◆ Self-Organizing Interference Management

for LTE
Francis Dominique, Christian G. Gerlach, Nandu Gopalakrishnan,
Anil Rao, James P. Seymour, Robert Soni, Aleksandr Stolyar,
Harish Viswanathan, Carl Weaver, and Andreas Weber

In orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA) systems such as

Long Term Evolution (LTE), it is extremely important to reduce interference
between neighboring cells, especially for cell edge users, since the only
interference in LTE is inter-cell interference due to the orthogonality of the
sub-carriers used in the transmissions. This paper describes a few self-
organizing and self-optimizing techniques to manage and reduce this inter-
cell interference. These self-optimizing network (SON)-based techniques are
inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC) and uplink (UL) interference over
thermal (IoT) control. Simulation results are presented showing the
improvements that can be obtained with the use of such techniques in
interference limited operating scenarios. © 2010 Alcatel-Lucent.

Introduction
Fourth generation (4G) cellular systems are cur-
rently being developed and deployed. Long Term
Evolution (LTE) is one such 4G system and is an evo-
lution of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project
(3GPP) Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
(UMTS) standard [2, 7]. These systems target signifi-
cantly higher sector capacities and higher per user
data rates compared to third generation systems. LTE
uses orthogonal frequency division multiple access
(OFDMA) in the downlink (DL) and single carrier fre-
quency division multiple access (SC-FDMA) in the
uplink (UL) as the physical layer radio access tech-
nology. OFDMA has been selected as it provides high
spectral efficiency and robust performance in mobili-
ty and fading scenarios. Additionally, SC-FDMA pro-
vides a low peak-to-average power ratio. In LTE, the
total system bandwidth is divided into a number of
orthogonal sub-carriers. Information is transmitted
by modulating each of these sub-carriers. Further,
time is divided into slots consisting of a number of
OFDM symbols, and users are scheduled to transmit
on an assigned set of sub-carriers in specific time slots.
Scheduling can be either persistent, semi-persistent,
or non-persistent.
LTE is generally specified as a universal fre-
quency reuse (or reuse 1) system to attain high
performance through efficient use of frequency
resources. While there is no intra-cell interference
in LTE since users within a given cell are orthogonal
due to the orthogonality of the sub-carriers, and the
enhanced node B (eNB) scheduler ensures that a
physical resource is allocated to only one user at any
given time, there is interference because of trans-
missions on the same physical resources in a neigh-
boring cell. This inter-cell interference has a major
impact, especially on users at the edge of the cell, as

Bell Labs Technical Journal 15(3), 19–42 (2010) © 2010 Alcatel-Lucent. • DOI: 10.1002/bltj.20455
 Panel 1. Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Terms
3GPP—3rd Generation Partnership Project
4G—Fourth generation
AWGN—Additive white Gaussian noise
BTS—Base transceiver station
CQI—Channel quality indicator
DL—Downlink
DPL—Delta path loss
eNB—Enhanced node B
FPC—Fractional path loss compensation
FSS—Frequency selective scheduling
HARQ—Hybrid automatic repeat request
HII—High interference indicator
IBZ—Interference bearing zone
ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination
IoT—Interference over thermal
IR—Inverted reuse
IRC—Interference rejection combining
ISD—Inter site distance
LTE—Long Term Evolution
MGR—Multi-cell gradient
MGR-UL—MGR for uplink
OFDMA—Orthogonal frequency division
multiple access
their signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR)
is impacted by this interference and in fact may be
the limiting performance factor for cell edge users.
3GPP has defined a number of techniques to
reduce and manage interference. It is possible
to implement these interference management tech-
niques because of the nature of the LTE standard,
which enables the following:
1. Time and frequency scheduling. The high granularity
specified in both the frequency and time domains
enables dynamic scheduling for users in these two
dimensions.
2. Dynamic power allocation. Different sub-carriers can
have different power levels.
3. Frequency hopping.
4. Restricting interference to specific subbands. Since sub-
carriers are orthogonal, interference in a subband
comes only from the same subband in neighbor-
ing cells.
5. Easy implementation of different soft fractional fre-
quency reuse factors. OFDMA’s use of time-slotted
20 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj
OI—Overload indicator
PDRPC—Partial direct reuse with power control
PRB—Physical resource block
PSD—Power spectral density
QoS—Quality of service
RACH—Random access channel
RB—Resource block
RF—Radio frequency
RNC—Radio network controller
RNTP—Relative narrowband transmit power
SA—Sector autonomous
SC-FDMA—Single carrier frequency division
multiple access
SINR—Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio
SON—Self-optimizing network
SRS—Sounding reference signal
UE—User equipment
UL—Uplink
UMTS—Universal Mobile Telecommunications
System
Univr—Universal reuse
VoIP—Voice over Internet Protocol
frequency resource scheduled transmissions
enables flexibility of implementation.
The various interference management techniques
used in LTE can be classified as follows:
1. Interference randomization
• Frequency selective scheduling (FSS)
• Frequency hopping
• Cell planning of sequences for sync channels,
random access channels (RACHs), and pilot
channels
2. Interference control
• Power control
• Interference over thermal (IoT) control
3. Interference cancellation and reduction
• Coding and signal processing at the transmit-
ter or receiver (e.g., interference rejection
combining [IRC] receivers, beamforming) to
suppress interference
4. Interference coordination
• Coordinated intelligent physical resource allo-
cation to reduce interference
 In frequency selective scheduling, each cell sched-
ules users based upon the quality of the propagation
channel of the user equipment (UE) in various fre-
quency subbands, which inherently provides ran-
domization of interference. In LTE in the DL,
narrowband channel quality indicator (CQI) reports
from the UE are used to determine the best frequency
allocation for the UEs. On the UL, the sounding ref-
erence signal (SRS) is used for the same purpose.
Frequency hopping on either the slot boundary, sub-
frame boundary, or across hybrid automatic repeat
request (HARQ) retransmissions provides frequency
diversity and interference randomization.
UL interference control can be achieved through
a combination of power control and IoT control. For
the LTE UL, both closed loop and open loop power
control are defined by 3GPP. The standardized power
control performs a fractional path loss compensation
(FPC), which allows a trade-off between near cell user
throughput and cell edge user throughput. IoT control
for the UL adjusts the UL SINR target based on inter-
ference reports from neighboring cells. These reports
are the overload indicators (OIs) and the high inter-
ference indicators (HIIs), which are indicators that the
eNBs exchange with each other via the standards-
defined X2 interface.
Interference cancellation and reduction rely on
coding and signal processing at the transmitter or
receiver to suppress interference. Examples include
the use of interference rejection combining receivers
at the eNBs as well as beamforming techniques. An
IRC receiver calculates and applies a set of antenna
weights to maximize the SINR of the signal post-
combining, taking into account the direction of arrival
of the desired and interfering signals.
Inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC) relies
on intelligent resource allocation to eliminate inter-
ference [3, 5]. LTE provides the ability to schedule
users over variable portions of the available band-
width, in units of a physical resource block (PRB).
This enables shaping the interference in frequency in
either a static or a dynamic fashion. Neighboring cells
coordinate which portions of the bandwidth they use
in their own cell. Shaping the inter-cell interference
spectrum allows for an improved SINR to be realized
in certain portions of the total bandwidth, which can
then be exploited by the scheduler to improve sector
throughput and cell edge bit rate.
Interference management provides the following
benefits:
1. Improved SINR for cell edge UEs to achieve better
edge rates and cell throughputs.
2. Improved call setup access performance.
3. Improved handoff performance for cell edge UEs
(lower handoff delays and lower handover fail-
ure rate).
4. Increased UE talk time.
In this paper, we focus on two approaches to
manage interference, inter-cell interference coordi-
nation and uplink IoT control, and how they can be
combined with self-organizing and self-optimizing
network (SON) principles to result in automated and
robust techniques to manage inter-cell interference
in LTE networks.
SON networks [3, 6] are being viewed by opera-
tors as a promising area to reduce operational expen-
diture. SON aims to configure and optimize the
network automatically, so that the need for manual
intervention is reduced and the capacity of the net-
work can be increased by having it adapt to operating
conditions automatically as required for optimum per-
formance.
The capabilities provided by a SON fit very nicely
with the operational requirements for ICIC and IoT
control. ICIC requires that neighboring cells exchange
information about the specific portion of the total
bandwidth they are using. SON provides the ability
for self-configuration and self-optimization of which
portion of the total bandwidth a particular cell will
use. In addition, ICIC techniques that adapt dynami-
cally can utilize SON principles to implement the opti-
mization. In a similar fashion, UL IoT control also
requires cells to coordinate among themselves to
maintain a desired optimal IoT level. This can be
implemented using SON principles.
System Model
In this paper, we consider a multi-cell LTE system
with the sub-carriers grouped into resource blocks
(RBs) in each cell. There is no inter-carrier interference
DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 21
among the different RBs in the same cell. However,
simultaneous communications in the same RB in dif-
ferent cells create inter-cell interference. The spec-
trum efficiency for a particular user is given by
C
W log2 a1  b
PG
(1)
N0  I
Where W is the allocated bandwidth for the user, P is
the power spectral density of the user’s transmission,
G is the propagation channel gain between the user
and his serving cell, N0 is the noise power spectral
density, and I denotes the interference from other
cells. For cell center users, the interference plus noise
term in the denominator in equation 1 is dominated
by the noise component. For cell edge users, inter-
cell interference is the dominant component of the
denominator. The objective of the optimization in an
interference management scheme is to maximize a
user’s throughput without creating large inter-cell
interference.
SON Based Inter-Cell Interference Coordination
Techniques
ICIC schemes [3, 5] basically involve the intelli-
gent coordination of physical frequency resources
between neighboring cells to reduce interference from
one cell to another. Each cell gives up use of some
resource in a coordinated fashion to improve perfor-
mance for cell edge users which are impacted the
most by inter-cell interference. The cells coordinate
the transmission powers across various frequency
resource blocks. This coordination and configuration
of which resources to use and how can be done in
either a static or a dynamic fashion.
Figure 1 shows the various components and
interactions of a self-organizing ICIC scheme. The
purple circles represent the basic components of a
SON ICIC scheme while the gray circles represent the
other major functional areas of the eNB that interact
with ICIC. There are three basic components to a SON
ICIC implementation:
1. Core ICIC algorithm,
2. Frequency planning, and
3. Inter-eNB communications.
ICIC performance is dependent upon a number of
factors, as shown in Figure 2. Cell sizes, cell load,
22 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj
traffic type, and propagation speed, among other
parameters, all play an important role in determin-
ing the ICIC gains.
Simulations have been used to characterize the
performance of various algorithms. While the simu-
lators and simulation conditions are different for the
various techniques, a view of relative performance
can be obtained by comparing performance against
the baseline, which is universal reuse.
Core ICIC Algorithms
The core ICIC algorithms are those that determine
how available resources (time, frequency, and power)
are managed to realize interference coordination
between the cells. Various algorithms have been devel-
oped with differing complexities and performance. We
will begin by examining downlink ICIC algorithms and
follow with a study of uplink ICIC algorithms.
Downlink ICIC
Interference on the DL in an OFDM system is pre-
dictable and avoidable. In the downlink, the common
theme of inter-cell interference coordination is to
apply restrictions to the downlink resource manage-
ment in a coordinated way between cells [5]. These
restrictions determine the time/frequency resources
currently available to the resource manager, or restric-
tions to the transmit power that can be applied to cer-
tain time/frequency resources. These restrictions
shape the interference power spectrum of a given cell
on the DL. The power constraints on the transmitted
PRBs in one cell lead to improved SINR and cell edge
data rates/coverage for the corresponding time/fre-
quency resources in a neighbor cell.
Static ICIC Algorithms
In static schemes, the restrictions are distributed
to different cells and are generally constant on a
timescale corresponding to days. Different kinds of
restriction distributions can be used which involve
frequency or cell planning in an area, resulting in dif-
ferent reuse factors.
The inverted reuse static ICIC scheme. Figure 3
illustrates the concept of the inverted reuse scheme.
Here, the eNBs transmit at a certain nominal power
across the entire bandwidth except for the restricted
 X2 based
interaction
with other
base stations
IoT control
ICIC core
algorithm
Power control
Scheduler
3GPP—3rd Generation Partnership Project IoT—Interference over thermal
BTS—Base transceiver station X2—3GPP interface specification for inter-BTS communication
ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination
Figure 1.
ICIC components and interactions.
PRBs. In the restricted PRBs, transmissions are at a
lower power, which results in a soft partial frequency
reuse scheme, or there may not be any transmissions
at all in the restricted PRBs, which results in a hard
partial frequency reuse scheme. The neighboring cell
can then schedule its users (typically cell edge users)
in the restricted PRBs of its neighbors and realize an
improved SINR since the neighboring cells are either
transmitting with a lower power or not transmitting at
all on those PRBs. Users are generally classified into
two groups: cell inner and cell edge groups. This clas-
sification can be made based upon a number or com-
binations of such metrics as:
1. User’s path loss to serving cell, and
2. Differential path loss between the serving cell and
the strongest neighbors.
Self-organizing
frequency
planning
ICIC component
Figure 4 shows simulation results for a 7/6
reuse scheme, also known as a 1/7 inverted reuse
scheme [5]. The test configuration is 3GPP case 1
[1] with an inter-site distance (ISD) of 500 meters
for a bandwidth of 10 MHz. Three different CQI
feedback types are studied. A difference of 6 dB
between the best server and highest interferer path
loss is used to classify users into cell inner and cell
outer groups. Additional detail on the simulation
parameters and results can be found in [5]. Good
gains can be obtained with ICIC under conditions
where it is not possible to exploit frequency selec-
tivity in the propagation channel, such as at high
vehicular speeds, or when use of semi-persistent
scheduling is necessary, such as for Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) applications. One thing to
DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 23
 CQI Propagation MIMO
feedback interference scheme
scheme environment ant config
(for DL) (for DL) Open-loop/
closed loop spatial multiplexing
beamforming

Fairness:
propfair/
max-min rate
Scheduling ICIC
Network
policy performance
QoS-constraints deployment
(GBR/MBR) Femto/pico/micro/macro

Traffic Cell load

models # users

Ant—Antenna GBR—Guaranteed bit rate MIMO—Multiple input multiple output

Config—Configuration ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination Min—Minimum
CQI—Channel quality indicator Max—Maximum Propfair—Proportional fairness
DL—Downlink MBR—Minimum bit rate QoS—Quality of service

Figure 2.
Determinants of ICIC performance.

be noted (and which is true for all the techniques
shown) is that while the simulations assume a
hexagonal layout, such a geometric layout is not
possible in the real world. However, since the algo-
rithms use metrics (such as the server and neighbor
path loss reports) which reflect the true interference
conditions as seen by the users, no issues are antici-
pated with irregular topology.
The partial direct reuse with power control static
ICIC scheme. In contrast to the inverted reuse scheme
where each cell has power restrictions on certain
PRBs, the partial direct reuse with power control
(PDRPC) takes a more direct approach.
The PDRPC algorithm implements the following
steps, as shown in Figure 5:
1. In each cell, a part of the spectrum is cleared for
edge users to operate at low interference (cell
coloring).
a.If K is the reuse factor, (K  1) proximate
neighbor cells each have similar but distinct
pieces of cleared spectrum that partition the
whole bandwidth.
b. Cleared spectrum is assumed frequency diverse.
2. Each cell distributes its total transmit power in
the following fashion:
a. A high transmit power spectral density (PSD)
on the cleared spectrum of bandwidth W/K
dedicated to edge users.
b. A low transmit PSD on the remaining com-
(K  1)W
mon spectrum of bandwidth .
K
c. Boosts the PSD in the cleared spectrum with
respect to reuse 1 by a factor of aK. a
(0, 1),
is a fairness control parameter.
d. From power conservation (assuming total
power used is dP), the de-boost factor b for

24 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj

 Example: soft re-use with inverted 1/7 re-use pattern
Tx PSD is reduced by 10 dB (relative to other PRBs) in a
different 1/7 of the PRBs in each cell. 10
dB
For a UE connected to the black cell which is at the edge close
to the darkest purple cell, it can experience an improved SINR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
if the black cell schedules the UE in subband #3.

10
dB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
10
dB
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3GPP support:
The transmit PSD mask utilized by each cell is made known
to the neighboring cells through RNTP reporting via the X2
interface (see TS 36.423)

3GPP—3rd Generation Partnership Project SINR—Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio

ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination TS—Technical specification
PRB—Physical resource block Tx—Transmit
PSD—Power spectral density UE—User equipment
RNTP—Relative narrowband Tx power X2—3GPP interface specification for inter-BTS communication

Figure 3.
Downlink static ICIC operation: inverted reuse concept.

PDRPC in the common spectrum is reuse 1 can be fully compensated by a propor-

(d a)K
b
.
(K 1)
This results in the following:
1. The signal PSD of edge users is boosted in every
cell,
2. Interference from neighbors on a cell’s cleared
bandwidth is reduced, and
3. Average bandwidth occupied by edge users is
typically reduced and the bandwidth savings are
transferred to center users.
The rationale behind this design is as follows:
1. Low SINR users operate in the linear (with
respect to SINR) region of Shannon capacity.
Bandwidth decreased operation with respect to
tional increase in PSD with respect to uniform.
Low SINR users have diminishing returns with
coding as incremental coding gain S 0 as W S .
Being power limited, the capacity improvement
in this region is due to additional energy per
channel use and/or interference reduction.
2. High SINR users operate in the logarithmic region
with respect to SINR and in the linear region
with respect to bandwidth. Thus, PSD decreased
(with respect to uniform) operation is compensated
with bandwidth expansion. High SINR users have
slowing returns with energy increase. Being essen-
tially bandwidth limited, capacity improvement in
this region is due to the increase in bandwidth.

DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 25

 3 km/h, ISD 500 m, carrier 2 GHz, BW 10 MHz, indoor penetration loss 20 dB, 10 UEs in average per sector
800
Reuse 7/6, high resolution CQI
700 Reuse 1, high resolution CQI
Reuse 7/6, Rel. 8 resolution CQI
Cell border throughput (kbps)

600 Reuse 1, Rel. 8 resolution CQI

Reuse 7/6, wideband CQI
500 4.0 2.0 Reuse 1, wideband CQI
3.0
400
1.5
1.0
300
Proportional fair alpha
200

100
0.5
0.25
0
0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
Spectral efficiency (bit/s/Hz/sector)

3GPP—3rd Generation Partnership Project DL—Downlink Rel—Release

BW—Bandwidth ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination UE—User equipment
CQI—Channel quality indicator ISD—Inter site distance

Figure 4.
Spectral efficiency versus cell border throughput for DL static ICIC for 3GPP case 1.

Figure 6 and Figure 7 show performance results are lumped into one center cell user location with
obtained for two different populations of center cell values for received symbol energy and interference
users using lumped user analysis. In lumped user (relative to thermal noise) representing good radio
analysis, as opposed to using some user distribution frequency (RF) conditions, and the remaining users
across cell geometries, a parametric fraction of users into a cell edge user location representing poor RF
conditions. Figure 6 shows that when the fraction of
center cell users is small, performance gains are seen
simultaneously for the edge user, the center user, and
average sector throughputs with respect to the uni-
Universal reuse Tx PSD versal reuse (Univr) scheme, while variants of the
Tx PSD

inverted reuse (IR) schemes over most of the edge

PDRPC Tx PSD
user’s range of power boost values. The center and
average gains diminish as expected when the center
6W/7 W/7 user fraction is much higher, as seen in Figure 7. The
Frequency
gains at a power boost operating point near 5 dB are
PDRPC—Partial direct reuse with power control robust to the center user fraction parameter.
PSD—Power spectral density
Tx—Transmit
W—Total bandwidth
Dynamic ICIC Algorithms
The disadvantage of a static ICIC scheme is that it
Figure 5. does not adapt to changes in the operating environ-
PDRPC operation. ment. A better solution is to distribute the restrictions

26 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj

 PDRPC gains, center user fraction
0.1
8
Edge gain over univr
7
Ctr gain over univr
6
Throughput gain (linear)

Avg gain over univr

5 Edge gain over IR2

4 Ctr gain over IR2

3 Avg gain over IR2

Edge gain over IR1

2
Ctr gain over IR1
1
Avg gain over IR1
0
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Power boost αK (linear)

Avg—Average IR2—Inverted reuse with restricted band being un-used

Ctr—Center PDRPC—Partial direct reuse with power control
IR1—Inverted reuse with de-boost of Univr—Universal reuse
10 dB for restricted band

Figure 6.
PDRPC lumped user performance for center user fraction of 0.1.

between various cells on a dynamic basis based upon
a number of factors such as cell load, traffic distribu-
tions, user distributions, quality of service (QoS) con-
straints, and other parameters. For example,
depending on the load (e.g., a geometric concentra-
tion of terminals at the border between two cells), the
restrictions are distributed between the two cells
involved and possibly other neighbors. This allows an
increase in spectrum efficiency. In this way, with dif-
ferent loads, lightly loaded cells can help higher load
neighbors.
The reconfiguration of the restrictions can be
done on a timescale of the order of milliseconds or
longer, depending upon the operating scenario. Inter-
eNB communication corresponds to information
needed to decide on reconfiguration of the scheduler
restrictions as well as the actual reconfiguration deci-
sions. The signaling rate could be on the order of sec-
onds to minutes, depending upon the operating
scenario. Dynamic ICIC schemes can be relatively
simple and may be built on top of static schemes by
dynamically changing the restrictions on the resources
through a simple request-grant mechanism employed
between the cells of interest. They can also be more
complex where an optimization problem involving a
utility function is solved.
Semi static ICIC with request-grant mechanism. The
semi static ICIC approach [5] builds on top of the
static ICIC approach with resource assignments on a
demand basis. This enables the network to adapt to
changing network conditions in a self-optimizing way.
The network is initially set up for nominal static ICIC
operation. In addition to the existing exchange of fre-
quency coloring information between the cells
required for static ICIC operation, additional messag-
ing is required for this dynamic reconfiguration of
resources between cells. Two additional messages are
required: a request message from a requesting cell
and a grant message from a grantor cell. A requesting
cell is typically a heavily loaded cell or a cell with a

DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 27

 PDRPC gains, center user fraction
0.5
3.5
3
2.5
Throughput gain (linear)
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
3 4
Power boost αK (linear)
Avg—Average
Ctr—Center
IR1—Inverted reuse with de-boost of
10 dB for restricted band
Figure 7.
PDRPC lumped user performance for center user fraction of 0.5.
localized high concentration of cell edge users. If the
grantor cell is lightly loaded at the time of the request,
it may change the size of the restricted PRBs in its
own cell, thereby enabling users in a neighboring cell
to experience a better SINR over a larger portion of
the total bandwidth than before. A grantor cell can
receive multiple requests simultaneously from neigh-
boring cells, and hence there has to be a mechanism
at the grantor to evaluate the priority of the requests.
As part of this process, every requesting cell sends a
soft metric on a per subband basis in its request mes-
sage, which is a function of the importance or ben-
efit of its request. The grantor cell will prioritize its
incoming requests based upon this soft metric and
may also use additional metrics such as application
type and QoS constraints. Once the grantor cell has
determined which of the incoming requests it will
grant, it sends a grant message back to the appropri-
ate originating cell, which can now take advantage of
28 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj
Edge gain over univr
Ctr gain over univr
Avg gain over univr
Edge gain over IR2
Ctr gain over IR2
Avg gain over IR2
Edge gain over IR1
Ctr gain over IR1
Avg gain over IR1
5 6 7
IR2—Inverted reuse with restricted band being un-used
PDRPC—Partial direct reuse with power control
Univr—Universal reuse
the expanded PRB region of operation for its own
cell edge users. See [5] for detailed simulation
results.
The adaptive partial direct reuse with power control
algorithm. An adaptive version of the static PDRPC
algorithm can be formulated by adapting the parame-
ters a and K. The adaptation would be based upon
some measure of the ratio of center cell users to cell
edge users.
The multi-cell gradient algorithm. The multi-cell
gradient (MGR) algorithm [9] adjusts the transmit
powers of the different subbands by systematically and
continuously pursuing local maximization of the over-
all network utility U, which is the sum of all cell utili-
ties U (k). In turn, each cell k utility U(k) is the sum of
utilities Ui(Xi) over all users i in cell k, where Xi are
the users’ average throughputs and Ui are the users’
utility functions. This maximization can be done semi-
autonomously by each cell with periodic exchanges
 ∂U(2)
∂Pj(1)
∂U(1)
∂Pj(2)
2

1
∂U(3)
∂Pj(2)
∂U(2)
∂U(3) ∂Pj(3)
∂U(1)
∂Pj(1)
∂Pj(3)
3

MGR requires partial derivatives to be exchanged

with the strongest interfering neighbor cells periodically.

MGR—Multi-cell gradient

Figure 8.
Inter-cell coordination of partial derivates for MGR.

between the neighboring interfering cells of a few key
ratios that arise from the optimization approach. An
important fact to be noted about the MGR and the
sector autonomous (SA) algorithms (described in
the next section) is that these algorithms are only con-
cerned with power allocation (and re-allocation) among
the subbands by each cell, and this is done on a rela-
tively slow timescale. Given the power levels set by
either algorithm, each cell can perform an opportunis-
tic propagation channel aware scheduling. No a priori
frequency planning is required for this approach.
Consider a network of K cells and J subbands.
W is the bandwidth of one subband and N0 is the
noise power spectral density. Pj(k) is the power allo-
cated in subband j of cell k.
Each cell k constantly adjusts its power allocation
to different subbands in a way that improves the total
utility U of the system. Each cell k maintains the esti-
mate of the utility U (k) which the cell could poten-
tially attain given its current power allocation Pj(k)
among the subbands and current interference level
from other cells. Cell k maintains estimates of partial
0U(k)
derivates Dj(m,k)
(m) of its utility on the power levels
0Pj
Pj(m) in all cells m (including self, m
k) and all sub-
bands j. Cell k periodically sends values of Dj(m,k) for all
j, to each cell m  k. It also periodically receives val-
ues of Dj(k,m) for all j from each cell m  k, as shown in
Figure 8. Cell k maintains the current values of
Dkj
a D(k,m), for each subband j. Dkj is the estimate
m j
0U
of the partial derivative (m)
0Pj .
Periodically, cell k does the following:
Let ∆  0 be a fixed parameter and denote by
P(k)
aj Pj(k) the current total power in the cell. Then
the powers are updated sequentially as follows:
1. Pick j* (if it exists) such that Djk* is the smallest
among those j with Dkj  0 and Pj(k)  0, and do
Pj*(k)
max5Pj*(k)  ¢, 06 (2)
2. If P(k)  P*, pick j* (if it exists) such that Dkj* is the
largest among those j with Dkj  0 and do
Pj*(k)
Pj*(k)  min5¢, P *  P(k) 6 (3)
3. If P(k)
P* and maxj Dkj  0, pick a pair (j*, j*) (if
it exists) such that Dkj* is the largest, Dkj* is the
smallest among those with Pj(k)  0 and Dkj*  Dkj*.
Then
Pj*(k)
max5Pj*(k)  ¢, 06 (4)
Pj*(k)
Pj*(k)  min5¢, Pj*(k) 6 (5)

DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 29

 per cell for a total of 57 cells. Average sector through-
400 puts versus 5-percentile throughputs are shown for
Universal
Average sector throughput (bits/slot)
380 SA additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) and fading
360 MGR
channel cases. Different points are obtained using dif-
340
ferent values of the minimum rate parameter in the
320
scheduler (see [9] for details). When the average cell
300
throughput is 360 bits/slot, the 5-percentile through-
280
put improvement is 20 percent for the SA algorithm
260
and 56 percent for the MGR algorithm in the fading
240
case. The improvements are larger for AWGN. It can
220
be observed that the gain in cell throughput increases
200
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 with increasing edge throughput. This is expected
5% throughput (bits/slot) since more significant interference is experienced by
(a) AWGN a cell as a whole, with higher edge throughput require-
450 ments that result in more transmission resources
Universal
Average sector throughput (bits/slot)

400
350
300
250
200
2 3
384 bits/slot
1 bit/s/Hz
AWGN—Additive white Gaussian noise
DL—Downlink
MGR—Multi-cell gradient
SA—Sector autonomous
Figure 9.
DL throughput versus cell edge performance for MGR
and SA algorithms for full buffer best effort traffic.
To estimate and update the values of the partial
derivatives Dj(m,k), each cell k continuously runs a vir-
tual scheduling algorithm (see [9] for details).
Figure 9 shows simulation results for the MGR
and SA algorithms for an ISD distance of 2.5 km,
penetration loss of 10 dB, lognormal (8.9 dB standard
deviation) shadow model, and bandwidth of 1.25 MHz
with six subbands for full buffer traffic with 20 users
SA
being assigned to cell edge users.
MGR The sector autonomous algorithm. The SA algo-
rithm [9] adjusts powers in each subband indepen-
dently in each cell using a non-trivial heuristic. This
algorithm is completely autonomous, desirable in situa-
tions where information exchange between the
relevant cells is not possible. No a priori frequency
planning is required for this approach.
A virtual scheduling algorithm (different from
that employed by MGR) is run in each cell, which
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5% throughput (bits/slot)
tries to selfishly solve an “artificial” optimization prob-
(b) Fast fading
lem. This problem is not the “true” original cell utility
maximization but has the following features:
1. It is “highly correlated” with the original prob-
lem, and
2. It inherently “encourages” an uneven power allo-
cation to subbands (when such is beneficial).
Assume a cell operates the following way.
Suppose a parameter P0, P*
J  P0  P*, is fixed. In
each (virtual) time slot, in each subband j, the cell
either transmits to exactly one of the users i at power
level P0 (and then the transmission rate is Rij, as it is
dependent upon the measured SINR of user i) or does
not transmit to any user at all (in which case the
power used is 0). Given this setting, a scheduling strat-
egy is employed which, over time, solves the follow-
ing problem:
Maximize ΣiUi(Xi), where Xi are the users’ aver-
age throughputs and Ui are the users’ utility func-
tions, subject to the constraint on the total average

30 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj

 3GPP support:

β HII (high interference indicator;

indicates interference mask)

γ α
β β OI (overload indicator) are per-
PRB quantities exchanged on X2
interface to allow frequency
γ α γ α IoT shaping of interference
β

Sector α 0 1 2 3
γ α
β β 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

γ α γ α
β
IoT

γ α Sector β 4 5 6 7
Try to concentrate
0 1 2 3 8 9 10 11
interference in
these interference
bearing zones

IoT

Sector γ 8 9 10 11

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

3GPP—3rd Generation Partnership Project

ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination
IoT—Interference over thermal
PRB—Physical resource block

Figure 10.
Uplink static ICIC operation: the interference bearing zone concept.

power, Σj P0j  P*, where P0j is the average power (per
virtual slot) allocated in subband j.
Then, the actual per-subband power levels Pj are
set and adjusted to be equal to the average powers P0j ,
continuously produced and adjusted by the virtual
scheduling. See [9] for a detailed description of the
virtual scheduler.
Uplink ICIC
In the uplink, it is the UEs near the cell border
which cause most of the interference to adjacent cells.
Figure 10 shows the concept of the interference bear-
ing zone (IBZ) [5]. The concept here is to designate a
portion of the bandwidth in each cell known as the
interference bearing zone to bear the brunt of
the interference from neighboring cells. Through
event-triggered reporting, the serving cell knows the
identity of the strongest neighboring cell for each
mobile. For mobile devices at the cell border, the
uplink scheduler preference is to assign resources in
the IBZ of the mobile’s strongest neighboring cell. If
the scheduler needs to assign the device outside the
IBZ, it does so with a reduced transmit PSD level,
implemented through an absolute power control com-
mand in the UL scheduling grant. The concept here is
to concentrate the bulk of the inter-cell interference in
a small portion of the total bandwidth, thereby pre-
venting any impact to the majority of users since the

DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 31

 NGMN case 1 (500 meter ISD, 10 MHz BW), 20 UEs per cell, typical urban 120 km/hr channel profile
Curves provided using different fractional power control α
1, 0.8, 0.7
120
FPC α
1.0
Cell edge bit rate (kbit/s) 110

FPC α
0.8
100

90

80
No ICIC (PF scheduler) FPC α
0.7
70 ICIC inverted reuse-3 (PF scheduler)
ICIC inverted reuse-9 (PF scheduler)
60
3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Sector throughput (kbps)

BW—Bandwidth NGMN—Next generation mobile networks

FPC—Fractional power control PF—Proportional fair
ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination UE—User equipment
ISD—Inter site distance UL—Uplink

Figure 11.
Sector throughput versus cell edge bit rate for UL static ICIC.

interference is now localized to certain sub-carriers
and the sub-carriers are orthogonal to each other.
Static ICIC
In static schemes, the size and location of the IBZ
are distributed to the different cells and are generally
constant on a timescale corresponding to days.
Different kinds of restriction distributions can be used
which involve frequency or cell planning in an area,
resulting in different reuse factors.
Figure 11 shows simulation results for different
reuse factors. The test configuration is 3GPP case 1
[1] with an ISD of 500 meters for a bandwidth of
10 MHz. Vehicular speed is 120 kph with a typical
urban multipath profile. The various points in the
curves correspond to different FPC alpha factors. More
details of the simulation parameters and a detailed
discussion of the results can be found in [5]. A small
improvement in edge bit rate is seen with a bigger
gain for sector throughput. The concentration of
the interference in the IBZ benefits all the users in the
cell, leading to an improvement in sector throughput.
For situations where FSS gains can be exploited, there
is no ICIC gain over FSS with universal reuse.
Dynamic ICIC Algorithms
As seen in the downlink discussion, better per-
formance can be obtained by adapting the restrictions
on a dynamic basis, based on factors such as cell load,
user distributions, traffic distributions, and other
parameters. This improves spectral efficiency globally
across cells since lightly loaded cells can help higher
load neighbors.
Semi static ICIC. A concept similar to the downlink
semi static ICIC can be applied to the UL. In the UL, it
is the size of the IBZs that is being adjusted dynami-
cally. A larger IBZ in a particular cell implies that a
neighboring cell can now allocate cell edge users in its
own cell over a larger portion of the bandwidth,
thereby providing improved performance.
The multi-sector gradient for uplink algorithm. The
multi-sector gradient for uplink (MGR-UL) algorithm
[8] continuously tries to improve system-wide utility
U, which is the sum of all cell utilities U(k). In turn,

32 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj

each cell k utility U(k) is the sum of utilities Ui(Xi) over
all users i in cell k, where Xi are the users’ average
throughputs and Ui are the users’ utility functions.
The key feature of the algorithm is the notion of
“interference cost”: namely, the scheduling done by
each eNB takes into account not only the utility of
the users currently served, but also the “damage”
being done to the utility of users in neighbor eNBs. No
a priori frequency planning is required for this
approach.
The steps involved with the MGR-UL algorithm
are as follows:
1. Interference costs. Each cell k continuously estimates
the sensitivities aj(k) of its utility U(k) to the inter-
ference Ij(k) it receives in subband j:
dU(k)
aj(k)

dIj(k)
This is done along with step 3 below. Updates to
these costs are then signaled to neighboring cells.
2. Transmit power optimization. Using average propa-
gation gains Gj(l), from users i to neighbor cells l,
each cell k determines per-user i, per-subband j
optimal transmit powers per resource block (if
scheduled):
Pij
arg max c U i (Xi )Rij(Pij )  a aj(l)GliPij d (7)
lk
where Xi is the current average rate of user i, Rij is
the transmission rate, and the argmax is taken
over Pij values from 0 to the max user power.
3. Transmit scheduling. Independently carried out by
each cell k, according to instantaneous scheduling
weights
Zij
U i (Xi )Rij(inst) (Pij )  a aj(l)Gi(l)Pij (8)
lk
where Rij(inst) is the estimate of instantaneous rate,
given the instantaneous propagation gain to cell k.
Namely, the objective of the scheduler in each time
(6)
slot is to maximize the sum of Zij over all scheduled
users, subject to users’ total power constraints.
Along with scheduling, costs aj(k) are updated.
Figure 12 shows the performance of the MGR-UL
algorithm relative to the baseline algorithm. The x-axis

Parameter Simulation assumptions

3 sector layout, total of 57 sectors, 1.9
Cell layout 20 users/sector
Average sector throughput (bits/sec/Hz)

Inter site distance 2.5 km 1.8

Path loss model L
133.635log10(R )

1.7
Shadowing Lognormal 8.9 dB standard deviation

Penetration loss 10 dB 1.6

Noise bandwidth 1.25 MHz

1.5
Mobile power 23 dBm, 1 antenna

Base station antenna gain 15 dB 1.4

Universal MGR-UL
Mobile antenna gain 0 dB
1.3
Base station noise figure 10 dB 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
5%-throughput X number-of-users (bits/sec/Hz)
Channel model Fast fading

Number of subbands 6

ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination

MGR-UL—Multi-cell gradient for uplink
Baseline–Universal reuse

Figure 12.
Sector throughput versus cell edge bit rate for the MGR-UL ICIC algorithm.

DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 33

is the normalized 5-percentile of the user throughput
distribution across the system. The y-axis is average
sector throughput. Different points on the curves cor-
respond to different values of the minimum rate
parameter used in the scheduling algorithm, which
range from 0 to 10 bits/slot. The MGR-UL algorithm
provides substantial improvement in the 5-percentile
throughput. For the baseline scheme, increasing mini-
mum rate does not increase cell edge user throughput.
This is because the baseline technique tries to equalize
all user SINRs, and hence user throughputs within a
cell as well. Hence, attempts to increase edge user
throughputs within the framework of baseline are
ineffective. The interference cost based power-setting
in MGR-UL allows users with good RF conditions to
achieve much higher SINRs. This improves spectral
efficiency and also frees up time-frequency resources
for cell edge users, when necessary, thus allowing a
trade-off between total and cell edge throughputs.
Frequency Planning
All the ICIC techniques (except for the MGR, SA,
and MGR-UL algorithms) require that every cell des-
ignate a certain portion of the bandwidth for some
kind of restriction. These restrictions correspond
to the PRBs for the IBZs for the UL and in the DL to
those PRBs that are transmitted at a lower power. In
addition, these restricted PRBs on both the UL and
DL should not overlap across neighboring cells. This is
classic frequency planning.
It is desirable that this frequency planning be
completely automated for LTE as operators do not
want to deal with the logistical complexity of manual
frequency planning and deployment. Frequency plan-
ning is a classic mathematical coloring problem where
a unique color must be generated in every cell of a
given network layout. Such a self-configuring and
self-optimizing distributed coloring approach has been
developed by Bell Labs and the reader is referred to
[5] for the details.
This is a distributed algorithm, run in each eNB.
Once a particular color has been assigned to a cell, it
informs its neighbors of its transmit PSD mask
through RNTP reporting over the X2 interface.
Some of the constraints of the frequency plan-
ning are:
34 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj
1. Two neighboring cells must have different colors.
2. As far as possible, a cell should not have two
neighbors with the same color.
3. Colors should be assigned such that cells of the
same color are as far apart as possible.
Inter eNB Communications
ICIC requires the exchange of messages between
the eNBs of various cells for interference coordination.
3GPP has defined an inter-eNB communications inter-
face specification called X2 [4] for LTE, used to exchange
both standards-defined and proprietary metrics.
The standards-defined metrics useful for ICIC are:
1. High interference indicator,
2. Overload indicator, and
3. Relative narrowband transmit power (RNTP).
Proprietary metrics are:
1. Coloring information for frequency planning,
2. Request messages for semi static ICIC, and
3. Cost information for the MGR algorithms.
SON-Based Uplink IoT Control
IoT control refers to the control of the uplink
interference level through the measurement of IoT
and exchange of UL overload indicators between cells,
so as to influence the UE transmit PSD levels being
utilized in neighboring cells to prevent excessively
high interference levels. Figure 13 provides a high
level concept of IoT control.
IoT control is important since interference in LTE
is purely inter-cell. For small to medium cells, inter-
cell interference is a dominant factor (as can be seen
from equation 1) in the throughput performance of
cell edge users and hence ultimately cell throughput
performance. The overload indicator is a per PRB
binary indicator, which reports whether the interfer-
ence from a neighboring cell is above or below an
interference threshold. The interference thresholds
are coordinated between the various cells.
An important question in IoT control is the deter-
mination of the most efficient value of IoT to be used
for a given operational scenario. Edge throughputs
generally increase with increasing IoT up to a certain
point where higher UE transmit power improves the
decode performance of the eNB receiver and then
starts to decrease as the increased UE transmit power
 Overload indicator
(X2 interface)
PC parameters
Measure
interference, emit Interference
overload indicator
3GPP—3rd Generation Partnership Project IoT—Interference over thermal
BTS—Base transceiver station UL—Uplink
ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination X2—3GPP interface specification for inter-BTS communication
Figure 13.
High level concept of UL IoT control.
results in increased inter-cell interference that begins
to impact eNB receiver performance. The point at
which this transition occurs is a complex function of
cell size, propagation channel conditions, and cell
load. Hence a single value of IoT is not suitable for all
deployment scenarios. The optimization of the choice
of the IoT level is something that lends itself readily to
SON operation, where various parameters across dif-
ferent cells can be optimized in a self-organizing and
self-optimizing manner.
Figure 14 shows the various components and
interactions of a self-organizing IoT control scheme.
The purple circles represent the basic components of
a SON IoT control scheme while the gray circles rep-
resent the other major functional areas of the eNB
that interact with IoT control. There are three basic
components to a SON ICIC implementation:
1. Core IoT control algorithm,
2. IoT measurement, and
3. Inter eNB communications.
IoT control performance is dependent upon a num-
ber of factors, as shown in Figure 15. Cell sizes, cell
load, propagation conditions, and other parameters play
an important role in determining IoT performance.
IoT Control via Adaptation of Open Loop Power
Control Parameters
To implement IoT control, three basic components
are required:
PC parameters Based on overload
indicator from
neighbor cell,
adapt power
control parameters
1. Each eNB must make measurements of the cur-
rent IoT level and signal OIs to its neighbors if the
IoT level is greater than an IoT threshold.
2. Each eNB processes the OIs from neighboring
eNBs and adapts the open loop power control
parameters that it is broadcasting to UEs it is serv-
ing.
3. Inter-eNB communications.
IoT measurements and emitting the IoT overload
indicator. IoT is defined on a per-resource unit basis.
IoT is the total uplink interference measured in a
resource unit divided by the thermal noise estimate
over the bandwidth of a resource unit (12 subcarriers

180 kHz). Defining IoT on a per resource unit basis
provides flexibility when supporting ICIC techniques
where significantly different planned average inter-
ference levels are used in different parts of the total
bandwidth.
A measurement of the total uplink interference
plus noise power per resource unit is available from
layer 1 processing. To obtain the thermal noise esti-
mate, techniques similar to those used in the radio
network controller (RNC) of the UMTS system can
be used.
Two things must be decided when signaling an
OI: a desired IoT operating point and the bandwidth
over which to make IoT measurements. The desired
IoT operating point is chosen from link budget
DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 35
 X2 based
information
from other
BTS

IoT control
IoT
core ICIC
measurement
algorithm

UL SINR IoT control component

target
calculation

3GPP—3rd Generation Partnership Project SINR—Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio

BTS—Base transceiver station UL—Uplink
ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination X2—3GPP interface specification for
IoT—Interference over thermal inter-BTS communication

Figure 14.
UL IoT control components and interactions.

considerations as well as taking into account the serving cell and the UE’s strongest neighbor cell as
normal system stability considerations required for follows [8]:
systems with power control. Once an average IoT
measurement is available, it is compared to the TARGET_SINR(dB)

1  (1  a)
(9)
desired IoT operating point and an OI is signaled if  (PLstrongest-non-serving
 PLserving
(dB) (dB) 
d )
the measurement is greater than the operating point.
Adaptation of open loop power control parameters. Or another improvement is:
A number of power control schemes can be used for
LTE. FPC [8] is the standard power control technique TARGET_SINR(dB)

1  (1  a)(
DL(dB) 
d ) (10)
defined in 3GPP. However, FPC only accounts for

DL(dB)
10 log a a b
ps
serving cell path loss. A simple modification to regu- (11)
is pi
lar FPC that reduces the variance of inter-cell inter-
ference is to set the target SINR of the UE as a where ps is the linear path loss to serving eNB, pi is the
function of the path loss difference between the UE’s linear path loss to eNB i, ΓDL(dB) is the downlink SIR

36 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj

 UL power
control:
UL SINR target
setting

IoT control
ICIC strategy performance Cell size

QoS Propagation
constraints environment

Cell edge
load
# users

ICIC—Inter-cell interference coordination SINR—Signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio

IoT—Interference over thermal UL—Uplink
QoS—Quality of service

Figure 15.
Determinants of UL IoT control performance.

available approximately as the DL CQI converted to Tx PSD(dBm)
min(TARGET_SINR(dB)  I(dBm)

serving

equivalent SINR and averaged sufficiently to remove (12)

strongest-non-serving
fast fading, (PL(dB)
10log(Pi)) is the UE’s path
loss to its strongest neighbor, (PL(dB) serving

10log(Ps)) is
the UE’s path loss to its serving cell, Γ1 is the target
uplink SINR in dB for a
1, and a(0  a  1) is the
fractional compensation factor. The strongest neighbor
cell is the neighbor cell from which the UE measures
the strongest received downlink reference signal
power. The uplink target SINR equations shown in
equation 9 and equation 10 are referred to as delta-
path-loss (DPL) and CQI power control methods,
respectively.
To achieve the target SINR in equation 10 or
equation 11, the UE sets its transmit PSD as follows:
 PLserving
(dB) , MaxTxPSD(dBm) )
Where Iserving
(dBm) represents the interference seen in the
serving cell and MaxTxPSD(dBm) is the maximum UE
transmit PSD which is a function of the UE power
class and assigned transmission bandwidth. There are
two parameters in the power control schemes used
for LTE: Γ1 and a. Given that a is chosen to control the
fairness of the power control scheme by balancing
average cell throughput with edge rate, a is chosen a
priori to support a particular deployment environ-
ment. Γ1 is adapted to achieve the desired IoT level.
An “outer loop power control” type of algorithm
is used. The algorithm runs at the rate at which IoT

DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 37

 5 MHz uplink LTE sector throughput versus edge rate for
IoT target variation (point labels are IoT targets)
3.5
13 dB 11 dB
11.5 dB 9 dB

(Mb/s) full load normalized

Mean sector throughput 3 6 dB CQI_428 m ISD
7 dB
9.5 dB
5 dB
5 dB 7.5 dB FPC_428 m ISD
2.5 5.5 dB
4 dB 3.5 dB CQI_856 m ISD

3 dB FPC_856 m ISD
2
CQI_1520 m ISD
2 dB
1.5 FPC_1520 m ISD

1
40 60 80 100 120
Edge rate (kb/s)

CQI—Channel quality indicator based power control ISD—Inter site distance

FPC—Fractional path loss compensation power control LTE—Long Term Evolution
IoT—Interference over thermal UL—Uplink

Figure 16.
Performance of UL IoT control for different UL power control algorithms.

overload indicators arrive from neighboring eNBs, and Simulation results. Simulation results show that
the mechanism is to adjust Γ1 as follows: edge throughput has a maximum at some IoT level. In

_StepUp_dB

_StepUp_dB *
TARGET_IoT_OvershootRate
(1  TARGET_IoT_OvershootRate)
Where Γ_Step Down_dB and TARGET_IoT_OvershootRate
are parameters specified a priori. The target SINR com-
ponent Γ1 is then adjusted using the equations below.
IF (overload indicators are set), adjust
1(dB)

1(dB) 
_StepDown_dB
ELSE
1 (dB)

1(dB) 
_StepUp_dB
These updates in general ensure that the eNBs
do not exceed a specified IoT target more than
TARGET_IoT_OvershootRate fraction of the time. Con-
straints are also usually applied on the dynamic range
that Γ can be adjusted over to ensure that UL SINR
targets are bounded. Variations of this approach such
as unequal step sizes or adaptive step sizes can also be
implemented.
addition, sector throughput may also have a maxi-
(13) mum at some IoT. This is shown in Figure 16, where
the performances of IoT control with FPC- and CQI-
based power control methods are compared in sector
throughput and edge rate for various IoT targets and
ISDs for an AWGN channel. The various points on a
curve in the figure correspond to different IoT targets
in units of 0.1 dB. Point values are shown only for
the CQI-based method since they are the same for the
(14) FPC case. A value of 20 in the figure maps to a value
of 2.0 dB, and so forth. One can see that the optimal
IoT varies with cell size. At an 856 meter ISD, the best
(15)
IoT level is 9.5 dB. At larger ISDs, the best IoT is less.
The FPC- and CQI-based methods provide similar
edge performance, but the CQI-based method—
through better choice of the target SINR—provides
higher sector and user peak throughputs. Results for
the DPL method are not shown since the DPL and CQI
methods yield very similar results when ICIC is not used
and both methods are simulated in an ideal fashion
assuming continuous amplitude and timing knowledge

38 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj

 5 MHz uplink LTE IoT versus edge rate for IoT target variation
(point labels are IoT targets)
16

13 dB
14

11.5 dB 11 dB
12
CQI_428 m ISD

10 9.5 dB FPC_428 m ISD

Mean IoT (dB)

9 dB
7.5 dB CQI_856 m ISD
8
7 dB FPC_856 m ISD
6 6 dB CQI_1520 m ISD
5.5 dB 5 dB
5 dB
FPC_1520 m ISD
4
4 dB
3.5 dB
3 dB
2
2 dB
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
UL edge rate (kb)
CQI—Channel quality indicator based power control ISD—Inter site distance
FPC—Fractional path loss compensation power control LTE—Long Term Evolution
IoT—Interference over thermal UL—Uplink

Figure 17.
Mean IoT levels for different cell sizes for different UL power control algorithms.

of the DPL and CQI information. Figure 17 shows the http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/

variations in edge rate versus achieved IoT for various
cell sizes. This figure also shows that the IoT control
algorithms are stable, with the realized IoT converging
in the mean to their IoT targets. The best algorithm
will depend on implementation errors, sampling
opportunities (the DPL metric is only available in dis-
crete reports triggered at specific thresholds), and the
effect of uplink versus downlink loading that affects
the relevance of CQI.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Sridhar
Gollamudi, Ingo Karla, and Michael Wilhelm for their
contributions to this work.
References
[1] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, “Physical
Layer Aspects for Evolved UTRA (Release 7),”
3GPP TR 25.814, v2.0.0, June 2006,
25814.htm.
[2] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, “Evolved
Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA),
Physical Channels and Modulation (Release 8),”
3GPP TS 36.211, v8.2.0, Mar. 2008,
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/
html-info/36211.htm.
[3] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, “Self-
Configuring and Self-Optimizing Network Use
Cases and Solutions (Release 9),” 3GPP TR
36.902, v2.0.0, Aug. 2009, http://www
.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/36902.htm.
[4] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, “X2 General
Aspects and Principles (Release 9),” 3GPP TS
36.420, v9.0.0, Dec. 2009, http://www.3gpp
.org/ftp/Specs/html-info/36420.htm.
[5] C. G. Gerlach, I. Karla, A. Weber, L. Ewe,
H. Bakker, E. Kuehn, and A. Rao, “ICIC in DL
and UL With Network Distributed and Self-
Organized Resource Assignment Algorithms in
LTE,” Bell Labs Tech. J., 15:3 (2010), 43–62.

DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 39

[6] NGMN Alliance, “Next Generation Mobile
Networks Recommendation on SON and O&M
Requirements,” v1.23, Dec. 5, 2008.
[7] A. M. Rao, A. Weber, S. Gollamudi, and R. Soni,
“LTE and HSPA: Revolutionary and
Evolutionary Solutions for Global Mobile
Broadband,” Bell Labs Tech. J., 13:4 (2009),
7–34.
[8] B. Rengarajan, A. L. Stolyar, and
H. Viswanathan, “Self-Organizing Dynamic
Fractional Frequency Reuse on the Uplink of
OFDMA Systems,” Proc. 44th Annual Conf. on
Inform. Sci. and Syst. (CISS ’10) (Princeton, NJ,
2010).
[9] A. L. Stolyar and H. Viswanathan, “Self-
Organizing Dynamic Fractional Frequency Reuse
for Best-Effort Traffic Through Distributed Inter-
Cell Coordination,” Proc. 28th IEEE Internat.
Conf. on Comput. Commun. (INFOCOM ‘09)
(Rio de Janeiro, Bra., 2009), pp. 1287–1295.
(Manuscript approved May 2010)
FRANCIS DOMINIQUE is a consulting member of
technical staff in the Wireless CTO
organization at Alcatel-Lucent in Murray
Hill, New Jersey. He received his M.S.E.E.
from Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
During his tenure at Alcatel-Lucent, he has
worked on modem designs for 3G1X Code Division
Multiple Access (CDMA), Wideband CDMA (WCDMA),
and LTE. He was a manager for nine years leading the
Channel Element ASIC Algorithm and Simulations
Group developing L1 modem designs for various
product releases. He has received numerous awards
including the Bell Labs President Award in 2003 and
the Bell Labs Technical Journal’s Best Paper Award in
1998. He has been awarded 18 patents with an
additional 30 pending.
CHRISTIAN G. GERLACH is a research engineer in the
MAC and Advanced Packet Scheduler
Department within the Alcatel-Lucent Bell
Labs Wireless Access Research Domain in
Stuttgart, Germany. He received his diploma
and doctoral degree (summa cum laude) in
electrical engineering from Aachen University of
Technology, Germany. His thesis was on speech coding
and speech transmission for mobile radio. After
working for Texas Instruments in Dallas, Texas, 12 years
ago he joined Alcatel Research in Stuttgart, where he
continued work in speech coding and noise reduction.
He later joined the radio department, working there
40 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj
on a new air interface, and became an Alcatel delegate
to 3GPP Radio Access Network 1 (RAN1), where he
contributed to the standardization of the LTE physical
layer. Dr. Gerlach has driven Alcatel-Lucent’s 3GPP
standardization activities on inter-cell interference
coordination. He holds more than a dozen patents and
his research interests include cross layer techniques
such as interference coordination, self-optimization
and organization strategies, and coordinated
transmission and reception techniques. He is a member
of VDE/ITG and of the IEEE Signal Processing Society.
NANDU GOPALAKRISHNAN is a member of technical
staff with Alcatel-Lucent's Wireless CTO
organization, and a member of the Alcatel-
Lucent Technical Academy focused on
technical problems and strategy questions
in LTE networks pertaining to radio
resource management, end-to-end QoS, VoIP, video
streaming, ICIC, and SON. Prior to this posting, he was
with the Forward Looking Work Department working
on standards and proprietary solutions in the physical
and MAC layers for 3G and 4G cellular networks. He
specializes in rate allocation and packet scheduling
algorithms for wireless communications systems.
Dr. Gopalakrishnan was a key contributor to Lucent
Technologies' high speed downlink packet access
(HSDPA) scheduler, and the solutions he developed for
the physical layer found adoption in the 3GPP HSDPA
and 3GPP2 3G1x evolution data and voice (1x EV-DV)
standards suite. For this, he was recognized with the
Bell Labs President's Gold Award. He has numerous
patents and publications in the above areas, and is
slated to appear in Who's Who in America 2011. Prior to
joining Alcatel-Lucent, he served as instructor, principal
engineer, and software product manager for LCC
International, working on code division multiple access
(CDMA) network planning, modeling, and optimization.
He won the RCR Silver Award for his presentation on
CDMA system voice quality auditing. Dr. Gopalakrishnan
holds a B.E. in electrical and electronics engineering
from Regional Engineering College, Tiruchirappalli,
India, an M.S. in electrical engineering from Louisiana
State University, Baton Rouge, and a Ph.D. in electrical
and computer engineering from Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana.
ANIL RAO is a member of technical staff in
Alcatel-Lucent’s Wireless Research and
Development organization in Naperville,
Illinois. He received a B.S. in applied
mathematics from the University of Alaska
Fairbanks and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
electrical engineering from the University of Illinois at
Urbana Champaign, where he held a National Science
Foundation graduate research fellowship. Dr. Rao
joined Alcatel-Lucent nine years ago after assignments
with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and with TRW.
His work at Alcatel-Lucent has involved various aspects
of system design, performance analysis, and algorithm
development for UMTS, HSPA/HSPA, and LTE. He has
actively contributed to both the standardization and
product realization of these technologies. His interests
include intelligent antennas, scheduling and resource
allocation algorithms, and optimizing the end-to-end
performance of mobile broadband wireless systems.
JAMES P. SEYMOUR is director of RAN Strategy in the
Alcatel-Lucent Wireless Networks CTO
organization in Naperville, Illinois. He is
currently focused on standards and product
strategy for Alcatel-Lucent’s broadband
wireless technologies and solutions. He
received B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E., and Ph.D. degrees from
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, where his
research focused on improved phase synchronization
techniques for mobile communication systems. He joined
AT&T Bell Laboratories 16 years ago as a member of
technical staff in the Network Wireless Radio Performance
and Analysis Group, and later he became technical
manager of the Wireless Algorithms Development
Group in the Advanced Technologies organization at
Lucent Technologies. Dr. Seymour was named a Bell
Labs Fellow in 2006 for his outstanding and seminal
contributions to wireless technology and standards
spanning 2G, 3G, and 4G systems and significant
impacts on Alcatel-Lucent’s business through outstand-
ing technical support of Alcatel-Lucent’s customers.
ROBERT SONI is a technical manager in Alcatel-Lucent's
Wireless business group in Murray Hill, New
Jersey. He supervises a group which is
investigating and developing new advanced
antenna, physical layer and MAC layer
technologies for 3G/4G cellular systems. He
received a Ph.D. and MSEE in electrical engineering
from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign,
and received his BSEE, summa cum laude, from the
University of Cincinnati in Ohio. Dr. Soni began his
career as a member of technical staff at Alcatel-Lucent
twelve years ago. He also teaches part-time at
Columbia University in New York City, and the New
Jersey Institute of Technology in Newark, New Jersey.
ALEKSANDR STOLYAR is a distinguished member of
technical staff in the Industrial Mathematics
and Operations Research Department at
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs in Murray Hill, New
Jersey. He received a Ph.D. in mathematics
from the Institute of Control Sciences, USSR
Academy of Science, Moscow. Prior to his tenure at Bell
Labs, he was with the Institute of Control Sciences
(Moscow), and Motorola and AT&T Labs-Research in
the United States. His research interests include
stochastic processes, queuing theory, and stochastic
modeling of communication systems, especially wireless
systems. He developed models and algorithms for
resource allocation and QoS support in wireless systems
and holds several patents in these areas. He is a
member of INFORMS and an associate editor of
Operations Research and Queuing Systems—Theory
and Applications; in 2004 he received the Bi-Annual
Best Publication Award from the INFORMS Applied
Probability Society.
HARISH VISWANATHAN is a director in the CTO
Advisory Group in the Alcatel-Lucent Bell
Labs CTO organization in Murray Hill, New
Jersey. He received a B.Tech. degree from
the Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai,
India, and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in
electrical engineering from Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York. During his tenure at Bell Labs and at Alcatel-
Lucent, he has worked on multiple antenna technology
for cellular wireless networks, network optimization,
mesh networking, and base station router mobility
management. Dr. Viswanathan’s current responsibilities
include strategy development and end-to-end solution
architecture development. His research interests
include information theory, communication theory,
wireless networks, and signal processing.
CARL WEAVER is a consulting member of technical
staff in the Wireless CTO organization at
Alcatel-Lucent in Murray Hill, New Jersey.
He received a B.Ap.Sc. degree from the
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario,
Canada, and an M.Eng. and Ph.D. degree in
electrical engineering from McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Prior to joining AT&T
almost 20 years ago, he worked for Raytheon in
terrestrial point-to-point microwave systems, secure
satellite communication systems, and space-based
radar. During his tenure at AT&T, Lucent Technologies,
and Alcatel-Lucent, he has worked on the PHY and
DOI: 10.1002/bltj Bell Labs Technical Journal 41
MAC layers of IS-54, IS95A, IS95B, CDMA 2000 (3G1x,
EV-DO), WiMAX, and LTE, specializing in power control
and system analysis. He has been awarded more than
10 patents.

ANDREAS WEBER is team leader of the mobile system

performance evaluation group in the
Alcatel-Lucent Bell Labs Radio Access
research domain in Stuttgart, Germany. He
received Dipl.-Ing. and Dr.-Ing. degrees in
electrical engineering from the University of
Stuttgart, Germany. Prior to joining Alcatel-Lucent,
Dr. Weber worked in the field of satellite communica-
tions as a member of scientific staff at the Institute of
Communications Switching and Data Technics, University
of Stuttgart. During his tenure at Alcatel Research &
Innovation and later at Bell Labs, he worked on the
performance evaluation and optimization of 2G, 3G,
and beyond 3G mobile communication systems.
Currently, he and his team work on LTE Advanced
system performance optimization. ◆

42 Bell Labs Technical Journal DOI: 10.1002/bltj