Preemptive Mobile Assisted and Guard Channel
Based Handoff Queuing Scheme
Kriti Sanon1, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, Noida and Sandeep Joshi2, Member IEEE, Assistant Professor,
Electronics & Communication, Shiv Nadar University, Dadri
Email ids: 1 kritisanon@gmail.com and 2 sandeep.joshi@snu.edu.in
Abstract— Mobility is an important aspect of any time, any where
next generation wireless communication networks. Handoff
supports this mobility of the users and allows them to move from
one cell to another without service interruption or degradation
and in true sense makes a user mobile. Handoff failure results in
forced termination of an ongoing call so the handoff requests
need to be prioritized over originating call requests. This paper
discusses a preemptive scheme which uses channel reservation
for handoff requests as well as allows ongoing non-real time calls
to be preempted by real-time handoff calls arriving in the
network. Handoff decisions are assumed to be Mobile-Assisted
and hence calls are handed over to Base stations with good-
quality signals. Markov chain model of the proposed scheme has
been designed and dropping and blocking probabilities of the
calls arriving at the network have been computed.
Keywords- Handoff; Guard channel; Markov chain; Blocking
probability; Dropping probability
I. INTRODUCTION
Handoff or Handover is the process of changing the channel
(frequency, time slot, spreading code, or combination of them)
associated with the current connection, while a call is in
progress [1]. It involves identifying a new channel belonging
to a particular Base Station (BS) and allocating voice and
control channels associated with the new base station.
Handoffs can be classified as either Base Station-Assisted
Handoffs or Mobile-Assisted Handoffs (MAHO). In Base
Station-Assisted Handoffs, the base station measures the
signal strength of Mobile Terminals (MTs) and the network
performs handoff accordingly when the decision criteria’s
like level of signal-to-interference ratio, Received Signal
Strength (RSS), bit error rate, etc. are met. Whereas in
MAHO, the MT measures the signal strength from serving and
surrounding base stations and the network makes the handoff
decisions based on the measurement reports sent by the MTs.
MAHO scheme is used in 2G and above cellular network and
is better suited for microcells where handoffs are frequent as it
assures that the signal is of good-quality.
From the user’s point of view, dropping or forced
termination of an ongoing call is more annoying as compared
to blocking of a new call. Hence, handoff requests need to be
prioritized over originating or new call requests. Various
handoff prioritization schemes have been proposed by authors
[2] having their advantages and disadvantages. The simplest of
them being guard channel scheme which comes under channel
reservation schemes. This scheme reserves some channels
particularly for handoff requests and the rest are shared
equally by handoff and originating call requests.
A handoff prioritization scheme based on MAHO and guard
channel, referred to as the “M+G” scheme, has been discussed
in [3]. In this scheme, a call is handed off to a BS only if the
received signal strength is high enough to support a good-
quality call and the BS has a free channel available to
accommodate the handoff request. The dropping and blocking
probabilities have been computed using Continuous-Time
Markov Chain (CTMC) model. In order to improve the
blocking and dropping probabilities further, this paper
proposes a scheme which classifies the incoming traffic into
Real-time and Non-real time, the former type includes voice
and video calls and the latter includes data calls. In this
scheme it is proposed that the channels be reserved for
handoff requests and also real-time handoff calls arriving at
the BS are allowed to preempt ongoing non-real-time calls
(which are put in a queue till a channel is available again) in
case they find all channels busy.
The next section describes the Preemptive M+G handoff
queuing scheme along with the proposed Markov chain model
and gives an overview on call blocking and call dropping
probabilities and Section III gives the results obtained and the
conclusions.
II. PREEMPTIVE M+G HANDOFF QUEUING SCHEME
The preemptive M+G handoff queuing scheme is MAHO
technique which ensures that a call is handed over to a BS
only if the received signal strength is high enough to support a
good quality call, i.e. once a call is handed over to a BS, it
does not drop due to insufficiently low signal strength. The
proposed scheme has been discussed in detail in this section
and analyzed on the lines of [3] using continuous-time Markov
chain model. The scheme assumes that the incoming traffic
which is categorized into real-time and non-real time traffic
can further be classified into Handoff calls and Originating or
New calls. Of the total available channels some channels are
reserved for handoff calls and are called as Guard channels
and the remaining channels are shared equally by handoff calls
and the new calls. Hence if only guard channels are left and a
new call arrives in the network, it will be blocked. If all
channels are busy and a real time handoff call arrives, it can
pre-empt an ongoing non-real time call and start its services.
The non-real time call which is pre-empted is sent to a queue
and can resume its service as soon as any channel is free.
 Figure 1. Continuous Time Markov Chain Model with c=4, g=1 and M=2
If all the channels are busy and a non-real time handoff call
arrives, it is placed in the queue (if the queue is not full) on
FIFO basis. As soon as any channel gets free, the first call in
the queue is allotted that channel. A real time handoff call is
dropped only if all channels are busy and no non-real time
calls can be pre- empted as the queue is full. A non-real time
call is dropped if the queue is full. We assume that non-real
time call is not sent to the queue till all channels are busy and
new call cannot be allotted any free channel. This scheme is
supported by the Markov chain model as shown in Figure1.
A. System Parameters
We consider c to be the total number of channels with g guard
channels reserved for handoff requests only. Considering the
queue size to be M, the probability of a real time call arriving
at the system to be α and that of a non-real time call be (1-α).
The parameters related to traffic are defined as follows:
λhr : Arrival rate of real time handoff calls.
λnr : Arrival rate of real time new calls.
λhn : Arrival rate of non-real time handoff calls.
λnn: Arrival rate of non-real time new calls.
μn : Effective rate of service of non-real time calls.
μr: Effective rate of service of real time calls.
μdw: Rate parameter for the dwell time of mobile users in a
cell.
It can be seen that α = (λhr + λnr)/( λhr + λnr + λhn + λnn) (1)
B. Markov Chain Model Description M

Markov chain is a mathematical system that undergoes x (ρr)i x (ρn)(c-g-i) x (ρhn)(i+j)-(c-g)

! !
transition from one state of the system to another state in a
chainlike manner. It is based on the Markov property
according to which the next state depends only on the current x ∏k[(1-α) λhn/(lμdw + jμn)]}
l=1
or present state and not on the past states. M
For simplicity we consider c = 4, g = 1 and M = 2, a three
+ x (ρr)(c-g) x(ρhr)i-(c-g) x (ρhn)j x
dimensional continuous-time Markov chain model of the ! !
proposed scheme as shown in Fig. 1 contains states (i, j, k), ∏k[(1-α) λhn/(lμdw + jμn)]} ]
where i denotes the number of real time calls in progress, j l=1
denotes the number of non-real time calls in progress and k Hence, if the system parameters (call arrival rates, service
denotes the number of non-real time calls in the queue. The rates, dwell time, total number of channels, guard channels,
state probabilities, i.e. P (i, j, k), can be derived using rate etc.) are known, the individual state probabilities can be
equations for all states as follows: computed.
P(i,j,k) = P(0,0,0) x (ρr)i x (ρn)j x [1/(i!)(j!)] (2a) C. Call Dropping and Blocking Probabilities
For 0≤ i+j ≤ c-g The blocking and forced termination (dropping) probabilities
of the calls arriving at the system can also be determined using
k the markov chain model. Fig. 2 shows the graphical
= P(0,0,0) x (ρr)i x (ρn)(c-g-i) x (ρhn)(i+j)-(c-g) x [1/(i!)(j!)] x ∏ [(1- representation of the states in which a call may be dropped or
l=0
α) λhn]/ [lμdw + jμn] blocked or both.

For 0≤ i ≤ c-g and (c-g)≤(i+j)≤c

(2b)
k
= P(0,0,0) x (ρr)(c-g) x (ρhr)i-(c-g) x (ρhn)j x [1/(i!)(j!)] x ∏ [(1-α)
l=0
λhn]/ [lμdw + jμn]
For (c-g)≤ i ≤c
(2c)

Where ρr = [α (λhr + λnr)/ μr] ; ρn = [(1-α) (λhn + λnn)/ μn]

ρhr = [α λhr/ μr] ; ρn = [(1-α) λhn / μn]
and k = 0 for i+j< c

P (0, 0, 0) represents the probability of the system being in

state (0, 0, 0), i.e. when there are no ongoing calls in the
system. It can be calculated by equating the sum of all state Figure 2. Graphical representation of states with dropped and blocked calls
probabilities to 1. The general formula of P (0, 0, 0) in terms
of the system parameters is given as:
The vertical small thick line represents the states (c, 0, k), i.e.
P(0,0,0) = 1/A (3) when all channels are occupied by real-time calls and no non-
real-time call can be preempted on arrival of another real-time
handoff call. Hence any real-time handoff call arriving at this
instant will be dropped. However, if a non-real-time call
Where A= [ x (ρr)i x (ρn)j} arrives and queue is still not full (k≠M), it will be put in the
! ! queue. The thick slant line represents the states (i, c-i, M), i.e.
when all channels are occupied and the queue is also full. This
implies that any call arriving at this point will be dropped. The
+ x (ρr)i x (ρn)(c-g-i) x (ρhn)(i+j)-(c-g)} dotted area represents the states where (i+j) ≥(c-g), i.e. only
! !
guard channels are left. Hence any new call arriving at the
system would be blocked. We can write the dropping and
+ x (ρr)(c-g) x (ρhr)i-(c-g) x (ρhn)j} + blocking probabilities as equations (4) and (5):
! !

Pd = ∑ , , +α∑ , 0, (4)
 Channel Reservation and Handoff Queuing, giving priority to
real-time calls which can preempt an ongoing non-real time
Pb= ∑ P i, j, 0 + ∑ P i, j, 0
1

+ ∑M P i, c i, k (5) 0.9 (11)

0.8
III. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Pb - Blocking Probability
The variations of dropping and blocking probabilities of the 0.7

proposed scheme is compared with “M+G” scheme discussed

in [3], with respect to the traffic. For the computation of these 0.6

probabilities, it has been assumed that c = 12, g = 2 and M = 3.

Further, the arrival rate of real-time handoff calls λhr is varied 0.5

from 5 to 25 calls/min and the arrival rate of real-time new

0.4
calls λnr is varied from 10 to 30 calls/min. Since the number of Proposed Scheme
non-real-time calls arriving at a BS is usually much less than M+G

the real-time calls, hence assuming non-real-time arrival rates 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

to be constant, we assume the arrival rate of non-real-time Load (Erlang)

handoff calls λhn = 1 and the arrival rate of non-real-time new Figure 4. Variation of Blocking probability with Load
calls λnn = 4. Assuming the service rate of non-real-time calls
μn = 1call/min and that of real-time calls μr = 1call/min, rate call that is put on hold in the queue till a channel gets free.
parameter for dwell time μdw = 0.5 call/min. Using these Although in practical scenarios the computational overload
values α can be computed by equation (1). will be more, but it is shown that this scheme performs better
in terms of minimizing the dropping as well as blocking
0.7
probabilities.
Proposed Scheme
M+G
0.6
REFERENCES
0.5
[1] S. Tekinay and B. Jabbari, ‘‘Handover and channel assignment in mobile
Pd - Dropping Probability

cellular networks,’’ IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 29, no. 11, 1991, pp. 42-
46.
0.4
[2] Aggeliki Sgora and Dimitrios D. Vergados, “Handoff Prioritization and
0.3 Decision schemes in wireless cellular networks: a Survey”, IEEE
Communication Survey, vol.11, no. 4, Fourth quarter, 2009, pp. 57-77.
0.2
[3] B. B. Madan and K. S. Trivedi, “Combined Guard Channel and Mobile-
Assisted Handoff for Cellular Networks,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
0.1 vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 502-510, January 2008.

0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Load (Erlang)
Figure 3. Variation of Dropping Probability with Load
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the variation of dropping probability
and blocking probability respectively with load. It can be
interpreted that the proposed scheme gives a lower dropping
as well as a lower blocking probability as compared to the
“M+G” scheme.
Prioritizing handoff requests is very important from user’s
perspective and also to make the network more efficient
proper handoff prioritization schemes should be used. Many
prioritization schemes are available in the literature. Through
this paper an attempt has been made to design a new scheme
in terms of call blocking and dropping probabilities with its
relevant markov model. The proposed handoff prioritization
scheme called the Preemptive M+G Handoff Queuing scheme
is a hybrid scheme which combines the characteristics of
[4] Nidal Nasser, Ahmed Hasswa and Hossam Hassanein, “Handoffs in
55 60 Fourth Generation Heterogeneous Networks”, IEEE communication
magazine, October 2006, pp. 96-103.
[5] Theodore S. Rappaport, “Wireless Communications Principles and
Practice”, Prentice Hall of India Private Limited, Second Edition,2006.
[6] G. Haring, R. Marie, R. Puigjaner, and K. Trivedi, “Loss formulas and
their application to optimization for cellular networks,” IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 664-674, May 2001.
[7] Qing-An Zeng and Dharma P. Agrawal, “Modeling and Efficient
Handling of Handoffs in Integrated Wireless Mobile Networks”, IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 1469-1478, November 2002.
[8] M. H. Chiu and M. A. Bassiouni, "Predictive Schemes for Handoff
Prioritization in Cellular Networks Based on Mobile Positioning," IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communication, 18(3):510-522, March
2000.
[9] M. Wu, W. E. Wong and J. J. Li, “Performance Evaluation of Predictive
Handoff Scheme with Channel Borrowing”, Proc. 22nd International
Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference (IPCCC
2003), Phoenix, Arizona, USA, 9-11 April 2003, pp. 531-536.