellation in time domain
S. J. Grant and J. K. Cavers, Performance enhancement through joint detection of
cochannel signals using diversity arrays. IEEE Trans. Commun., 46: 1038-1049, 1998.
B. C. W. Lo and K. B. Letaief, Adaptive equalization and interference cancellation for
wireless communication systems, IEEE Trans. Commun., 47: 538-545, 1999.
R. Berangi and P. Leung, Indirect cochannel interference cancelling, Wireless Personal
Commun., 19: 37-55, 2001.
K. Fukawa and H. Suzuki, Blind interference canceling equalizer for mobile radio
communications, IEICE Trans. Commun., E77-B: 580-588, 1994.
A. Batra and J. R. Barry, Blind cancellation of co-channel interference, Proc. IEEE
Global Telecom. Conf., 157-162, 1995.
P. A. Ranta, Z.-C. Honkasalo, and J. Tapaninen, TDMA cellular network application of
an interference cancellation technique, Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., 296-300, 1995.
P. A. Ranta, A. Hottinen, and Z.-C. Honkasalo, Co-channel interference cancelling
receiver for TDMA mobile systems, Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., 17-21, 1995.








25



D
R
1
1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1
1 1 1
1 1 1 1
3
3 3
2
3
3
3 3
3
3 3 3
3
2 2
2 2 2 2
2 2 2
2 2
a) Uniform hexagonal cellular layout with reuse 7.
b) Macrocell layout with reuse 3.
c) Street microcell layout with reuse 2.

Fig. 1. Cellular layouts.


26









a) omnicell c) corner-illuminated cells b) sectored cell

Fig. 2. Considered cell types.







27





5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
cluster size
P
(
I
c
|
6
)
Full load cochannel interference probabilities
dashed = worst case
solid = average case
beta = 2
beta = 2.5
beta = 3
beta = 3.5
beta = 4
beta = 4.5

Fig. 3. Effect of path loss exponent variation to the outage probability.





28





0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Full load cochannel interference probabilities
normalized distance from MS to BS
P
(
I
c
|
6
)
dashed = worst case
solid = average case
cluster size = 1
cluster size = 3
cluster size = 4
cluster size = 7
cluster size = 9

Fig. 4. Full load outage probabilities at variable cluster sizes.




29





0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Uplink Erlang capacities in omnicells
P(I
c
)
E
r
l
a
n
g
/
c
e
l
l
cluster size = 21, average case
cluster size = 12, average case
cluster size = 9, average case
cluster size = 7, average case
cluster size = 21, worst case
cluster size = 12, worst case
cluster size = 9, worst case
cluster size = 7, worst case

Fig. 5. Uplink Erlang capacities in omnicells (Rayleigh fading only).




30





0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Uplink Erlang capacities in omnicells
P(I
c
)
E
r
l
a
n
g
/
c
e
l
l
cluster size = 21, average case
cluster size = 12, average case
cluster size = 9, average case
cluster size = 7, average case
cluster size = 21, worst case
cluster size = 12, worst case
cluster size = 9, worst case
cluster size = 7, worst case

Fig. 6. Uplink Erlang capacities in omnicells (lognormal shadowing only, = 6 dB).




31










Table 1. Essential parameters for the capacity evaluation of TDMA system
t
B [MHz]
C
R [kHz]
c
B [kHz]
c t
B B M =
t
M
10 270.8 200 9 dB 50 400























32

















Table 2. Maximum radio capacities of the compared cluster sizes (
B
P = 0.02)
TDMA(K)
t
m [traffic
channels]
1
m [Erlang/cell]
t c
m m a
1
=
TDMA(7) 57 46.8 0.821
TDMA(9) 44 34.7 0.789
TDMA(12) 33 24.6 0.745
TDMA(21) 19 12.3 0.679