PHD Thesis On HPA OFDM and PAPR

Resource Allocation and Reuse for InterCell Interference Mitigation in OFDMAbased Communication Networks
Von der Fakultt fr Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik der

Rheinisch-Westflischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen zur
Erlangung des akademischen Grades einer Doktorin der
Ingenieurwissenschaften genehmigte Dissertation
vorgelegt von
Diplom-Informatikerin
Zheng Xie
aus Shanghai, V.R. China
Berichter:
Universittsprofessor Dr. Ing. Bernhard Walke

Universittsprofessor Dr. rer. nat. Rudolf Mathar
Tag der mndlichen Prfung: 22. Dezember 2011
ABSTRACT
Abstract
The future wireless systems are envisaged to offer ubiquitous high data-rate coverage
in large areas. With the Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA)
transmission technique, great benefits in handling Inter-Symbol Interference (ISI),
inter-carrier interference and providing high flexibility in resource allocation can be
reaped. Nevertheless, Co-Channel Interference (CCI) or so-called Inter-Cell
Interference (ICI) as a big obstacle is still remaining in OFDMA systems, which
encumbers to attain both, wide area coverage and high spectral efficiency in multicellular communication networks.
It is known that effective reuse of resources in a cellular system can highly enhance
the system capacity. With a smaller Frequency Reuse Factor (FRF), more available
bandwidth can be obtained by each cell. So, in this sense employing the classical FRF
of 1 is preferable. However, with the usage of FRF-1, most User Terminals (UTs) are
seriously afflicted with heavy ICI, especially in the border areas of cells. And this
causes low cell coverage and inferior system capacity. Conventional method to figure
out this problem is by increasing the cell-cluster-order to avoid the reuse of the same
frequency bands in neighboring cells, which can mitigate the ICI efficiently,
nonetheless at the cost of a decrease in available bandwidth for each cell. This would
result in reduced cell capacity and lower system spectrum efficiency in general, and
would worsen in the case of unbalanced traffic distribution among cells. Thus, it is
desirable to combat the ICI by other means.
A promising method to solve the ICI problem is ICI coordination, which may
potentially attain significant performance improvements and has become very
important in next generation wireless communication networks. To take aim at
improving cell-edge performance while retaining system spectrum efficiency of
Reuse-1, several representative local ICI coordination approaches with static
frequency resource partitioning are introduced and studied at first in this monograph,
including the classical Fractional Frequency Reuse (FFR) scheme, the well-known
Soft Frequency Reuse (SFR) scheme and the newly emerged Incremental Frequency
Reuse (IFR) scheme. Based on thoroughly analysing the advantages and limitations of
these approaches, a novel ICI mitigation design called Enhanced Fractional Frequency
Reuse (EFFR) scheme and its two derivatives (the EFFR-Advanced scheme and
EFFR-Beyond scheme) are proposed for a better fulfillment of the goals, namely, to
enhance the mean system capacity while restraining the ICI at the cell edge. The EFFR
scheme designs a resource allocation and reuse mechanism combined with power
II
Abstract
allocation and interference-aware reuse. Taking the inherent vulnerability of the CellEdge Users (CEUs) into account, the EFFR scheme reserves resources for them with
two specific emphases: 1) using dedicated FRF-3 subchannels; 2) data transmission
with higher transmit power. Taking advantage of the location-specific predominance
of the Cell-Centre Users (CCUs), the EFFR scheme allows them to occupy resources
with FRF-1 and interference awareness.
The performance evaluations are done by means of both, analytical models and
stochastic even-driven simulation. The presented results show that the EFFR schemes
can efficiently mitigate the ICI in OFDMA-based cellular networks and outperform
the SFR scheme, the IFR scheme and static Reuse schemes under any propagation
condition. With the usage of the EFFR scheme, the medium is able to be more
effectively utilized; higher flexibility as well as more robustness can be attained; the
overall cell capacity is significantly improved; and the cell coverage can be
substantially enlarged.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. I
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... III
1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Motivation and Objectives ............................................................................1

1.2 Contribution of the Thesis .............................................................................2
1.3 Outline.............................................................................................................4
2
OVERVIEW OF CELLULAR NETWORKS ...................................................7
2.1 The Wireless Channel ....................................................................................8
2.1.1
Path Loss ................................................................................................ 9
2.1.2
Shadowing ............................................................................................ 10
2.1.3
Multipath Effects .................................................................................. 10
2.2 The Cellular Concept ................................................................................... 10
2.2.1
Frequency Reuse .................................................................................. 12
2.2.2
Carrier-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio .............................................. 14
2.3 OFDMA ........................................................................................................ 15
2.4 Resource Allocation and Interference Mitigation ..................................... 16
3
RELATED TECHNOLOGIES ......................................................................... 21
3.1 Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation .............................................................. 21
3.1.1
ICI Cancelation..................................................................................... 22
3.1.2
ICI Randomization ............................................................................... 22
3.1.3
ICI Coordination................................................................................... 23
3.2 Frequency Reuse Techniques for ICI Mitigation in Cellular OFDMA
Networks ................................................................................................................. 25
3.2.1
Static Fractional Frequency Reuse ....................................................... 26
3.2.2
Soft Frequency Reuse ........................................................................... 29
3.2.3
Incremental Frequency Reuse .............................................................. 34
3.2.4
Summary and Conclusion..................................................................... 35
4
ENHANCED FRACTIONAL FREQUENCY REUSE DESIGN ................... 37
IV
Table of Contents
4.1 EFFR ............................................................................................................. 37

4.1.1
Design Requirements ........................................................................... 37
4.1.2
Concept of the EFFR Scheme .............................................................. 38
4.1.3
Distinctions between the EFFR and other ICI Mitigation Schemes ..... 45
4.1.4
Expected Benefits by Using the EFFR Scheme ................................... 46
4.2 EFFR-Advanced .......................................................................................... 48
4.3 EFFR-Beyond............................................................................................... 50
5
PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 53
5.1 Cell Coverage Analysis ................................................................................ 54
5.1.1
Carrier to Interference Calculation ....................................................... 54
5.1.2
Cell Coverage Comparison .................................................................. 65
5.2 Cell Capacity Analysis ................................................................................. 77
5.2.1
Mean Cell Capacity Computation ........................................................ 77
5.2.2
Cell Capacity Comparison ................................................................... 80
5.2.3
Area Spectral Efficiency ...................................................................... 83
5.3 Comparison between Analytical and Simulation Results......................... 85
5.4 Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................... 90
6
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION BY MEANS OF SIMULATION ........... 91
6.1 Simulation Scenario and Simulation Setup ............................................... 92
6.1.1
Cellular Scenario .................................................................................. 92
6.1.2
Performance Metrics ............................................................................ 92
6.1.3
Link Adaptation and Error Modeling ................................................... 93
6.1.4
Frame Structure and Overhead ............................................................. 94
6.1.5
Resource Allocation and Scheduling ................................................... 95
6.1.6
Simulation Parameters ......................................................................... 99
6.2 Simulation Results ..................................................................................... 101
6.2.1
Reference Scenario............................................................................. 101
6.2.2
Impact of Range Ratio on System Performance................................. 129
6.2.3
Impact of Power Ratio on System Performance................................. 137
6.3 Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................... 145
7
CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK ................................................................. 147
7.1
7.2
Summary .................................................................................................... 147

Conclusion .................................................................................................. 148
Table of Contents
7.3 Outlook ....................................................................................................... 150

A SIMULATION ENVIRONMENT OPEN WIRELESS NETWORKS
SIMULATOR ........................................................................................................... 153
A.1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 153
A.1.1
FUN .................................................................................................... 155
A.1.2
Configurability of the OpenWNS ....................................................... 156
A.1.3
Simulation Progress ............................................................................ 156
A.1.4
Simulator and traffic model ................................................................ 157
A.2 WiMAX MAC Layer ................................................................................. 158
A.2.1
User Plane........................................................................................... 158
A.2.2
Medium Access Control ..................................................................... 159
B REFERENCE SCENARIO ............................................................................. 161
B.1 Additional Simulation Results for NLOS DL .......................................... 161
B.2 Additional Simulation Results for NLOS UL .......................................... 163
C IMPACT OF RANGE RATIO ON SYSTEM PERFORMANCE ............... 169
C.1 Additional Simulation Results for LOS DL ............................................. 169
C.2 Performance in LOS UL ............................................................................ 170
C.3 Performance in NLOS DL ......................................................................... 176
C.4 Performance in NLOS UL ......................................................................... 182
C.5 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 185
D IMPACT OF POWER RATIO ON SYSTEM PERFORMANCE .............. 187
D.1 Performance in LOS UL ............................................................................ 187
D.2 Performance in NLOS DL ......................................................................... 193
D.3 Performance in NLOS UL ......................................................................... 198
D.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................. 201
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................. 203
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................. 207
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... 215
BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... 217
CURRICULUM VITAE .......................................................................................... 221
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
Introduction
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.1
Motivation and Objectives ............................................................................1

Contribution of the Thesis .............................................................................2
Outline.............................................................................................................4
Motivation and Objectives
The future wireless systems are envisaged to offer ubiquitous high data-rate coverage
in large areas. Hence, aggressive spectrum reuse (frequency reuse of 1 or close to 1)
becomes a key objective in most Fourth Generation (4G) cellular standardization
bodies and forums, for example, Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
(WiMAX) IEEE 802.16m [1][2][3] and Third Generation Partnership Project Long
Term Evolution (3GPP-LTE) [4][24][5], to achieve high system capacity and simplify
radio network planning.
Both IEEE 802.16m and 3GPP-LTE are based on Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiple Access (OFDMA) air-interface technology, which uses multi-channel
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) and provides subchannel
access in time and frequency domain. Decisions of using which timeslot, subchannel
and power level for communication are determined by intelligent Medium Access
Control (MAC) protocol to seek to maximize the Carrier-to-Interference-plus-Noise
Ratio (CINR) for every Mobile Station (MS). Equipped with OFDMA, great benefits
in handling Inter-Symbol Interference (ISI), inter-carrier interference and providing
high flexibility in radio resource allocation can be reaped. Even so, Co-Channel
Interference (CCI) or so-called Inter-Cell Interference (ICI) as a big obstacle with the
OFDMA is still remaining, which encumbers to attain both, wide area coverage and
high spectral efficiency in cellular systems.
It is known that dense reuse of available spectrum in a cellular system may highly
enhance the system capacity. However, the obvious pitfall of a dense reuse is strong
ICI which limits network as well as cell-edge throughput. To obtain the full potential
of OFDMA in a dense reuse environment, appropriate Radio Resource Management
(RRM) algorithms for ICI mitigation are necessary. Furthermore, since solutions with
1. Introduction
low system complexity and flexible spectrum usage are desirable, systems with
distributed RRM techniques have gained much attention recently.
The objective of this thesis is to improve cell-edge performance while retaining the
maximum system capacity and highest spectral efficiency. Based on a thoroughly
analyzing of several to date prevailing ICI avoidance techniques, a new design called
Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse (EFFR) scheme is put forward in this
monograph, which is combined with a power allocation and an interference-aware
reuse mechanism to achieve not only ICI limitation at cell edge but also a great
enhancement of overall cell capacity in OFDMA-based communication networks.
This thesis aims at providing an overview of contemporary ICI coordination
techniques and introducing the new EFFR scheme for a better ICI mitigation in
OFDMA-based systems in general, instead of addressing a specific system standard
implementation and evaluation. The objective is rather the analysis and discussion of
the interaction of system, environment and various scheme-related parameters and
how these determine the system performance in terms of cell capacity, cell coverage
percentage as well as spectral efficiency depending on the applied resource allocation
and reuse strategies. This thesis provides detailed performance evaluations of the
proposed EFFR scheme by means of both, mathematical analysis and stochastic eventdriven simulation, in which its performance is compared with those using the
conventional reuse methods and some well-known representative ICI mitigation
techniques. In order to reach a reliable evaluation, all schemes are simulated with
individual power masks, and using a scenario with surrounding cells up to the 2nd-tier.
1.2
Contribution of the Thesis
In this monograph, a novel ICI coordination scheme for both Downlink (DL) and
Uplink (UL) of a cellular OFDMA network is presented. The algorithm is evaluated at
the example of an IEEE 802.16e network, but the basic idea is applicable to any kind
of OFDMA- or Frequency and Time Division Multiple Access (FDMA/TDMA)based networks, like 3GPP-LTE [25] and its successor LTE-Advanced. It also can be
applied to other network types, such as Wireless Local Area Networks (WLANs) or
mesh networks, possibly with technology specific adaptations. The following gives an
overview of the main contributions of this work.
With a deepgoing study of several well-know frequency reuse schemes (static

Fractional Frequency Reuse, Soft Frequency Reuse, and Incremental
Frequency Reuse), which aim at mitigating excessive ICI among adjacent cells
in OFDMA-based communication networks, a series of novel ICI mitigation
designs (EFFR, EFFR-Advanced, and EFFR-Beyond) combined with power
1.2 Contribution of the Thesis
allocation and an interference-aware mechanism is proposed for a better

fulfillment of the goals, namely, to enhance the mean system capacity while
restraining the ICI at the cell edge.
With the usage of the CINR calculation, the maximal cell radius and
reasonable boundary definitions for separating different user-type zones for
each reuse partitioning scheme are determined.
Through analytical evaluations, the CINR distributions and the upper bounds
of an OFDMA-based cellular system in terms of cell coverage, mean cell
capacity, as well as area spectral efficiency of these schemes under various
propagation conditions (Line-of-Sight (LOS), Non Line-of-Sight (NLOS),
combined LOS-NLOS) are illustrated and compared. The analytical evaluation
supports and validates the setup of the Reference Scenario, which is chosen for
the simulative performance evaluation.
The performances of various proportion combinations of different frequency

reuse factor OFDMA subchannels in the EFFR schemes are demonstrated and
compared addressing the tradeoff between the cell capacity maximization and
fairness among users within a cell.
The implementations of the mainly concerned frequency reuse schemes,

including Soft Frequency Reuse, Incremental Frequency Reuse, and EFFR, are
embedded in an even-driven system level simulator. Comprehensive
performance evaluations of these frequency reuse schemes and two static
Reuse schemes are carried out by means of computer simulations under LOS
and NLOS propagation conditions, separately. Moreover, in order to reach a
reliable evaluation, schemes are simulated with individual power mask, using
scenarios with surrounding interfering cells up to the 2nd-tier.
This thesis presents the system performance of each investigated scheme

(including CINR level distribution, mean throughput, coverage percentage,
and spectral efficiency), not only from the overall cell perspective but also
from different types of users (cell-centre users, cell-edge users, and possibly
the most remote users) perspective.
The most important factors that influence the OFDMA multi-cellular system
behavior are identified. And the impacts of traffic load, range ratio defined for
different types of users, as well as power ratio of higher power level to lower
power level on the system performance using each focused frequency reuse
scheme are evaluated. In addition, the effect of different proportion
combinations of reuse-3 and reuse-1 bandwidth on the EFFR performance is
also investigated and compared with the performances of other schemes.
1.3
1. Introduction
Outline
This thesis is organized in seven chapters. A short overview of the chapters is given as
follows.
The succeeding Chapter 2 first deals with the characteristics of a radio channel with
special focus on the channel properties which directly affect the performance of an
OFDMA-based cellular system. Then, basic concepts of planning wireless cellular
networks and principles of the multiple access schemeOFDMA are outlined. The
chapter ends with an introduction of a three-stage radio resource allocation mechanism
concerning ICI mitigation in OFDMA-based cellular networks.
After a brief overview of the fundamental concepts of wireless and cellular systems in
Chapter 2, Chapter 3 elaborates the state-of-the-art of ICI mitigation techniques that
are currently under consideration within standardization bodies or that have recently
been used for emerging cellular systems. This goes along with outlining the categories
of ICI mitigation techniques, the most well-known approaches to each category as well
as their advantages and limitations. Finally, three most representative ICI mitigation
techniques, namely, the static Fractional Frequency Reuse (FFR), the Soft Frequency
Reuse (SFR), and the Incremental Frequency Reuse (IFR), are studied in detail.
Based on a thoroughly analyzing of their advantages and limitations respectively,
Chapter 4 proposes a novel ICI mitigation design referred as Enhanced Fractional
Frequency Reuse (EFFR) scheme and its two derivatives, namely, the EFFRAdvanced scheme and EFFR-Beyond scheme.
Chapter 5 addresses the performance evaluation of the aforementioned reuse
partitioning techniques (including SFR, EFFR, EFFR-Advanced, and EFFR-Beyond)
in OFDMA-based cellular radio networks by means of mathematical analysis in
Matlab. The evaluation comprises the maximal cell radius, reasonable boundary
definitions for separating different user-type zones, CINR level distribution, cell
coverage, mean cell capacity, as well as area spectral efficiency by using each reuse
partitioning scheme under various propagation conditions.
The focused SFR, IFR, EFFR frequency reuse partitioning schemes are also integrated
into the so-call WiMAC module, which is an implementation of the IEEE 802.16
standard in the Open Wireless Network Simulator (OpenWNS) described in Appendix
A [36]. Using the OpenWNS and based on the upper bounds of cell radii resulting
from Chapter 5, an in-depth and comprehensive performance evaluation by means of
stochastic event-driven simulation of an OFDMA-based cellular system is completed
in Chapter 6. Valuable performance evaluation results by applying the proposed EFFR
scheme are compared with those using the SFR, the IFR and two static Reuse schemes.
1.3 Outline
The evaluation consists of three parts. The first part presents the performance of all
schemes depending on increased traffic load, whereas the other two parts give the
simulation results affected by the range ratio and the power ratio, respectively.
Finally, Chapter 7 concludes the thesis with a summary of the main findings and the
major results presented in this monograph, as well as an outlook on possible future
work.
CHAPTER 2
Overview of Cellular Networks
Overview of Cellular Networks

2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
The Wireless Channel ....................................................................................8

The Cellular Concept ................................................................................... 10
OFDMA ........................................................................................................ 15
Resource Allocation and Interference Mitigation ..................................... 16
In the past several decades, as time goes on and the demand for high data rate services
continuously increases, mobile radio networks have been developed from the 1 st
generation analog networks over the 2nd generation digital cellular networks
represented by the Global System for Mobile communications (GSM) and the General
Packet Radio Service (GPRS) standards to the 3rd generation cellular networks
including the Universal Mobile Telecommunication System (UMTS), the Universal
Terrestrial Radio Access - Frequency Division Duplex (UTRA-FDD), as well as the
IEEE 802.16e technologies; and are further advancing rapidly towards the 4th
generation networks. This also goes along with a transition from offering circuit
switched services to high data rate packet switched services for Internet access.
Recently, both Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) and IEEE 802.16 Task
Group m (TGm) are actively collecting ideas and working on technologies for the next
generation (4G) systems to attempt to realize further high-speed and high-quality
packet switched services for end users. These next generation technologies are handled
under the name International Mobile Telecommunications advanced (IMTadvanced), which is the dedicated successor of IMT-2000. Since the available radio
spectrum for cellular systems appears increasingly precious and scarce, caused by the
growth of high rate services for a variety of applications, the need for advanced
algorithms and concepts to enhance the spectral efficiency of wireless networks
becomes thereby more and more urgent.
Before discussing specific methods to increase spectral efficiency in wireless networks,

the fundamental concepts of wireless networks with particular focuses on the
OFDMA-based cellular systems will be firstly overviewed in this chapter. In Section
2. Overview of Cellular Networks
2.1, the main characteristics of wireless channels are outlined. Section 2.2 introduces
the basic concepts of cellular systems, followed by a review of the multiple access
scheme OFDMA in Section 2.3. Finally, Section 2.4 concludes the chapter with an
introduction of radio resource management considering interference coordination in
OFDMA-based cellular networks.
2.1
The Wireless Channel
For designing mobile radio systems, it is essential to understand and be familiar with
the propagation characteristics of radio waves. In this section, some notable features of
wireless propagation will be briefly described.
The wireless communication channel between any pair of transmitter and receiver is a
fast fading accompanied multipath propagation channel, which holds several inherent
unfavorable characteristics [7]:
In most cases, radio channels are noisy and prone to distortions;
Moreover, signals propagating on a radio channel are often attenuated quickly,

and fluctuate continuously over time and frequency.
Hence, the data transmission over a wireless channel becomes one of the biggest
challenges in the development of mobile communication systems.
Free-space propagation without obstacles on a direct Line-of-Sight (LOS) path is an
ideal case, but of little practical relevance in mobile communication. In reality, various
obstructions and reflective surfaces may exist on the propagation path, for example,
buildings, cars, trees, etc. When radio waves impinge to obstructions, three
phenomena may occur on them, namely, reflection, scattering and diffraction. Due to
these effects, the transmitted signals arrive at the receiver over multiple paths of
different lengths and are superimposed there. According to their phases, the multipathsignal may be amplified or weakened. The latter is called fading. While reflection
effect results in large scale attenuation, scattering and diffraction lead to the signal
decay on a small scale. In terms of signal level fluctuation frequency, they are also
known as slow and fast fading, respectively. Hence, signal propagation can be
described as follows:
PRx
PTx gTx g Rx
L
(2.1)
, where PTx and PRx represent the transmission and the received power, respectively;
gTx and gRx stand for the antenna gains at the receiver and the transmitter side; L
denotes the signal attenuation in a mobile radio channel, which is composed of a
2.1 The Wireless Channel
superposition of three components: mean path loss LP, slow fading LS, as well as fast
fading LF
L LP LS LF .
(2.2)
The large-scale path loss LP describes the mean signal degradation determined by
macro-parameters, such as distance between transmitter and receiver, carrier frequency,
and terrain features, etc. The slow fading LS (also known as shadowing) describes the
local signal variation averaged over short to medium time periods around a mean value
of LP, which is caused by changes in the propagation environment, for example,
constructions or roads with rough surfaces, or other obstacles with relatively smaller
dimensions in the order of tens of meters. The fast fading LF, however, is the effect of
time and frequency dependent signal variation around a mean value of LS on a short
time scale arising from movement of terminals and elements of the environment,
which reflect the micro-aspect of the wireless channel.
2.1.1
Path Loss
In a flat terrain model without taking obstacles into consideration, the path loss at
distance d can be simplified expressed as [8]:
1
h h
LP gTx g Rx Tx 2 Rx .
d

(2.3)
In this case, d >> hTxhRx is a frequency-independent term with hTx and hRx being the
height of the transmitters antenna and the receivers antenna, respectively. It can be
seen that the signal power decays much faster (~ 1/d4) than with the free-space
propagation (~ 1/d2).
In a real environment, besides distance and reflections, signal further loses energy due
to wave scattering caused by rough ground surfaces and slow fading resulting from
obstacles on the propagation path. Thereby, the distance-dependent path loss can be
generally given by
LP d
(2.4)
, where is a constant of proportionality and is the propagation coefficient, which

strongly depends on the environment and needs to be determined by measurements.
Typical values for the range between 2 and 5 including free-space, urban and
suburban environment.
10
2.1.2
Shadowing
Shadowing is mainly caused by obstacles on the LOS path between transmitter and
receiver, which further reduces the received signal power in addition to the distancedependent path loss. If the receiver is moving, the signal degradation by shadowing
mostly occurs for a relatively long time. Hence, shadowing is also referred to as slow
fading.
2.1.3
Multipath Effects
Along with the ubiquity of reflections, scattering and diffraction of radio waves in the
realistic environments, multipath propagation becomes therefore a typical and inherent
characteristic for a mobile radio channel, and mainly leads to three effects:
Delay spread
In many cases, transmitted signals via multiple propagation
paths arrives at the receiver with different delays, which results in the
widening of a channels impulse response. When the resulted time dispersion
of the received signals (delay spread) is in the order of a data symbol period or
longer, Inter-Symbol Interference (ISI) will be caused and distort the
transmitted signal.
Fast fading
All component waves, including the possible direct and
indirect reflection, scattering or diffraction radio waves, reach at the receiver
having individual propagation delays and phase-shifts. They thereby
superimpose themselves there constructively or destructively, leading to
variations of the received signal power of as much as 20 30 dB within a
distance in the order of the wavelength [9]. This effect is referred to as fast
fading.
Doppler effect
When there is a relative movement between the transmitter
and the receiver, the received frequency differs from the original frequency at
the source. Depending on the direction of incidence of a component wave, the
relative to the transmitter moving receiver experiences either a positive or
negative Doppler shift, which results in a widening of the frequency spectrum.
2.2
The Cellular Concept
In order to offer sophisticated mobile communications over a large area, wireless

cellular networks divide the covered area into cells, as shown in Figure 2.1. All
communications within each cell are served by one Base Station (BS) located in the
cell-center using a certain frequency channel group, indicated by Fi (i = 1, 2, , n) in
11
2.2 The Cellular Concept

1
Figure 2.1 . The same frequency resource is repeatedly available (reused) for other
cells at a certain distance to avoid excessive conflicts due to severe Co-Channel
Interference (CCI) among adjacent cells. Hence, the main advantage of using cellular
systems is that through reusing radio channels in distant cells, the network coverage
can be provided to areas of any size.
F1
F2
F3
F1
F3
F2
F1
F2
F1
F2
F3
F3
F1
Figure 2.1: Illustration of a cellular system with omni-directional antennas. Each cell is served by one
in the cell-center located BS using a certain frequency bandwidth Fi.
However, how to determine the size and the shape of a cell, as well as how to allocate
resources among cells are very important in radio network planning, as they may
largely influence the system performance. The size and the shape of each cell depend
on signal quality received within the covered cell-area, which is related to many
factors, such as the surrounding terrain, buildings, the height of transmission antennas,
the transmission power of the BS, the expected traffic demands and density, as well as
the atmospheric conditions, etc. Cells are generally represented as idealized regular
hexagons, but because of topographical and environmental conditions, this is only an
Another way of interpretation of Figure 2.1 is that a BS serves three sectors, each by a different frequency
channel group Fi. Then, a sector corresponds to a cell.
12
approximation of what actually occurs [8]. Naturally, in a real world scenario, the cell
shapes are very irregular and overlap with each other by approximately 10 15%. This
enables MSs operating near the boundary of a cell to choose which BS they are
associated to.
2.2.1
Frequency Reuse
As mentioned above, frequency reuse is a key characteristic in cellular networks. The

whole available bandwidth for a system is divided into several narrower subbands,
each of which is assigned once to a cell of each cluster consisting of several adjacent
cells. The number of subbands should equal the size of cell-cluster, termed as
Frequency Reuse Factor (FRF). This way, all directly neighboring cells in the system
use different subbands to avoid heavy CCI among them; and the entire available
system bandwidth can be reused in all cell-clusters distributed over the network
covered area so that the utilization of valuable spectrum resources can be ensured to
some extent.
Thus, the next question is how to determine the value of FRF , which is another
essential parameter in radio network planning. With a bigger FRF value, the distance
between inter-interfered cells becomes larger. And consequently, the CCI can be
significantly reduced, and better cell/system coverage can be attained. However, on
the other hand, since the available system bandwidth must be shared by a cell-cluster
(i.e., among every adjacent cells), each cell within the cell-cluster is assigned a
smaller number of channels and therefore can carry less traffic limiting the number of
User Terminals (UTs) that can be served. This may lead to an unfavorable spectral
efficiency. When a smaller FRF value is used, more bandwidth is available per cell.
Since the same frequency resources are then reused within a short distance, the CCI in
the system is increased limiting the number of UTs that can be served. The question is
to answer what FRF value would be the best choice to gain the maximum cell capacity.
Figure 2.2 illustrates cellular systems using a FRF of 1, 3, and 7, respectively. The
focused cell in the middle of each system is surrounded by 3 tiers of cells. Using the
single frequency deployment (FRF = 1), as shown in Figure 2.2a, all 3 tiersa total of
36surrounding cells are co-channel cells and originate heavy CCI. Yet, each cell in
the system has the whole available bandwidth to utilize. When the FRF increases to 3
(see Figure 2.2b), there is no interfering cells from the 1 st-tier, and only 6 co-channel
cells from the 2nd- and 3rd-tier exist, respectively. Correspondingly, each cell is
assigned 1/3 of the whole available bandwidth for serving its traffic. Figure 2.2c gives
a cellular network with a FRF of 7, where the number of co-channel interfering cells is
reduced to 6 in total from the 3rd-tier. However, in this case, only 1/7 of the whole
system bandwidth is available for each cell, which fundamentally limits the cell
capacity. Hence, an optimal assignment of resources to cells with a tradeoff between
13
2.2 The Cellular Concept
25
26
27
28
12
30
15
31
32
33
F1
19
17
16
F3
20
18
F2
21
F1
22
14
29
10
11
13
23
24
F1
(a) FRF of 1 cellular system
F1
F6
F2
F4
F5
F3
F2
F7
F1
F2
F1
F2
F3
F1
F4
F2
F7
F6
F4
F5
F3
F2
F1
F5
F3
F6
F1
F2
F7
F1
F4
F5
F1
F5
F7
F1
F3
(b) FRF of 3 cellular system
F3
F6
F3
F3
F2
F1
F2
F1
F2
F3
F2
F1
F3
F1
F3
F2
F1
34
F4
F3
F2
35
F2
F1
F3
36
F1
F3
F2
F3
F2
F7
F3
F1
F6
(c) FRF of 7 cellular system

Figure 2.2: Cellular networks using different size cell-clusters, in each of which the in the middle
located cell is surrounded by 3 tiers of neighboring cells. (a) When FRF =1, the cell in the centre is
interfered by in total 36 co-channel cells in the near neighborhood; (b) When FRF =3, the cell in the
centre is interfered by 12 co-channel neighboring cells; (c) When FRF =7, the cell in the centre is just
interfered by 6 co-channel cells located on the relatively farther 3rd tier.
maximum spectrum utilization efficiency and optimal cell coverage in terms of CCI
needs to be found during the network planning process, which is also the main target
of this monograph.
14
2.2.2

Carrier-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio
When proper modulation techniques and link adaptation are employed, the capacity of
cellular systems depends essentially on the mean quality of received radio signals,
which can be characterized by the Carrier-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (CINR):
CINR
C
M
I
k 1
(2.5)
, where C is the received carrier signal power, Ik denotes the received CCI signal from
one of M co-channel cells, and N is the noise power. The received signal power C is
determined by the distance between the transmitter and the receiver, the transmission
power and the associated path loss caused by the environment. The most dominant
noise type is thermal noise originated from the hardware components in the system.
And the ever present background radiation originating from cosmic or terrestrial
sources adds up to the overall noise. As for the perceived interference, actually, the
interference Ik includes not only CCI, which is also known as Inter-Cell Interference
(ICI), but also intra-cell interference. Since ICI is dominating in an OFDMA scenario
compared to the intra-cell interference, and in this monograph only OFDMA-based
cellular systems are under consideration, the focus will be therefore only on the ICI in
the remainder of this work. ICI depends on the number of co-channel cells, the
distance between these cells, the transmission power and the terrain characteristics, in
which the first two factors depend on the choise of the FRF value.
Depending on whether noise or ICI is the dominating effect, the cellular system is
referred to as noise-limited or interference-limited. In an interference-limited system,
CINR can approximately be replaced by the Carrier-to-Interference Ratio (CIR). And
the ICI plays in this case a crucial role in terms of achievable system capacity and
coverage performance. In the previous Subsection 2.2.1, it has been explained that
with a smaller FRF severe ICI could happen in the system. To be precise, the closer to
the cell edge, the heavier the ICI is. Due to a large distance between the transmitter
and the receiver, the desired signal C is then relatively weak compared to the ICI
signal strength. Without doubt, through increasing the FRF value the ICI can be
effectively limited, however, at the expense of sacrificing the available bandwidth for
each cell. To resolve such a problem is the main purpose of this thesis, and in Chapter
3 an overview of various contemporary and forward looking ICI mitigation techniques
will be summarized.
In addition, in order to further increase data rate and spectral efficiency without
superinducing more spectrum resources in cellular networks, two traditional spatial
15
2.3 OFDMA
reuse mechanisms are often taken into account, namely, cell splitting and sectorization.
Moreover, several modern spatial antenna techniques such as Multiple-Input MultipleOutput (MIMO) and Space Division Multiple Access (SDMA), and adaptive
beamforming are also gaining much attention lately to enhance cellular system
performance. Yet, in order to facilitate discussion, this work just focuses on the
frequency reuse techniques including sectorized cells. Hence, none of the above
mentioned spatial reuse concepts will be further discussed hereinafter. However, all
frequency reuse schemes investigated in this thesis can be employed combined with
these spatial reuse techniques to achieve a higher system capacity.
2.3
OFDMA
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) has gained increasing

interest recently. Due to its inherent robustness against frequency selective fading and
its capacity for achieving high spectral efficiency, OFDMA has been considered as a
modulation and multiple access method for 4G wireless networks, such as IEEE
802.16m (WiMAX) and 3GPP-LTE. With OFDMA, transmissions can be multiplexed
in both time and frequency based on the underlying OFDM system, which essentially
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.3: OFDMA subchannel structure: (a) distributed subchannel; (b) adjacent subchannel [10].
16
corresponds to a combination of Frequency and Time Division Multiplexing (FDM

and TDM).
In an OFDMA system, the available frequency subcarriers are separated into distinct
sets (be referred to as subchannels) and consequently can be allocated to different
data-streams for different users. An OFDMA subchannel is a logical channel which is
mapped onto subcarriers within the spectrum. And according to different modes of
construction, two kinds of OFDMA subchannels can be distinguished concerning the
diversity within a subchannel: distributed and adjacent subchannels as shown in
Figure 2.3 [10]. In a distributed subchannel, the subcarriers that form a subchannel are
spread across the spectrum, which results in an averaging effect concerning both
interference and fading. Hence, this approach is suitable for the cases that no detailed
Channel State Information (CSI) is available or mobile terminals move too fast. In
contrast to that, an adjacent subchannel is formed by subcarriers which are located
next to each other within the frequency spectrum. This allows the implementation of
frequency selective scheduling schemes, which provides an efficient exploitation of
diversity in multi-user scenarios by allocating subchannels to the user with good
channel quality, and can thereby significantly increase the system capacity. However,
it requires more accurate knowledge of the channel state. With inaccurate channel
estimation, large delays because of retransmissions in the case of packet errors might
be caused. Hence, such a scheme is only feasible if the channel does not vary too
quickly, i.e., if the velocity of the mobile terminal is not too high.
In summary, compared to the other multiple access schemes, like TDMA, FDMA,
OFDM, etc., OFDMA offers the following advantages:
OFDMA allows for a highly flexible resource allocation in the time and
frequency domain, and is scalable for the different considered bandwidths.
Either consecutive or non-consecutive subcarriers/time positions are supported

by the OFDMA scheduler.
A report of a channel quality indicator enables frequency selective scheduling.
2.4
Resource Allocation and Interference Mitigation
As already indicated in Section 2.2, ICI mitigation is a big challenge issue in cellular
systems. Excessive ICI may lead to severe performance degradation or connection loss
especially in the border area of cells. In order to efficiently reduce the ICI whilst not
drastically reduce the utilization of the scarce frequency spectrum, suitable radio
resource management (RRM) is desirable. In general, the resource allocation
scheduling process for an efficient handling of the RRM consists of three progressive
2.4 Resource Allocation and Interference Mitigation
17
and complementary stages concerning the scales of assignable resources, namely:

resource distribution, reuse partitioning and local OFDMA scheduling.
Resource distribution At this stage, the entire available resources in an OFDMA
cellular system will be shared among cells according to some certain
principles.
Reuse partitioning
Then, the allotted resources from the first stage for each cell
will be subdivided among different types of users within each cell. This
stage is only employed in those schemes, where different resource
allocation mechanisms are applied to different types of users (for
example, the Fractional Frequency Reuse (FFR) scheme and the Soft
Frequency Reuse (SFR) scheme presented in Chapter 3, as well as the
Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse (EFFR) series proposed in
Chapter 4).
Relative to the local OFDMA scheduling introduced in the following, the first two
stagesthe resource distribution and the reuse partitioning together can be referred
to as system-wide or global resource allocation.
With respect to the execution mode, the global resource allocation can be realized in
two ways: static or dynamic. In a static manner, the global resource allocation is
applied during the network planning process. The resource share assigned to each cell
and how to subdivide this share for different types of users are fixed and will not be
changed in the subsequent scheduling process. In a dynamic manner, on the contrary,
the global resource allocation reacts on cell-load and user-load variations, where the
amount of resources distributed to each cell varies with taking into account the
demands of all cells within a large area. A central coordinator, Radio Network
Controller (RNC), collects continuously state information from all its associated cells
(or BSs), and re-distributes available radio resources for these cells after processing
this information at regular intervals.
In general, resources shared among cells can be time slots, frequency ranges, space, or
code resources. In this work, special focus will be put on a resource distribution in the
frequency domain. Hence, subchannel sets are assigned to cells by a RNC.
Furthermore, dynamic resource allocation can be done on different time scales. While
the fast global resource allocation takes place on the frame level or slightly above, the
communication intervals with the slow global resource allocation operates on timescales in the order of half a minute or even a minute. In order not to lead to drastically
increased signaling overhead and high computational complexity, which are important
prerequisites for the implementation in real networks, the slow global resource
allocation appears preferable to the fast one.
18
Local OFDMA scheduling

The OFDMA scheduling is a fast resource
allocation operating on the frame level, which is locally performed by
the BS in each cell taking into account the informationthe resource
share resulting from the global resource allocationdelivered by the
RNC. In contrast to the global resource allocation, the actual channel
characteristics should be considered during local OFDMA scheduling.
Different scheduling algorithms (such as, Round Robin, Proportional
Fair, Max-Throughput, etc.) can be applied to different reuse partitions.
Further, the overall transmission power should be spread over the
subchannels that are used for the parallel data transmissions, performed
in combination with an adaptive Physical Layer (PHY) mode selection.
An efficient local OFDMA scheduling requires accurate CSI and
interference estimation, which should be updated quickly to assure its
reliability. Hence, it would be inefficient in terms of signaling overhead
and system complexity to apply joint scheduling in the RNC, where
global resource allocation is done in the context of the OFDMA
scheduling for the entire system comprising all BSs and UTs [10].
It can be seen that the global and local resource allocation is interrelated and
complements each other so that precious frequency resources can be more efficiently
utilized without inducing heavy signaling overhead and computational complexity.
In this thesis, local OFDMA scheduling with static frequency resource allocation are
taken into consideration in both analytical and simulative performance evaluations.
They are applied based on the assumption that in each investigated approach all cells
in a network are assigned the same amount of resources, namely the same amount of
OFDMA subchannels. However, even in case dynamic global resource allocation is
employed, in the subsequent treatise it should be noticed that with the usage of the
SFR or the Incremental Frequency Reuse (IFR) approach, the amount of resources
assigned for each cell within the cellular system is fixed and impossible to be changed,
whereas using the EFFR series, the amount of resources assigned for each cell can be
dynamically adjusted by the RNC regarding the state reports from all its BSs. The goal
of resource distribution adjustment in the EFFR series can for example be the
reduction of the ICI, or the maximization of the overall network capacity, or the
maximization of the cell edge throughput. So, from this point of view, the EFFR series
possess a higher degree of freedom than the SFR and the IFR schemes.
Although the local ICI coordination mechanisms currently studied by the 3GPP build
on markedly lower complexity heuristics, ICI coordination mechanisms with slow
inter-cell communication (i.e. with slow global resource allocation) may mitigate the
ICI more efficiently so that the valuable limited resources can be more effectively
utilized. Thus, the future promising RRM taking ICI mitigation into consideration
should be realized through faster but localized updates of the resource metrics coupled
2.4 Resource Allocation and Interference Mitigation
19
with a slower but more system-wide change to the resource distribution and reuse
partitions.
CHAPTER 3
Related Technologies
Related Technologies
3.1 Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation .............................................................. 21
Networks ................................................................................................................. 25
After a brief overview of the fundamental concepts of wireless and cellular systems in
Chapter 2, this chapter focuses on the related work and standardization activities of
Inter-Cell Interference (ICI) mitigation techniques. First, the categories of ICI
mitigation techniques, the most well-known approaches to each category as well as
their advantages and limitations are outlined in Section 3.1. Then, Section 3.2 studies
three most representative ICI mitigation approaches. Their performances are compared
with the novel schemes proposed in Chapter 4 in subsequent Chapters 5 and 6.
It is known that effective reuse of resources in a cellular system can highly enhance
the system capacity. As mentioned in Section 2.2, with a smaller frequency reuse
factor (FRF), more available bandwidth can be obtained by each cell. So, in this sense
the classical FRF-1 deployment is desirable. However, with the usage of FRF-1, the
most UTs are seriously afflicted with heavy ICI, especially near the cell edge. And that
causes low cell coverage and inferior system capacity. The conventional method to
figure out this problem is by increasing the cluster-order, which can mitigate the ICI
efficiently, nonetheless at the cost of a decrease on available bandwidth for each cell.
This could result in restricted data transmission rate and lower system spectrum
efficiency in general, and would worsen in the case of unbalanced traffic distribution
among cells.
3.1
Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation
To seek for improving cell-edge performance while retaining system spectrum

efficiency of Reuse-1, the investigation of ICI mitigation techniques has become a key
focus area in achieving dense spectrum reuse in next generation cellular systems such
22
3. Related Technologies
as 3GPP-LTE, LTE-Advanced, and WiMAX. Through reduction of the ICI, one of the
following goals is desired: i) maximization of the overall network capacity, ii)
maximization of the cell-edge throughput, iii) enhancements in terms of both the
overall network capacity and the cell-edge performance. Based on approaches used,
mitigation techniques can be generally classified into three major categories, namely,
ICI cancelation, ICI randomization, and ICI coordination techniques.
3.1.1
ICI Cancelation
ICI cancelation techniques have been investigated and deployed with varying degrees
of success in terrestrial mobile networks for more than 20 years. The basic principle of
ICI cancelation techniques is to regenerate the interfering signals and subsequently
subtract them from the desired signal. Good overviews of historical approaches can be
found in [12] and the references contained therein. It has been successfully applied to
both CDMA systems and TDMA systems, as well as proposed within the 3GPP-LTE
standardization [7].
Various ICI cancelation techniques have been proposed in literature and they are
mainly categorized into two classes, filter-based approaches and Multi-User Detection
(MUD) [11]. Filter-based approaches try to mitigate ICI by means of linear filters and
interference models. In contrast, MUD directly includes the interfering signals in the
decoding process. This is done by jointly decoding the signal of interest and the
interfering signals, or by decoding and subtracting the interfering signals from the
signal of interest. ICI-cancelation techniques can also be jointly used with MU Multiple-Input Multiple-Output (MIMO) technique if the mobile terminals are
equipped with multiple-receive antennas.
From an implementation standpoint, interference cancelation does not require any
modifications of the system standard, making it an attractive technique. Although ICI
cancelation promises significant gains and its algorithms are mature, it is considered
mostly as a technique for the UL due to processing complexity (scales exponentially
with number of mobiles served at the BS) [13]. Furthermore, it requires exchange of
information in real time between BSs about every msec to maximize the system gain.
Besides, ICI cancelation can potentially improve channel performance to that of
AWGN if accurate channel estimation is available.
3.1.2
ICI Randomization
In contrast to ICI cancelation, which tries to eliminate interfering signals in the

received signal, ICI randomization, which is also known as ICI whitening or ICI
averaging, aiming at making ICI appear like background noise, i.e., it averages the
3.1 Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation
23
interference across the data symbols of a data block or the whole frequency band. The
approaches include Frequency Hopping (FH) and Interleave Division Multiple Access
(IDMA). FH ensures User Equipments (UEs) to access a range of channels rather than
a narrow set in a specific pattern so that interference effect is averaged out for all UEs.
It is widely applied in CDMA systems and, combined with interleaving, is applied in
FDMA/TDMA systems like GSM [7]. Both FH and IDMA-based schemes have also
been proposed within the 3GPP-LTE standardization [14][15][16]. Nevertheless, these
methods randomize the interference into White Gaussian Noise, which cannot
reduce interference in nature. Thereby, these approaches can hardly achieve a
substantial performance improvement.
3.1.3
ICI Coordination
ICI coordination techniques, also known as ICI avoidance, in OFDMA networks in

general and in the 3GPP-LTE system in particular have recently gained much attention
from both the academia and the standardization communities. In order to reduce ICI in
cellular networks, ICI coordination is to apply restrictions to resource management in
a coordinated way among neighboring cells. Resources for coordination can be space
(with beamforming antennas), time, frequency, code resources, or transmit power. And
restrictions can be, for instance, in the form of restrictions to what time/frequency
resources are available to the resource manager, or/and restrictions on the transmit
power that can be applied to certain time/frequency resources.
The system architecture that follows from the ICI coordination scheme can be mainly
divided into four major classes with respect to the degree of distribution [7], i.e.,
global, distributed, decentrialized as well as local ICI coordination schemes. Global
ICI coordination schemes require an omniscient central device with full system
knowledge. The global device is capable of acquiring the global system state in zero
time, and it can distribute scheduling and other decisions instantly to all nodes (e.g.,
BSs) in the network. Distributed ICI coordination schemes rely on one or more central
components, which exchange information potentially with all nodes in the network.
The central components thereby collect state information and distribute information
relevant for coordination to the network nodes. Coordinated Multi-point
transmission/reception (CoMP) as standardized in 3GPP LTE-Advanced is an example
[49]. Decentralized ICI coordination schemes are distinguished from distributed
schemes by there being no central entity involved in the coordination process. The
coordination is performed solely by communication and information exchange among
the network nodes, which all have equal rights. Lastly, local ICI coordination schemes
are based purely on information that is available locally in every BS. No coordinationrelated communication and information exchange among neighboring BSs takes place.
24
Local state information includes data received from the mobile terminals, such as for
example pilot measurements or information about the strongest interferers.
Information exchange among BSs or with a central coordinator opens the way to much
larger possible performance gains, however at the expense of increased system
complexity. Especially, a global ICI coordination scheme is actually unfeasible in a
real network, although it may potentially attain the highest performance improvements
among all ICI coordination schemes. Local ICI coordination schemes, however,
require no separate network equipment and provide the most flexibility with respect to
the network design. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI)
Digital European Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) system is an example of this
[8]. Therefore, they are generally most desirable from an operators point of
perspective. Albeit using local ICI coordination schemes may not achieve the highest
potential performance gain, they are easy to implementable. ICI mitigation by means
of local ICI coordination techniques is the focus of this monograph and will be deeply
discussed in Section 3.2 and Chapter 4. And the analytical and simulative performance
evaluation will be given in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, respectively.
3.1.3.1 ICI Coordination techniques in 3GPP-LTE

Recently, the 3GPP has been completing most of the technical specifications for the
generation 3.5 in the 3GPP-LTE system. The technical targets of LTE include peak
data rates in excess of 300 Mbps, delay and latencies of less than 10 ms and manifold
gains in spectrum efficiency. Unlike the previous generations, LTE uses OFDM and
OFDMA as the baseline for modulation and multiple access schemes, respectively. [13]
gives an overview of the contemporary and forward looking ICI coordination
techniques for the 3GPP-LTE system, and provides a summary comparison of the
applicability, complexity and performance gains of these techniques.
Viable approaches include the use of power control, static Fractional Frequency Reuse
(FFR), Adaptive Fractional Frequency Reuse (AFFR), spatial antenna techniques such
as MIMO, Space Division Multiple Access (SDMA) and adaptive beamforming, as
well as recent innovations in decoding algorithms. Current mature approaches that
should be considered as baseline features for initial Uplink (UL) and Downlink (DL)
LTE deployments include power control, some form of FFR, preferably with
adaptation, as well as MIMO. SDMA is also relatively mature and can provide
significant aggregate capacity improvements for a small increase in complexity.
Beamforming technologies such as opportunistic spectrum access and organized beam
hopping show significant theoretical promise; however, as practical technologies for a
deployed LTE system they are still unproven. Newer decoding approaches such as
sphere decoding and dirty paper coding show considerable promise in terms of the
gain they can provide; however, the processing complexity of these approaches will

Networks
25
likely limit their use to the UL for the near future. Network power control and network
MIMO are inter-base station techniques that seem viable as features for LTE ICI
coordination evolution in the near future due to the potential performance gains and
the feasibility of their implementation at the BS. [13] also indicates that no single
approach will in itself provide complete ICI mitigation for an LTE implementation.
However, through combining some of these approaches may provide a robust N = 1
reuse capability in a heavily loaded LTE deployment. In the short term a combination
such as fractional power control and adaptive fractional frequency reuse based on
scheduling in high CINR regions could form the basis of a robust LTE ICI
coordination strategy. Longer term gains in ICI coordination performance could
potentially be achieved through the use of inter-base station network based algorithms,
including network MIMO, opportunistic and/or organized beamforming, and
distributed power control, as well as coding strategies such as sphere decoding or dirty
paper coding.
3.1.3.2 ICI Coordination techniques in IEEE 802.16m

IEEE 802.16m (WiMAX) standard utilizes similar ICI coordination techniques to that
applied in the 3GPP-LTE standard to mitigate ICI, including power control, AFFR,
smart antenna schemes such as MIMO and beamforming, etc. [17]. The exact details
and the relative emphasis of each technique differ across the two standards. For
example, 3GPP-LTE uplink power control may be configured to give a similar uplink
CINR distribution as possible in 802.16m; however, it requires usage of the closed
loop power update mechanism instead of the pure open-loop approach taken by
802.16m. Despite differences in certain implementation details, all approaches in both
standards are effective in reducing ICI and substantially improving the cell-edge
performance set forth by both standards.
3.2
Frequency Reuse Techniques for ICI Mitigation in

Cellular OFDMA Networks
As mentioned in the preceding subsection, ICI cancelation approaches suffer from

heavy complexity overhead and barely limited amount of strong ICI can be cancelled.
Similarly, ICI randomization technique can hardly achieve substantial performance
improvements as ICI randomization randomizes the interference into White Gaussian
Noise, which cannot reduce interference in nature. Among all three ICI mitigation
categories, only ICI coordination technique may potentially attain significant
performance improvements and has become very important to mitigate ICI in next
generation wireless communication networks. In the remainder of this monograph, out
26
of regard for feasibility in the reality, local ICI coordination approaches with static
frequency resource partitioning are discussed. In fact, the local ICI coordination
mechanisms currently studied by the 3GPP build on markedly lower complexity
heuristics. From a system design perspective, ICI coordination mechanisms without
(or with slow) inter-cell communicationbuilding on some pre-configured (simple)
OFDMA resource block allocation ruleare particularly attractive.
To take aim at improving cell-edge performance while retaining system spectrum
efficiency of Reuse-1, several local ICI coordination solutions [7] [18]-[23] [25]-[29]
[30]-[32] have been proposed recently. Among them, the most representative
approaches are the static Fractional Frequency Reuse (FFR) [18]-[23], the Soft
Frequency Reuse (SFR) [25]-[29] and the Incremental Frequency Reuse (IFR) [30][32]. All these methods concentrate on attaining high system spectrum efficiency with
small FRF and efficient reduction of ICI simultaneously.
3.2.1
Static Fractional Frequency Reuse
FRFlow
FRFmiddle
FRFhigh
Figure 3.1: Concentric zones in each cell in a system.
One type of ICI coordination techniques, known as Fractional Frequency Reuse

(FFR) or Reuse Partitioning (RUP), aims at effectively mitigating ICI by applying
various FRFs to UTs situated in different regions in each cell [18]-[23]. Normally, in a
multi-cellular environment, the closer those UTs located to the cell edge, the stronger
they are afflicted with the ICI. Thus, FFR scheme, as shown in Figure 3.1,
geographically divides each cell in a system into two or more concentric zones. UTs
close to their BS with the best received signal quality in the inner zone are allowed to
use frequency resources with the smallest FRF, whereas those far away from their BS
in the outer zone are assigned frequency resources with the largest FRF. In this way,
the ICI in the outer regions can be simply mitigated by allocating orthogonal
frequency resources. And UTs, who are less susceptible to ICI in the inner regions,

Networks
27
have more frequency resources than using static Reuse schemes with FRF > 1 so that
the spectrum efficiency can be enhanced.
The FFR approach with its plain design can be realized easily with low system
complexity. However, the design also leads to a loss in frequency selective gain and
lower spectral efficiency compared to the Reuse-1 scheme, since for serving UTs in
the regions with higher FRFs there is only a limited portion of the total frequency
P(f)
available subband
for one cell
Reuse 7 zone
available subband
for one cell
P(f)
Reuse 3 zone
P(f)
available subband
for one cell
Reuse 1 zone
B_reuse7
B_reuse3
B_reuse1
bandwidth B
(a)
P(f)
Exclusive FFR
available subband
for one cell
Reuse 7 zone
P(f)
f
available subband
for one cell
Reuse 3 zone
P(f)
available subband for one cell
Reuse 1 zone
B_reuse7 = B_reuse3 = B_reuse1 =

bandwidth B
(b) Inclusive FFR

Figure 3.2: Frequency partitioning example for comparing exclusive and inclusive FFR scheme in a
cellular system based on FRF =7 for cell-edge users, FRF =3 for cell-middle users and FRF =1 for
cell-center users.
28
spectrum available for scheduling.

When taking into account the way of spectrum sharing among different FRF-zones in
each cell, FFR schemes presented in [18]-[23] can be distinguished into two classes,
namely, exclusive and inclusive reuse partitioning (RUP). Figure 3.2 gives an example
to compare the spectrum partitioning of both FFR schemes. In exclusive FFR, as
illustrated in Figure 3.2a, the overall bandwidth B is split into two or more mutual
disjoint subsets (different-color blocks in the figure: B_reuse7, B_reuse3 and B_reuse1). Each
subset serves the requirements from a specific FRF-zone. Unlike exclusive FFR, the
whole spectrum band B in inclusive design is allowed to be used by all different FRFzones, which results in an overlapping reuse effect, as shown in Figure 3.2b. From the
figures, it should be noticed that with inclusive FFR the whole system bandwidth B is
available for all cells, whereas using exclusive FFR only a part of subbands can be
used in each cell.
In FFR, no power adaptation mechanism is considered for different FRF zones. All
transmissions in a system are applied with equal transmission power. In DL, each BS
evenly dispenses its total power over the available subbands of its cell. Since exclusive
FFR owns less bandwidth than inclusive FFR to utilize, packets in exclusive FFR can
be delivered with higher transmission power than in inclusive FFR.
Table 3.1 Comparison between exclusive and inclusive FFR schemes.
exclusive FFR
inclusive FFR
Power allocation
for each user
higher
lower
ICI mitigation
capability
better
worse
Available bandwidth
31
1
B B
63
2
(for the example in Figure 3.2a)
Need resource partition

among various FRF-zones
yes
no
Common advantage
Low complexity
Common limitation
Loss of frequency selective gain and lower spectral efficiency

compared to the Reuse-1systems

Networks
29
When comparing exclusive FFR and inclusive FFR approaches, no one has an
overwhelming superiority over the other one. For example, an exclusive FFR may reap
more benefits than an inclusive FFR in ICI mitigation due to higher power allocation
and exclusive reuse mechanism applied on the active users. However, on the other
hand, how to determine the amount of resources (a fraction of the total available
bandwidth B) devoted to each FRF-zone is a critical issue for the exclusive FFR
scheme. By adjusting the share for each FRF-zone, a tradeoff between increased
spectrum utilization and CINR improvement exists. This bandwidth division problem
can be overcome by the inclusive FFR scheme, since the whole spectrum B is
available for each FRF-zone and can be used by every cell in an overlapping way.
Moreover, due to its full utilization of the whole bandwidth B, higher spectrum
efficiency is expected to be achieved by the inclusive FFR than by the exclusive one.
However, the CINR performance of the inclusive FFR is inferior to that using the
exclusive FFR [7]. This arises mainly from two reasons: one is that UTs of a certain
FRF-zone in a cell are not only interfered by the transmissions from the same-type
FRF-zones in the neighboring cells, but also suffer from the additional ICI caused by
the transmissions from the other FRF-zones in the adjacent cells. This leads to higher
ICI compared to the exclusive FFR. Another reason is that relatively lower
transmission power used in the inclusive FFR causes relatively lower carrier signal
value. Both factors result in a disadvantage of the CINR performance of the inclusive
FFR, which may not compensate its advantage in the spectrum utilization and cannot
substantially improve the system capacity as well as the cell-edge performance.
3.2.2
Soft Frequency Reuse
Focus on the two limitations of the inclusive FFR mentioned above, a so-called Soft
Frequency Reuse (SFR) scheme was first introduced by Huawei in [25] in 2005. The
SFR scheme, which has been adopted in the 3GPP-LTE system [24]-[25], addresses
the challenge issue (namely, to improve cell-edge performance while retaining system
spectrum efficiency of Reuse-1) by increasing FRF and transmission power for celledge users, so that the ICI from neighboring cells to these users can be alleviated, and
thereby their performance is improved.
The basic idea of the SFR scheme is applying FRF of 1 to Cell-Centre Users (CCUs)
and FRF of 3 to Cell-Edge Users (CEUs) as illustrated in Figure 3.3. One third but
only one third of the whole available bandwidth named Major Segment can be used by
CEUs. Yet on this Major Segment, packets are sent with higher transmission power.
To actualize bigger FRF for CEUs, Major Segments among directly adjoining cells
should be orthogonal. In opposite to CEUs, CCUs may access the entire frequency
resources, however, with lower transmission power to avoid yielding too much ICI to
30
the co-channel users in the neighboring cells. Besides, on the Major Segment, CEUs
always take priority over CCUs at resources access.
P(f)
Cell
f2
C
Cell
f4
B
Cell A
Cell
f5
B
F1
Cell
f7
A
Cell
f5
C
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
f
P(f)
Cell C
F1
Cell
f11
C
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
f
P(f)
Cell
f12
B
Cell B
F1
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
f
F1 .. F6
F1 + F2
major subchannel
F3 + F4
F5 + F6
normal subchannel
Figure 3.3: Concept of the SFR scheme in a cellular system based on FRF =3 for CEUs and FRF =1
for CCUs.
In DL, since BSs are responsible for all transmissions occurring on the whole available
bandwidth and the maximal transmission power of each BS is assumed as fixed, the
assigned transmission power on each subchannel for different types of users is
therefore related with four factors: the maximal transmission power of a BS PBS, the
total number of subchannels in a system S, the power ratio of high power level for
CEU-transmissions to lower power level for CCU-transmissions , as well as the value
of FRF for CEUs (in this monograph, is set as 3, may also be set to other values)
PCCU _ DL
~ ( PBS , S , , ).
PCEU _ DL
(3.1)
The total transmission power used by a BS for DL streams can be calculated as a

summation of the total power for all CCU-transmissions and the total power for all
CEU-transmissions
S
S
PBS ( S ) PCCU _ DL PCEU _ DL
S (1 ) PCCU _ DL
1
(3.2)
PCEU _ DL
with
PCEU _ DL PCCU _ DL
(3.3)

Networks
31
, where S/ stands for the number of available subchannels for the CEU-transmissions.
As a result, the DL power allocation for each type of users can be represented as
PBS
PCCU _ DL S (1 1 1 )
PBS
PCEU _ DL
S (1 1 1 )
(3.4)
When the power ratio = 0, no power will be assigned to the CEU-traffic, and all S
subchannels will be used to transport CCU-traffic with a power value of PBS S for
each subchannel. The SFR system is thereby a Reuse-1 system, yet no CEU-traffic
will be served. In this case, high system capacity may be achieved, however at the
expense of abandoning all CEUs. When the power ratio = 1, PCCU_DL will have a
same value as PCEU_DL of PBS S . Note that this value is equivalent to the PCCU_DL in
= 0 case, but the SFR system is now a typical inclusive FFR system, in which CCUs
are served with FRF of 1 while CEU-traffic is served on the Major Segment with FRF
of . When the power ratio , PCCU_DL and PCEU_DL will converge at 0 and
PBS ( S 1 ) , respectively. It means only Major Segments are at work, and the SFR
system is then equivalent to a Reuse- system, but using a scheduler always favoring
the CEU-traffic.
Unlike DL, in UL, the power allocation for each type of users is simply interrelated
with two factors: the maximal transmission power of a UT PUT and the power ratio
of high power level for CEU-transmissions to lower power level for CCUtransmissions
PCCU _ UL
~ ( PUT , ).
CEU _ UL
(3.5)
Each CEU concentrates its full power on one subchannel to send data, whereas each
CCU makes use of its location advantage to deliver packets with lower power, but may
occupy at maximum subchannels at the same time
PUT
1
PCCU _ UL PUT
P
PCCU _ UL PUT
CEU _ UL
(3.6)
32
Hence, for UL, the power ratio is only allowed to vary within an interval (0, ).
The SFR scheme intends to abate ICI from neighboring cells by increasing FRF and
transmission power for the CEUs, and thereby to improve their performance and
enhance the whole system capacity. However, recently, the performance gain of the
SFR has been questioned in [33], [34] and [30]. In [30] the authors have given us a
study result that with the usage of the SFR scheme the cell throughput is even inferior
to the Reuse-1 system when the loading factor is over 0.5. The reason mentioned in
[30] is that in a SFR system at most one third of the subchannels can be used to
transmit data with higher power while the remaining two third subchannels work with
lower power, which causes an overall throughput loss. In other words, the SFR
ameliorates performance of the CEUs at the expense of degrading the overall cell
capacity. Nevertheless, this allegation is only correct when the boundary between the
CCU-zone and the CEU-zone in a cell is set quite close to the cell borderline. In fact,
later in the subsequent Chapters 5 and 6, we will disclose in both analytical and
simulative ways that the SFR is able to perform better than the Reuse-1 when suitable
range definitions for dividing the CCUs and CEUs are chosen.
P(f)
Cell A
f
P(f)
f4
Cell C
f
P(f)
Cell B
occupied
idle
Figure 3.4: In a SFR system, less available resources for CEUs while more for CCUs result in
unfairness between CCUs and CEUs, as well as lower spectrum reuse efficiency.
But for all that, taking a view of the SFR design, some intrinsic limitations are exposed.
For one thing, how to define the borderline to divide cell regions for CCUs and CEUs
is a key issue in the SFR scheme. With an inappropriate zone definition, especially in
case the area for CCUs is a little wide defined, system performance will be severely
deteriorated. This effect will be shown in the performance evaluation in Section 6.2.2.
Secondly, in general, there are more CEUs than CCUs in a cell, since the outer surface
area is much larger than the inner part (see Figure 3.4). But, in SFR scheme CEUs
have maximum one third of the entire bandwidth to utilize, which results in the
unfairness between CCUs and CEUs, and lower spectrum efficiency caused by idle

Networks
33
P(f)
Cell A
f
P(f)
Cell C
f
P(f)
Cell B
occupied
idle
Figure 3.5: More co-channel interferences even at low load traffic situation with the usage of the SFR
scheme.
channels and a waste of resources. Next, as shown by the sketch in Figure 3.5, more
ICI could happen even in a low-traffic-load situation, while there are still subchannels
idle and underutilized in the system. This is because the resource allocation of all cells
via the SFR scheme starts always from the first subchannel up. Lastly, Although FRF
of 3 and higher transmission power are applied to the CEUs, they are still grievously
interfered by the co-user transmissions in the neighboring cells when much traffic is
there, as illustrated in Figure 3.6. The reason is that the SFR applies an inclusive RUP,
which means the reuse-factor-of-3 Segment is not exclusively used by the CEUs, but
simultaneously co-used or re-used by the CCUs in the neighboring cells.
f2
f4
f5
f7
f5
f11
f12
Figure 3.6: CEUs are grievously interfered by re-users in the neighboring cells since SFR is a
development design based on inclusive reuse scheme.
34
3.2.3
Incremental Frequency Reuse
Aiming at the limitations of the SFR scheme mentioned above, Ki Tae Kim et al. came
up with a new design referred as Incremental Frequency Reuse (IFR) scheme [30],
which can reduce the ICI effectively in the case of a low-offered traffic, and thereby
betters the overall system capacity.
Cell A
Cell C
f
Cell B
Cell B
Cell B
Cell A
Cell C
f
Cell C
Cell C
Cell B
f
Start point of subchannel allocation
Figure 3.7: Operation policy of the IFR scheme in a cellular system with 3 various types of
neighboring cells.
The only difference between the IFR design and the Reuse-1 is that adjacent cells in an
IFR system start dispensing resources to their users from different points of the
available bandwidth, whereas the Reuse-1 and the SFR allocate resources always from
the first subchannel. Figure 3.7 exemplifies the operation method of the IFR scheme
for a cellular system with 3 various types of neighboring cells. Cells of type-A occupy
resources from the first subchannel, whilst cells of type-B from the one-third point of
the whole bandwidth, and cells of type-C from the two-thirds point of the bandwidth.
They allocate consecutive subchannels successively along with increasing traffic load
until the entire bandwidth is used up. A detailed description of the IFR scheme and its
variations can be found in [30]-[32].
Through such a resource assignment mechanism, the IFR scheme can overcome part
of the aforementioned limitations by applying the SFR scheme, namely, the improper
zone-definition problem, the unfairness and low spectrum reuse efficiency problem
and the problem of more ICI even with low-load traffic in a system. The ICI generated
by adjacent cells can be avoided completely in low-traffic situations, since all
transmissions in these cells work on different subbands and frequency reuse of the 1sttier neighboring cells doesnt occur when the loading factor is below 0.3. In this case,
the whole system performs just like a Reuse-3 system. In essence, by means of the IFR

Networks
35
scheme, the system operates with increasing traffic load like sliding from a Reuse-3
system to a Reuse-1 system.
Although some limitations of the SFR scheme can be eliminated by using the IFR
scheme, it only performs better under low traffic load to a system. When the loading
factor is greater than 0.3 (with moderate traffic load), though the IFR surpasses the
Reuse-1 scheme, it is inferior to the SFR scheme. With the help of its static
configuration, the IFR scheme disperses the ICI over the whole bandwidth, but with
increasing traffic in the system, the CEUs are still interfered severely. In a full-load
situation, the IFR scheme even cannot perform better than the Reuse-1 scheme. That is
to say, the system capacity cannot be substantially improved by the IFR scheme.
3.2.4
Summary and Conclusion
In this section, three most well-known RRM techniquesthe FFR scheme, the SFR
scheme and the IFR schemefor ICI mitigation in cellular OFDMA networks are
outlined and discussed. All of these schemes have a common advantage that they dont
need global coordination among neighboring cells and thereby can reap significant
complexity reduction benefits. Nevertheless, each of them also has its specific
advantages and limitations, and none of them can absolutely dominate over the others.
The exclusive FFR may reap more benefits than the inclusive FFR with respect to the
ICI mitigation for the CEUs due to higher power allocation and exclusive reuse
mechanism applied on the active users. However, on the other hand, how to determine
the amount of resourcesa fraction of the total available bandwidthdevoted to each
FRF-zone is an open issue for the exclusive FFR scheme, but it is not a problem for
the inclusive FFR scheme. Moreover, because of its ability of full utilization of the
whole bandwidth, higher spectrum efficiency is expected to be achieved with the
inclusive FFR than with the exclusive one. In respect to the SFR scheme, which has
been adopted in the 3GPP-LTE systems, the cell capacity might be advanced with a
careful range definition for partitioning CCUs and CEUs, yet the cell coverage can
still not be guaranteed. And lastly, the IFR scheme, proposed by Ki Tae Kim et al. in
2008, can effectively reduce the ICI and surpasses the SFR and the Reuse-1 only when
the system is loaded with low offered traffic.
CHAPTER 4
Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse Design
Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse

Design
4.1
4.2
4.3
EFFR ............................................................................................................. 37
EFFR-Advanced ........................................................................................... 48
EFFR-Beyond ............................................................................................... 50
In the previous Chapter 3, three well-known resource allocation and reuse

approachesthe static FFR, the SFR as well as the IFR schemesare introduced to
alleviate ICI in multi-cellular OFDMA networks. Based on thoroughly analyzing their
advantages and limitations respectively, in this chapter a novel ICI mitigation design
referred as Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse (EFFR) scheme and its two
derivatives, the EFFR-Advanced scheme and EFFR-Beyond scheme, will be
contributed for a better fulfillment of the goals, namely, to enhance the mean system
capacity while restraining the ICI at cell edge. Moreover, since solutions with low
system complexity and flexible spectrum usage are desirable, systems with distributed
RRM will be taken into account.
4.1
EFFR
The discussion about advantages and limitations of the static FFR, the IFR and the
SFR schemes in the preceding chapter motivates to propose a new design named
Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse (EFFR) scheme, which attempts to retain the
advantages of these approaches while avoiding their limitations, and seeks for a further
progress in attaining both coverage and higher system capacity in any traffic-load
situation.
4.1.1 Design Requirements

The EFFR scheme is designed to meet the following requirements:
Support flexibility with non-uniform user or traffic distribution
38
4. Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse Design
Support adaptation to time varying traffic conditions
Exploit possibility for self-setting up preferable reuse combinations
No need for the resource coordination among different BSs in radio network
controller (RNC) in the fixed resource allocation method
Applicable for high FRF systems
Low system complexity
4.1.2
Concept of the EFFR Scheme
The objective of the proposed EFFR architecture is to improve system capacity while
bettering spectrum efficiency at the cell edge. This can be achieved by being based
upon effectual mitigation of unwanted ICI for CEUs, further maximizing of the
opportunities for the other users to choose suitable resources (time share and
frequency share, respectively) to reuse.
4.1.2.1
Reuse Partition
The underlying principle of the EFFR design is similar to the SFR scheme to reduce
CINR level for those UTs (CCUs) that already have more than adequate transmission
quality while offering greater protection to those UTs (CEUs) that require it, but based
on an exclusive RUP (see Figure 3.2a in Section 3.2.1). Figure 4.1 gives an example of
the EFFR scheme which like the SFR scheme defines 3 cell-types for directly
contiguous cells in an OFDMA cellular system. According to different cell-types, the
EFFR scheme divides the whole available bandwidth of each cell-type into 2
Segments, namely, the Primary Segment as indicated in the right part of Figure 4.1
with thick border and the Secondary Segment comprising all reuse subchannels of the
available spectrum not assigned to the Primary Segment. The Primary Segments
among different cell-types should be orthogonal that also leads to the orthogonality of
the Primary Segments among directly adjoining cells in the system, as show in
Figure 4.1. A part of the Primary Segment is exclusive reuse-3 subchannels, which are
preferentially used by the CEUs with higher transmission power. They can only be
reused by the users in the same type cells and consequently cannot be co-used by the
directly neighboring cells, thus the ICI among them can be decreased. The remaining
subchannels are all reuse-1 subchannels allowing to be used with lower transmission
power. Here it has to be noted that part of these reuse-1 subchannels belong to the
Primary Segment, the others constitute the Secondary Segment. The reuse-1
subchannels in the Primary Segment of a cell-type are at the same time part of the
Secondary Segments belonging to the other two cell-types. Each cell can occupy all
39
4.1 EFFR
Quality good for me,
try to occupy
P(f)
Cell A
Cell
f2 C
Cell
f4 B
F1
F2
F3
F5
F6
F8
F9
P(f)
Cell
f5 B
Cell B
Cell
f7 A
Cell
f5 C
F2
F3
F4
F5
F6
F8
F9
P(f)
Cell
f11C
Cell C
Cell
f12B
F2
F3
F5
F6
F7
F8
F9
f
Primary Segment
F2 + F3 + F5 + F6 + F8 + F9
= FSUM - F1 - F4 - F7
F1
F4
F7
idle subchannel
reuse-3 subchannel for each type of cell

reuse-1 subchannel in the Primary Segment
reusing secondary subchannel after CQI estimation
Figure 4.1: Concept of the EFFR scheme in a cellular system based on exclusive partitioning of
reuse-3 subchannels and reuse-1 subchannels in the Primary Segment, as well as interference-aware
reuse on the Secondary Segment.
subchannels of its Primary Segment at will, whereas maybe only a part of resources in
the Secondary Segment can be used by this cell in an interference-aware manner.
4.1.2.2
Scheduling
As we have clarified in Section 3.2.3, the major advantage of the IFR scheme is that
through using various resource allocation sequences for different cell types, it
disperses the ICI over the whole bandwidth and can thereby effectively reduce the ICI
in low and moderate traffic load situations. This mechanism is also adopted in the
EFFR scheme and works as follows: Each cell starts its spectrum allocation from its
Primary Segment up. When the whole Primary Segment is used up and still frequency
resources are desired, the available reuse-1 subchannels in the Secondary Segment will
be further assigned, yet with a cell-type-specific segment allocation sequence.
In order to make the operation principle intelligible, we give an example based on the
EFFR reuse partitioning illustrated in Figure 4.1:
-
Frequency segment allocation sequence for type-A cells:

(F1+F2+F3) (F5+F6) (F8+F9)
Frequency segment allocation sequence for type-B cells:

(F4+F5+F6) (F8+F9) (F2+F3)
40

-
Frequency segment allocation sequence for type-C cells:

(F7+F8+F9) (F2+F3) (F5+F6)
It can be seen that in this way the ICI generated by directly adjoining cells can be
completely avoided in low traffic-load situation, because frequency reuse of the 1sttier-neighboring cells does not occur in this case, and the whole system works just like
a Reuse-3 system. Under middle offered traffic situation, the ICI will be scattered over
the Primary Segment and the newly added reuse-1 spectrum segment. Note that the
newly added spectrum segments among directly neighboring cells are also disjoint,
which results in less ICI. And this appears preferable to the mechanisms used in the
Reuse-1 and SFR systems. Under high offered load spectrum of the Secondary
Segment will be used based on CQI estimation in adjacent cells.
The detailed scheduling algorithm for DL traffic is relatively simple and slightly
differs from that in UL:
Step 1.
The exclusive reuse-3 subchannels are preferentially assigned to the
CEU-traffic using Proportional Fair (PF) scheduling strategy. If there are still
resources remaining after all CEU-connections are satisfied, they will be
assigned to those CCU-connections which CCUs locate relatively far away
from the BS (or with relatively poor CINR values). All traffic on the reuse-3
subchannels will be sent with higher transmission power, no matter for which
kind of users, whereas all reuse-1 subchannels deliver packets always using
lower transmission power.
Step 2.
When the reuse-3 subchannels are exhausted, the remaining reuse-1
subchannels (including reuse-1 subchannels in the Primary Segment and
secondary reuse-1 subchannels) are then allocated to residual unsatisfied
connections also using PF strategy until
demands of all connections are met, or
the entire available frequency resources are occupied, or
the residual resources cannot be validly used.
A difference in resource occupation between the primary reuse-1 subchannels

and the secondary reuse-1 subchannels is that the primary reuse-1
subchannels can be arbitrarily scheduled, whereas the secondary reuse-1
subchannels can only be occupied in interference-aware manner.
The UL resource allocation of the EFFR scheme works as follows:
Step 1.
This step is identical with that in DL.
41
4.1 EFFR
Step 2.
When the reuse-3 subchannels are completely allocated, the
remaining reuse-1 subchannels in the Primary Segment are then scheduled to
residual unsatisfied users using maximum throughput strategy until demands
of all users are met or the entire Primary Segment is occupied. Applying
maximum throughput strategy means that UTs having superior link quality are
preferentially served. The aim of operating like this in UL is to achieve that
UTs occupying the primary reuse-1 subchannels should stay on their allocated
resources and thereby keep the interference produced by the primary reuse-1
subchannels relatively regular in view of the adjacent cells. Since the primary
reuse-1 subchannels are simultaneously the secondary subchannels that may
be used by the adjacent cells, regular utilization of the primary reuse-1
subchannels helps UTs in the adjacent cells to predict the channel quality more
accurately and more validly use the secondary reuse-1 subchannels with
adequate PHY mode.
Step 3.
If still resources are requested, the available reuse-1 subchannels in
the Secondary Segment will be scheduled to adequate users by applying
interference-aware operation, using the PF strategy. Since resource occupation
on the Secondary Segment is actually to reuse the primary subchannels
belonging to the directly adjoining cells, and in order not to disturb the
primary transmissions, the reuse occupation on the Secondary Segment should
base on an appropriate channel quality estimation method and a predefined
CINR-threshold. In this way, not only the primary reuse-1 subchannels can be
most effectively used, but the secondary reuse-1 subchannels are also brought
into full play, so that an enhancement of the whole system capacity can be
expected.
4.1.2.3 Transmission Power Allocation

As set forth in Section 3.2.2, each BS in a system is assumed to have a constant
maximal transmission power, and responsible for the power allocation of all DL
transmissions distributed on its accessible bandwidth. Hence, the assigned
transmission power on different types of subchannels is related with five factors:
Preuse 1_ DL
~ ( PBS , S , M , , ).
reuse _ DL
(4.1)
, where PBS is the maximal transmission power of a BS. S represents the total number
of subchannels in a system, which is, however, in most cases not completely available
for each cell. M stands for the number of available dedicated higher FRF subchannels
in the Primary Segment. Note that according to various traffic- or UT-distributions in a
42
system M can be adjusted in the EFFR design, whereas it is fixed defined as S/#FRF in
a SFR system. denotes the power ratio employed on a reuse- subchannel to a reuse1 subchannel. And lastly, indicates the value of FRF for CEUs (in this monograph,
is set as 3, can be set as any values with 1).
From Figure 4.1, it can be seen that EFFR divides the whole frequency bandwidth
equally into Primary Segments for a cluster of cells. In this way, the orthogonality
of Primary Segments among different types of cells in the neighborhood can be
realized. The Primary Segment of each cell consists of M (= 1) exclusive reuse-
subchannels and N (= 2) reuse-1 subchannels
S
M N
(4.2)
, whereas ( 1) N (= 4) reuse-1 subchannels constitute the Secondary Segment. As a

result, there are a total of M N (= 7) subchannels (i.e., about 78% of the whole
system bandwith) available for each EFFR cell. Two trivial special cases should be
noted: When N 0 is chosen, which means no reuse-1 subchannels defined and all
UTs only have M S reuse- subchannels to utilize, the EFFR system is therefore a
quasi Reuse- system using minimum throughput scheduling strategy, as the CEUconnections with relatively poor CINR values are preferentially served. When
N S is chosen (i.e. M 0 ), which means the full set of bandwidth is available, in
this case the EFFR system is equivalent to a Reuse-1 system. Please note that the
EFFR scheme works for any suitable number S of subchannels, e.g., S = 9, 12, 15, etc.,
namely, multiple of , see for example Table 6.2.
The BS in each cell allots its transmission power on the accessible M reuse- and
N reuse-1 subchannels, respectively
PBS M Preuse _ DL N Preuse 1_ DL .
(4.3)
Preuse _ DL Preuse 1_ DL
(4.4)
As
, the power allocation on each type of subchannel can be calculated as

PBS
Preuse 1_ DL M N
PBS
Preuse _ DL
M N
Derived from Eq. (4.2), N can be represented by S, and M:
(4.5)
43
4.1 EFFR
N
M.
(4.6)
Thus, Eq. (4.5) can be finally formulated as

PBS
Preuse 1_ DL ( ) M S
PBS
Preuse _ DL
( ) M S
(4.7)
When having a special case in consideration, where = (for example, = = 3 is

chosen for assessing the analytical performance of both SFR and EFFR schemes in the
succeeding Chapter 5), the power allocation applied on each type of subchannel in an
EFFR system is then:
PBS
Preuse 1_ DL S
P
P
Preuse _ DL BS 3 BS
S
S
(4.8)
Eq. (4.8) shows that in case = , both Preuse-1_DL and Preuse-_DL are not related to the M
and anymore. Since using the EFFR scheme, any cell-type (e.g., cell-type A in
Figure 4.1) can use only part of all reuse- subchannels ( 1 ) in the system. That is to
say, it is not allowed to use the remaining ( 1) reuse- subchannels dedicated to
the other two cell-types (e.g., cell-type B and C in Figure 4.1). This way, the power
allotted to the available reuse- subchannels Preuse-_DL can be -multiple (tripled when
equals 3) without decreasing the transmission power Preuse-1_DL for the other available
reuse-1 subchannels. As a result, as long as = , Preuse-1_DL can keep constant with the
same power level as in the Reuse-1 situation. Otherwise, Preuse-1_DL varies along with
Preuse-_DL in various (, ) cases.
Note that when using the same power ratio in both EFFR and SFR schemes, the
maximal assignable power for both, reuse-1 and reuse-3 subchannels in EFFR (except
the case M = 0) may always be higher than in a SFR system, respectively. This is
because the SFR scheme possesses the full set of system bandwidth to utilize, whereas
the EFFR due to applying the exclusive higher reuse factor for the CEUs can only
access part of the whole bandwidth unless no subchannel (M = 0)is reserved for higher
FRF area users. This results in SFR always owning more reuse-1 subchannels and
44
reuse-3 subchannels than the EFFR scheme. On the other hand, in EFFR, besides
altering the power ratio , through adjusting the number M of reuse- subchannels, the
available subchannels and the corresponding power allocation for different types of
users can also be regulated, which is impossible for the SFR scheme owing to its
inherent fixed design. Hence, from this point of view the EFFR scheme seems more
flexible than SFR to adapt to various wireless environments.
The power allocation for the UL subchannels in EFFR is the same as the UL SFR. The
power assigned for each type of subchannels is simply interrelated with two factors:
the maximal transmission power of a UT PUT and the power ratio of the high power
level applied on each reuse- subchannel to the lower power level for the reuse-1
subchannel
Preuse 1_ UL
~ ( PUT , ).
reuse
_
UL
(4.9)
UTs (no matter CCUs or CEUs), who use reuse- subchannels to transmit data, will
contribute its full power on one subchannel, whereas UTs using reuse-1 subchannels
take advantage of its location to deliver packets with lower power, yet may occupy at
maximum subchannels simultaneously
PUT
1
Preuse 1_ UL PUT
P
Preuse 1_ UL PUT
reuse _ UL
(0, ).
(4.10)
Although Eq. (4.10) is the same as Eq. (3.6) for the SFR UL power allocation, the total
system power consumption of the UL SFR is much larger than that for the UL EFFR
due to more bandwidth available in the SFR scheme, unless the number of exclusive
reuse-3 subchannels is set to M = 0 in the EFFR scheme.
4.1.2.4
Signal-to-Interference-and-Noise Ratio Estimation
UTs in a cell act on the Secondary Segment as guests, and occupying secondary
subchannels is actually reuse the primary subchannels belonging to the directly
adjoining cells, thus reuse on the Secondary Segment by each cell should conform to
two rules:
monitor before use and
resource reuse based on CINR estimation.
4.1 EFFR
45
Each cell listens on every secondary subchannel all the time. And before occupation, it
makes CINR evaluation according to the gathered Channel Quality Information (CQI)
and chooses resources with best estimation values for reuse. If all available secondary
resources are either occupied or not good enough to a link, this cell will give up
scheduling resources for this link. This way, resource wasting cases can be
efficaciously avoided. For instance, some resources maybe not reusable for a link but
can be reused by other links. And another merit gained thereby is that it will not
generate excessive ICI for the neighboring cells which would degrade their
performances. So, an upgrade of spectrum efficiency is expected by using the
interference-aware-reuse mechanism on the Secondary Segment.
On the other hand, all above elucidation is based on a precise CINR estimation. Since
an improper modulation and coding scheme (PHY mode) selection due to a bad CINR
estimation would lead to either higher packet loss rate or lower spectral efficiency, and
thereupon wastes precious resources. Hence, to have a reliable CINR estimation is a
crucial factor for maximizing system spectrum efficiency.
4.1.3
Distinctions between the EFFR and other ICI Mitigation Schemes
The EFFR scheme owns mainly the following salient features, which are typically
different to the SFR scheme and the IFR scheme:
Since users close to the cell edge are very susceptible to ICI, the reuse-3
subchannels in the Primary Segment of each cell are exclusively available for
the users (only CEUs in most cases, but can also include CCUs, when all
CEU-connections are satisfied.) of the respective cell. This means real reuse-3
is applied on some subchannels per cell, and not the whole bandwidth is
available in a cell.
In order to advance spectral efficiency, users which are allotted shares of the
reuse-3 subchannels, transmit packets with higher power, whether they are
CCUs or CEUs. In contrast, to reduce excessive ICI to the neighboring cells
and avoid unwanted power wasting, packets will be sent on a reuse-1
subchannel always with lower power.
Allocation of reuse-1 subchannels in the Secondary Segment is not blindly

carried out, but in an interference-aware way according to CINR estimation.
In the Primary Segment, unsatisfied users, whether they are CCUs or CEUs,
have the same chance to get resources in the Secondary Segment, if they can
find usable resource in accordance with CINR estimation.
46
4.1.4

Expected Benefits by Using the EFFR Scheme
Now we would like to summarize the benefits by using the EFFR schemes compared
to the aforementioned SFR and IFR schemes. Just as explained in the foregoing
chapter, the merit by using the IFR scheme can be reflected in low and moderate
traffic load situations. Its capability of scattering ICI over the whole available
bandwidth make it perform better than the Reuse-1 and the SFR schemes when low to
moderate traffic exists in a system. This mechanism is adopted in the EFFR scheme so
that the system performs like a Reuse-3 system at low traffic load, and the ICI can also
be significantly alleviated in middle-loaded situation. Besides, the same problem in a
SFR system can also be resolved by the ICI dispersion mechanism introduced by the
IFR. Hence, we have implemented this mechanism in both EFFR and SFR schemes in
our simulator (refer to Appendix A).
Nevertheless, with increasing traffic in the system, the ICI among neighboring cells
grows. And, in high- and over-load situations, the IFR scheme resembles a Reuse-1
scheme. Hence, under these circumstances, we only compare the EFFR and the SFR
designs. As we have mentioned in Section 3.2.2, the performance of a SFR system
depends strongly on the accurate division of the CCU- and CEU-zones. Either a too
large or too small definition of the CCU- or CEU-zone would lead to severe
deterioration of the system capacity.
In case the CCU-area is less than adequate assumed, CCU traffic requirements are
reduced thanks to the smaller CCU-zone definition. However, the available bandwidth
for the SFR CCUs by definition is two times larger than that for the SFR CEUs, which
is impossible to be changed as this is an intrinsic feature of the SFR design. Besides,
the SFR CCUs can co-use the Major Segment with the SFR CEUs, but the SFR CEUs
are not allowed to use the remaining bandwidth for the SFR CCUs. All these factors
cause the wasting of valuable resources at the SFR CCUs, whereas the available
bandwidth for each SFR CEU is decreased due to the enlarged CEU-zone, and thereby
the degradation of the whole system performance.
In case the CCU-area is wider assumed, more UTs are defined as CCUs and the
number of CEUs is decreased. In this case, a part of the SFR CCUs on the outside
might not be served with lower transmission power since they are too distant from the
BS to keep a required CINR level (in SFR, CCUs are only allowed to transmit with
lower power level). Thus, even if spectrum resources are supplied sufficiently for the
CCU-traffic, the resource wasting at the CCUs can still not be avoided.
In contrast, using the EFFR scheme, the number of reuse-3 and reuse-1 subchannels
can be adjusted according to the needs (traffic- or user-distribution in the system). In
addition, different from the SFR, both CCUs and CEUs in the EFFR scheme may
4.1 EFFR
47
occupy resources on the reuse-3 and reuse-1 subchannels with higher and lower power
level respectively, only complying with some rules, namely:
The EFFR CEUs always have a prior right to utilize the reuse-3 subchannels in
the Primary Segment; and
Valid resource occupation on the secondary reuse-1 subchannels should be

assured based on CINR estimation.
In this way, the simultaneity of resource wasting at the CCUs and starving situation at
the CEUs can be effectually inhibited. Besides, as the SFR scheme is designed based
on inclusive FFR, whilst the EFFR scheme is designed on exclusive FFR, the mean
CINR level experienced by both, the SFR CEUs and the SFR CCUs can be expected
to be lower than by the EFFR CEUs on the reuse-3 subchannel and the EFFR CCUs
on the reuse-1 subchannel, respectively. That means the EFFR scheme potentially can
offer wider cell coverage and higher spectral efficiency than the SFR scheme.
In sum, the limitations by using the SFR schemethe improper zone-definition
problem, the low spectrum reuse efficiency problem, the problem of more ICI even
with low traffic load in a system, as well as the cell coverage problemcan be
conquered or to some extent mitigated through the EFFR scheme. The EFFR design
contributes a novel resource allocation and reuse mechanism with the help of CQI
estimation to effectively avoid resource wasting, so that the precious radio resources
can be more efficiently exploited. In addition, the EFFR is more flexible (reflected in
that not only the ratio of higher power level to lower power level but also the ratio of
the number of reuse-3 subchannels to reuse-1 subchannels can be adjusted) and its
system performance will not be so strongly influenced by the CCU- and CEU-zone
definition as in a SFR system. Hence, through such a resource assignment mechanism,
a wider cell coverage percentage,
a higher system capacity, as well as
a better spectrum reuse efficiency
can be expected.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that the following relevant factors still play paramount
roles in the realization of the EFFR design and could influence the system
performance severely: 1) the ratio of the number of reuse-3 subchannels M to reuse-1
subchannels N in the Primary Segment; 2) the ratio of high power level to low power
level; 3) range definition for partition of CCUs and CEUs; 4) CINR threshold for the
guest-reuse of the secondary resources; etc. In what follows, the best range definitions
48
for dividing different user-type zones with a certain assumed power ratio for the EFFR
scheme and SFR scheme is given in Chapter 5 (analytical performance evaluation).
The effects on the EFFR system performances with varying ratios of M to N in the
Primary Segment will be discussed in both Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 (simulative
performance evaluation). And how the power ratio employed on reuse-3 subchannels
to reuse-1 subchannels as well as how the range definition for dividing CCU-zone and
CEU-zone will impact on the performances of the EFFR and the SFR schemes, will be
shown in Chapter 6, as well.
Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first work to present simulation
results of the SFR scheme with varying range definitions for partitioning of CCUs and
CEUs.
4.2
EFFR-Advanced
In some circumstances (for example, the suburban C1 Metropol path loss Line-OfSight (LOS) model from the IST-WINNER project [35]), it is unlikely to attain 100%
cell coverage even with the usage of pure (exclusive) Reuse-3. In fact, [6] has
indicated that with a size of FRF 4 no system can provide a sufficient CINR level at
the cell border with any cell radius under the WINNER LOS condition. Therefore, in
order to achieve a full cell coverage or further promote the performance of the most
distant users located near the cell border, an Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse
Advanced (EFFR-A) scheme is proposed. Based on the EFFR, the EFFR-A scheme
further separates the CEUs into Cell-Middle Users (CMUs) and Cell-Remote Users
(CRUs). For the CRUs, the EFFR-A enlarges the co-channel distance and possibly
increases the transmission power on their subchannels. Figure 4.2 illustrates the EFFRA design in a multi-tier cellular system, in which FRF of 1 is applied on the CCUs
with lower power, whereas FRF of 3 is used on CMUs with moderate power, and FRF
of 9 on CRUs with higher power. In this way, the CRUs become more robust against
CCI, but at the expense of a decrease on available bandwidth for the CMUs.
49
4.2 EFFR-Advanced
26
27
28
29
25
14
23
10
22
21
15
30
11
12
13
24
37
19
20
Frequency reuse 1 for CCUs

31
16
32
18
17
33
34
36
35
Frequency reuse 3 for CMUs

(cell-middle users)
Frequency reuse 9 for CRUs
(cell-remote users)
Figure 4.2: Frequency assignment pattern of the EFFR-A scheme in a cellular system with interfering
cells up to the 3rd-tier, where the CCUs use reuse-1 subchannels with lower power, the CMUs use
reuse-3 subchannels with moderate power, and the CRUs use reuse-9 subchannels with higher power.
Figure 4.3 gives an example of the available subchannels for the cell 1 in Figure 4.2.
Suppose that there are S (= 30) subchannels in total in an EFFR-A system. The
Primary Segment of each cell consists of M2 (= 1) exclusive reuse-2 (= 9) subchannels
for CRUs, M1 (= 3) exclusive reuse-1 (= 3) for CMUs and N (= 4) reuse-1
subchannels for CCUs
S
with
2 M 2 M1 N
0 N
1
0 M S
2

(4.11)
(4.12)
, whereas (1 1) N (= 8) reuse-1 subchannels constitute the Secondary Segment. As

a result, there are a total of M 2 M1 1 N (= 16) subchannels (i.e., about 53% of the
whole system bandwith) available for each EFFR-A cell.
50
Cell 1
P(f)
F11
F1 F12 F13
F1 F2 F3
F21
F1 F22 F23
F14 F15 F16
F4 F5 F6
F7 F8 F9 F10
F24 F25 F26

F17 F18 F19 F20 F1
F27 F28 F29 F30

Frequency reuse 3 for CMUs
Frequency reuse 9 for CRUs
Not available for Cell 1
Figure 4.3: An example of the available subchannels for the cell 1 in Figure 4.2, consisting of 1
exclusive reuse-9 subchannels (M2 = 1), 3 exclusive reuse-3 subchannels (M1 = 3) and 12 reuse-1
subchannels (N = 4).
For assessing performance of an EFFR-A system, a significantly larger scenario up to

at least 3 tiers with 37 cells in total should be considered, which can be hardly carried
out through our system-level simulator OpenWNS (refer to Appendix A) within
reasonable time constraints. Hence, we have implemented the EFFR-A scheme and the
oncoming introduced EFFR-Beyond approach in Matlab to investigate their
performance numerically and present the results in Chapter 5.
4.3
EFFR-Beyond
The only difference between the Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse - Beyond
(EFFR-B) design and the original EFFR scheme is that the policy, which is applied to
the CRUs in the EFFR-A scheme, is executed to the CEUs in the EFFR scheme
(namely, FRF of 9 and possibly further higher power on CEUs). In fact, the EFFR-B
scheme is a variation of the EFFR scheme with further raising the FRF and probably
further increasing the transmission power for the CEUs. As shown in Figure 4.4, the
EFFR-B applies reuse-1 for CCUs with lower power, reuse-9 for the residual CEUs
with higher power.
51
4.3 EFFR-Beyond
26
27
28
29
25
14
31
32
10
33
34
20
19
18
17
21
22
16
23
15
30
11
12
13
24
37
36
35

Frequency reuse 9 for CEUs
Figure 4.4: Frequency assignment pattern of the EFFR-B scheme in a cellular system with interfering
cells up to the 3rdtier, based on FRF of 1 for CCUs and FRF of 9 for the CEUs.
Figure 4.5 gives an example of the available subchannels for the cell 1 in Figure 4.4.
Likewise, S (= 30) subchannels in total are assumed in an EFFR-B system. The
Primary Segment of each cell consists of M2 (= 1) exclusive reuse-2 (= 9) subchannels
for CEUs and N (= 7) reuse-1 subchannels for CCUs
S
with
2 M 2 N
0 N
1
0 M S
2

(4.13)
(4.14)
, whereas (1 1) N (= 14) reuse-1 subchannels constitute the Secondary Segment. As

a result, there are a total of M 2 1 N (= 22) subchannels (i.e., about 73% of the
whole system bandwith) available for each EFFR-B cell.
52
Cell 1
P(f)
F21
F1 F22 F23
F11
F1 F12 F13
F1 F2 F3
F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10
F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20
F24 F25 F26 F27 F28 F29 F30
f
Frequency reuse 9 for CEUs
Not available for Cell 1
Figure 4.5: An example of the available subchannels for the cell 1 in Figure 4.4, consisting of 1
exclusive reuse-9 subchannels (M2 = 1) and 21 reuse-1 subchannels (N = 7).
In comparison with the original EFFR scheme, communications between BSs and their
CEUs in an EFFR-B system can have higher channel quality. Nevertheless, with the
usage of the EFFR-B scheme, the total available bandwidth for each cell is reduced.
And the flexibility for adjusting available bandwidth proportion for different FRF
zones is also decreased. When comparing the EFFR-B scheme with the EFFR-A
scheme, both can gain the same cell coverage percentage. Each EFFR-B cell can even
own more available bandwidth than when using the EFFR-A scheme. However, the
possibility of allotting resources for different FRF-zones according to traffic
distributions or user distributions in the EFFR-B system is still greatly reduced.
Detailed analysis and discussion of the achievable system performance including cell
coverage, cell capacity as well as area spectral efficiency with the usage of all three
EFFR schemes under various circumstances will be presented in the succeeding
Chapter 5.
CHAPTER 5
Performance Analysis
Performance Analysis
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
Cell Coverage Analysis ................................................................................ 54

Cell Capacity Analysis ................................................................................. 77
Comparison between Analytical and Simulation Results ......................... 85
Summary and Conclusion ........................................................................... 90
This chapter addresses the performance evaluation of reuse partitioning (RUP)

techniques in OFDMA-based cellular radio networks by means of mathematical
analysis. RUP techniques (including SFR, EFFR, EFFR-Advanced, and EFFRBeyond) and two static Reuse schemes have been implemented in Matlab to
investigate their performance numerically. Perfect channel knowledge is assumed in
all calculations.
One of the major purposes of the mathematical analysis presented in this chapter is to
give the dimension under different propagation conditions. In the first section, the
Carrier-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (CINR) for all RUP schemes mentioned in
Chapters 3 and 4 is investigated. Based on the CINR calculation, the maximal cell
radius and the reasonable boundary definitions for dividing different user-type zones
for each RUP scheme are given. Furthermore, through numerical evaluations, the cell
coverage of all studied reuse techniques is estimated and compared.
The second section addresses the mean cell capacity computation for all studied
partitioning techniques, which is based on the results of the first section. To be
consistent to the simulation results which are presented later in this work, the same
PHY modes and packet sizes are used in the analysis. The mean cell capacity is
determined by the mapping of CINR levels onto usable PHY modes. In addition, the
area spectral efficiency for these approaches is also evaluated and presented at the end
of this section.
Another purpose of the mathematical analysis carried out per Matlab in this chapter is
to validate the simulation tool which has been developed within the scope of this work
(see Appendix A). Therefore, a comparison between analytical and simulation results
using a specific scenario is exhibited in the third section. However, the influence of
some factors such as interference aware reuse mechanism as well as resource element
54
5. Performance Analysis
size definition cannot be handled by the mathematical analysis, which causes some
discrepancies between analytical and simulation results. Hence, this chapter also
motivates the need for stochastic simulations for investigation of the RUP techniques
in OFDMA-based cellular radio networks.
In the remainder of this monograph, Reuse with a capital "R" is distinguished from
reuse with a lowercase "r". Reuse with a capital "R" indicates static Reuse schemes,
whereas reuse with a lowercase "r" is an adjunct, which is always used in combination
with subchannels (e.g., the reuse-1 or reuse-3 subchannels in the SFR and the EFFR
schemes). The reuse-1 and reuse-3 subchannels in the EFFR series are exclusive reuse
subchannels as in the static Reuse schemes, however, in the SFR the reuse-1 and
reuse-3 subchannels are inclusive reuse subchannels. Hence, the reuse-1 and reuse-3
subchannels in the SFR should not be confused with those in static Reuse schemes or
in the EFFR schemes.
5.1
5.1.1
Cell Coverage Analysis

Carrier to Interference Calculation
y
25
23
24
R/2
22
3/2 R
26
10
D5
28
12
13
14
29
D2
D1 1
30
15
31
17
16
32
33
19
18
20
D3
27
21
D4
11
35
34
36
Target cell
Interfering cell
Figure 5.1: Cellular system with interfering cells up to 3 tiers with 5 different co-channel distance: D1,
D2, D3, D4 and D5.
In this section, Carrier to Interference plus Noise Ratio (CINR) of a series of

frequency reuse designs is derived, which contains the Reuse-1 scheme, the Reuse-3
55
5.1 Cell Coverage Analysis
scheme, the well-known SFR scheme, the proposed EFFR scheme, and two EFFR
derivatives, namely the EFFR-Advanced scheme and the EFFR-Beyond scheme.
Table 5.1: Relations between Dj, R and cell type for different tiers.
Tier
Dj
Value
Corresponding
cell type
Number of cells
for each type
3R
3 R
6
6
12
6
1st
D1
2nd
2nd
D2
D3
2 3R
3rd
3rd
D4
D5
21 R
3 3R
For a theoretical analysis of a Reuse-1 cellular system, an investigation on a cell with

surrounding interfering cells up to 3 tiers is reasonable and convincing. Figure 5.1
instantiates a cellular system with 36 adjacent interfering cells. It can be seen that there
are 5 different co-channel distances Dj for 0 j 5 within 3 tiers of Reuse-1
interfering cells. Table 5.1 and Figure 5.2 further illustrate the relation between each
co-channel distance Dj and cell radius R, as well as the number of each type of Dj in
each tier.
In OFDMA-based communication networks, resource allocation is based on channel
quality of each subchannel. And with the RUP techniques, subchannel assignment
depends on the specific locations of users. Therefore, in what follows, we are
concerned about the received CINR value on each subchannel. In the considered
network, DL and UL channels are assumed to be perfectly separated either by a FDD
or by a fully synchronized TDD scheme. Thus, in DL, neighboring BSs cause
interference, while in UL, interference is generated by UTs in the neighboring cells.
In the following analysis, the CINR values for UL traffic received at BS and for DL
traffic at UTs are discussed separately. According to [8], generally the radio
propagation can be modeled as
2
c
1
PRx _ SCH PTx _ SCH 0 gTx g Rx SCH
4
f
l
l
(5.1)
, where PTx-SCH is the transmission power level for one subchannel and PRx-SCH the
received power on this subchannel, c0 the speed of light, l the distance between
transmitter and receiver, a propagation coefficient between 2 and 5, gTx and gRx the
antenna gains at the receiver and the transmitter side.
56
y
26
27
23
24
10
11
12
25
22
26
21
27
20
23
24
10
11
12
22
21
20
D3
25
D2
28
13
14
29
30
D1
31
18
17
16
32
19
15
28
13
14
29
36
30
35
33
15
17
16
32
33
(a)
19
18
31
34
36
35
34
(b)
y
25
26
23
24
10
D5
27
28
12
13
30
15
31
17
16
32
33
19
18
20
14
29
21
D4
11
22
36
35
34
(c)
Figure 5.2: 5 different interfering cell types distributed up to 3 tiers: (a) 6 interfering cells with cochannel distance of D1 locate on the 1st-tier; (b) 6 and 6 interfering cells, with co-channel distance
of D2 and D3 respectively, located on the 2nd-tier; (c) 12 and 6 interfering cells, with co-channel
distance of D4 and D5 respectively, locate on the 3rd-tier.
Assuming the BS of the target cell being situated at the grid origin in the Cartesian
coordinates as shown in Figure 5.1, the received carrier level on a subchannel CSCH at
position (x, y) is therefore:
CSCH ( x, y )
SCH
( x 2 y 2 )
(5.2)
57
, where SCH varies depending on the transmission power PTx-SCH applied on a certain
subchannel. PTx-SCH has different values in accordance with the type of UTs, such as
Cell-Centre Users (CCUs), Cell-Edge Users (CEUs), Cell-Middle Users (CMUs) and
Cell-Remote Users (CRUs), corresponding to each scheme mentioned in Section 3.2.2
and Chapter 4. For all studied schemes, Eq. (5.2) for calculation of received carrier
level CSCH can be used in both UL and DL. However, the computation of the cochannel interference (CCI) ISCH in UL is much more complicated than in DL,
especially for the RUP schemes.
5.1.1.1
Mean UL Interference Generated by Co-channel UTs in the

Neighboring Cells
In UL, UTs of co-channel cells generate interference. These UTs are assumed
randomly distributed within the cell area. In order to model CCI more accurately, the
mean interference generated by a co-channel cell is calculated by assuming a planar
transmitter with the shape of a hexagonal cell. The transmit power is assumed equally
distributed all over the cell surface area [6]. With the help of the analytical methods
UL
described in [6], the mean UL interference I SCH
yielded by one interfering cell can be
calculated by integrating the received power of a point (x, y) over the whole hexagonal
cell area.
UL
I SCH
1
UT
SCH
( x2 y 2 ) 2
cellArea cellArea
(5.3)
, where the surface area of a hexagonal cell is known as

cellArea
3
3 R2 .
2
(5.4)
In this way, the calculation of the mean CCI is decoupled with geographic locations of
the users.
According to each type of reuse distance Dj in 3 tiers of surrounding cells, there are 5
types of co-channel cells (type-, -, -, - and - in Table 5.1), which generate CCI
to the observed center cell. As indicated in Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2, 5 corresponding
UL
UL
UL
UL
UL
mean UL interference ( I SCH
, I SCH
, I SCH
, I SCH
and I SCH
) of different
_
_
_
_
_
cell types can be attained by using Eq. (5.4). Here, we give the mean UL CCI
UL
expression I SCH
for the interfering cell Nr. 20 of type- on the 3rd-tier as an
_
example, which depends on two factors SCH and R. To integrate over the cell area, it
is divided into three parts (see Figure 5.1), resulting in
58
UL
UT
I SCH
_ ( SCH , R )
UT
SCH
3
3R 2
2
5
R
2
2 R
3 y 5 3 R
3 y
2 R
2 3 R
R
R
R
2
3 3 R
( x 2 y 2 ) 2 dxdy
( x 2 y 2 ) 2 dxdy
3 y 2 3 R
3 y 3 3 R
(5.3a)
( x 2 y 2 ) 2 dxdy ].
The mean UL CCI of other cell types can be calculated in a similar way.
In the following, we present the UL CCI equations for all six schemes respectively,
namely: the Reuse-1 scheme, the Reuse-3 scheme, the SFR scheme, the EFFR scheme,
EFFR-A and EFFR-B schemes.
A. Mean UL interference using Reuse-1

Using the Reuse-1 scheme, the UL traffic received by the BS in the target cell is
interfered by the simultaneous UL transmissions occurring in all 3 tiers of surrounding
cells.
UL
UL
UL
UL
I SCH
_ Reuse1 I SCH 1stTier I SCH 2 ndTier I SCH 3rdTier
UL
UL
UL
6 I SCH
_ ( , R ) 6 I SCH _ ( , R ) 6 I SCH _ ( , R )
1st tier
12 I
UL
SCH _
(5.5)
2 nd tier
( , R) 6 I
UL
SCH _
( , R)
3 rd tier
B. Mean UL interference using Reuse-3

In comparison with the Reuse-1, using a cluster-order of 3, the BS in the target cell is
just interfered by the UL transmissions occurring in the 6 type- cells on the 2nd-tier
and 6 type- cells on the 3rd-tier, see Figure 5.2b and Figure 5.2c or Figure 5.3.
Thereby, the mean CCI can be calculated as
UL
UL
UL
I SCH
_ Reuse 3 6 I SCH _ ( , R) 6 I SCH _ ( , R).
on the 2 nd tier
on the 3rd tier
(5.6)
59

y
25
26
23
24
10
11
22
21
D5
27
12
20
D2
28
13
14
29
30
15
31
17
16
32
18
33
19
36
35
34
Figure 5.3: Interfering cells up to the 3rd-tier for a Reuse-3 cellular system: the transmission in the
target cell is interfered by concurrent traffic in the 6 type- cells on the 2nd-tier with co-channel
distance of D2 and 6 type- cells on the 3rd-tier co-channel distance of D5, respectively.
C. Mean UL interference using SFR

As explained in Section 3.2.2, the SFR applies an inclusive RUP, which means the
Major Segment (FRF of 3, see Figure 3.3) for the CEUs in a cell is simultaneously
reuse-1 subchannels used by CCUs in the neighboring cells. Thus, the UL traffic from
a CEU in the target cell is interfered by the CEUs transmissions in the 6 type- cells
on the 2nd-tier and 6 type- cells on the 3rd-tier with higher transmission power, which
is like the Reuse-3 situation illustrated in Figure 5.3. Besides, it is also interfered by
the CCUs UL transmission in all the other cells with lower transmission power.
Accordingly, the mean CCI received by the BS together with the UL traffic from a
CEU can be calculated as
UL ( CEU BS )
UL
CCU
UL
CCU
UL
CCU
I SCH
6 I SCH
, R CCU ) 6 I SCH
, R CCU ) 12 I SCH
, RCCU )
_ SFR
_ (
_ (
_ (
CCUs in type , and cells use this subchannel to transmit with lower transmission power
(5.7)
UL
UL
CEU
UL
CEU
UL
CEU
6 I SC
( CEU , R) I SCH
, R CCU ) 6 I SCH
, R) I SCH
, R CCU ) .
_ (
_ (
_ (
H _
CEUs in type and cells use this subchannel to transmit with higher transmission power
, where RCCU defines the range for the CCUs.

Likewise, the UL traffic from a CCU in the target cell (assuming the type-A cell in
Figure 3.3) is interfered by the CEUs transmissions in the 12 neighboring cells (e.g.,
type-B cells in Figure 3.3), which is distributed in half of the type- cells on the 1st-tier
(see Figure 5.4a), half of the type- cells on the 2nd-tier (see Figure 5.4b) and half of
60
D3
D2
A D1 B
A
C
(a)
(b)
y
A
C
D5
D4
B
C
A
C
B
B
C
A
(c)
Figure 5.4: UL traffic from a CCU in the target cell (cell-type A) is interfered by the CEUs
transmissions in the 12 neighboring type-B cells, which consist of half number of the (a) 6
interfering cells with co-channel distance of D1 locate on the 1st-tier; half number of the (b) 6
interfering cells with co-channel distance of D3 located on the 2nd-tier; as well as half number of the
(c) 12 interfering cells with co-channel distance of D4 locate on the 3rd-tier. Besides, it is also
interfered by the CCU UL transmissions of the remaining 24 type-A and C cells.
the type- cells on the 3rd-tier (see Figure 5.4c). In addition, it is also interfered by the
CCU UL transmissions of the remaining 24 cells (consisting of type-A and -C in
Figure 5.4). So, the mean CCI for UL traffic from a CCU can be calculated as
61

UL ( CCU BS )
UL
CEU
UL
CEU
I SCH
3 I SCH
, R) I SCH
, R CCU )
_ SFR
_ (
_ (
UL
CEU
UL
CEU
3 I SCH
, R) I SCH
, R CCU )
_ (
_ (
UL
CEU
UL
CEU
CCU
6 I SCH _ (
, R) I SCH _ (
,R
)
(5.8)
UL
CCU
UL
CCU
3 I SCH
, R CCU ) 3 I SCH
, R CCU )
_ (
_ (
UL
CCU
UL
CCU
6 I SCH
, R CCU ) 6 I SCH
, R CCU )
_ (
_ (
UL
CCU
6 I SCH
, R CCU ).
_ (
It can be seen that in SFR whether for CEU-transmission or CCU-transmission, they

are all interfered by the whole 3 tiers of surrounding cells, but with different power
allocation.
D. Mean UL interference using EFFR

y
25
26
27
28
24
13
30
21
17
16
32
33
19
18
20
23
15
31
22
14
29
10
11
12
23
35
34
36

Exclusive frequency reuse 3
for CEUs
Figure 5.5: Using the EFFR scheme, the CEUs exclusively use the reuse-3 subchannels with higher
transmission power, whereas the CCUs use the reuse-1 subchannels with lower transmission power.
As described in Chapter 4, the EFFR scheme is an exclusive RUP technique. In the

EFFR scheme, the CEUs exclusively use the reuse-3 subchannels with higher
transmission power, whereas the CCUs use the reuse-1 subchannels with lower
transmission power (see Figure 5.5). Therefore, for the EFFR scheme, the mean UL
interference generated by the CEUs in the neighboring cells can be calculated as
62
UL ( CEU BS )
UL
CEU
UL
CEU
I SCH
6 I SCH
, R ) I SCH
, R CCU )
_ EFFR
_ (
_ (
(5.9)
UL
CEU
UL
CEU
6 I SCH
, R) I SCH
, R CCU )
_ (
_ (
, which is similar to the Eq. (5.6) for the Reuse-3 scheme, but only for CEUs. And the
mean UL interference caused by the CCUs in the 3 tiers of surrounding cells can be
summed up as
UL ( CCU BS )
UL
CCU
I SCH
6 I SCH
, R CCU )
_ EFFR
_ (
1st tier
6 I
UL
SCH _
UL
CCU
( CCU , R CCU ) 6 I SCH
, R CCU )
_ (
(5.10)
2 nd tier
12 I
UL
SCH _
CCU
,R
CCU
UL
CCU
) 6 I SCH
, R CCU )
_ (
3 rd tier
, which is similar to the Eq. (5.5) for the Reuse-1 scheme, yet it is only suited for the
CCUs.
UL CCU
For the EFFR-A and EFFR-B schemes, the mean UL interference I SCH
is the same
as using the EFFR scheme. So, in what follow, we complete the UL CCI formulas at
the BS for its receiving packets from other more distant users.
E. Mean UL interference using EFFR-A

In order to further ameliorate the performance of the most distant users in a cell, which
are located near the cell border, the EFFR-A scheme based on the EFFR design further
separates the CEUs into CMUs and CRUs. For the CRUs, the EFFR-A enlarges the
co-channel distance and possibly increases the transmission power on their
subchannels. As illustrated in Figure 4.2 in Section 4.2, in an EFFR-A cellular system,
FRF of 1 is applied on the CCUs with lower power, whereas FRF of 3 is used on
CMUs with moderate power, and FRF of 9 on CRUs with higher power. So, the mean
UL interference together with the UL traffic from a CMU can be calculated similarly
as that for the CEUs in the EFFR scheme, see Eq. (5.9)
UL ( CMU BS )
CMU
UL
CMU
UL
I SCH
, R CMU ) I SCH
, R CCU )
_ EFFR A 6 I SCH _ (
_ (
6 I
UL
SCH _
CMU
,R
CMU
)I
UL
SCH _
CMU
,R
CCU
(5.11)
63

CMU
, where R
gives the maximum range for the CMUs. And the mean UL interference
yielded by the CRUs in the 6 interfering cells (see Figure 4.2 and Figure 5.2c) can
be computed as
UL ( CRU BS )
CRU
UL
CRU
UL
I SCH
, R) I SCH
, RCMU ) .
_ EFFR A 6 I SCH _ (
_ (
(5.12)
F. Mean UL interference using EFFR-B

The only difference between the EFFR-B design and the EFFR scheme is that the
policy, which is applied on the CRUs in the EFFR-A scheme, is executed to the CEUs
in the EFFR scheme. That means the EFFR-B applies reuse-1 for CCUs with lower
power, reuse-9 for the CEUs with higher power. Thereby, similar calculation can be
taken for the EFFR-B scheme for the CCI resulted by the CEUs in the certain reuse-9
co-channel cells as shown in Figure 4.4, which are actually the 6 type- cells (see
Figure 5.2c)
UL ( CEU BS )
CEU
UL
CEU
UL
I SCH
, R) I SCH
, RCCU ) .
_ EFFR B 6 I SCH _ (
_ (
(5.13)
5.1.1.2 DL Interference Generated by BSs in the Neighboring Cells

In DL, the CCI is caused by the concurrent DL traffic from the BSs in the neighboring
cells. Since the locations (x0i, y0i) of all BSs in the surrounding interfering cells are
DL
fixed, the CCI I SCH
( x, y ) received by a user located at (x, y) for DL traffic can be
derived by:
DL
I SCH
( x, y )
i
with
d i ( x, y )
x0i x
BS
SCH
i
[di ( x, y)]
y0i y ,
2
(5.14)
for
1, 2, ... 36 .
According to different schemes, each interfering BS arranges its transmission power

on each available subchannel depending on the type of its user served on this
subchannel. Eq. (5.14) is applicable for all schemes except for the subset definition ,
which clarifies the set of the interfering BSs in the neighborhood for each scheme. In
the following, we give the specific
definition for each scheme respectively.
A. Reuse-1
64
With the Reuse-1, the DL CCI is generated by all 36 surrounding cells with equal
transmission power. Thereby,
Reuse1
1, 2, ... 36
(5.15)
B. Reuse-3
As shown in Figure 5.3, using the Reuse-3 in a cellular system up to 3 tiers, the
transmission in the target cell is interfered by concurrent traffic in the 6 type- cells on
the 2nd-tier with co-channel distance of D2 and 6 type- cells on the 3rd-tier with cochannel distance of D5, respectively. So,
Reuse 3
Cell
Cell 8, 10, ...18 19, 22, ... 34.
(5.16)
C. SFR
Since the SFR applies an inclusive RUP, whether for a CEU or for a CCU, a DL
transmission is always interfered by the whole 3 tiers of surrounding cells, but with
different power allocation. Accordingly,
SFR
1, 2, ... 36 .
(5.17)
D. EFFR
By applying an exclusive RUP, the DL traffic for the CEUs using EFFR receives CCI
as using the Reuse-3, whereas for the CCUs the situation is as using the Reuse-1
scheme, see Figure 5.5. Herewith,
and
CEU
EFFR
Cell
Cell 8, 10, ...18 19, 22, ... 34
CCU
EFFR
1, 2, ... 36
(5.18)
(5.19)
E. EFFR-A & EFFR-B

Likewise, for EFFR-A scheme (see Figure 4.2 and Figure 5.2c)
CRU
EFFR A
CMU
EFFR A
and
CCU
EFFR A
Cell 19, 22, ... 34 ,
(5.20)
Cell
(5.21)
Cell 8, 10, ...18 19, 22, ... 34 ,
1, 2, ... 36 ;
(5.22)
65
for EFFR-B scheme (see Figure 4.4 and Figure 5.2c)
and
5.1.1.3
CEU
EFFR B
Cell 19, 22, ... 34 ,
(5.23)
CCU
EFFR B
1, 2, ... 36 .
(5.24)
CINR Derivation
Now, we can accomplish the CINR expression at position (x, y) for the Reuse-1 and
Reuse-3 schemes as follows:
CINRSCH ( x, y )
CSCH ( x, y )
, for x 2 y 2 (0, R ]
I SCH ( x, y ) N
(5.25)
, and for the SFR, EFFR, EFFR-B schemes:

CCU
CSCH
( x, y )
, for x 2 y 2 (0, R CCU )
CCU
I
(
x
,
y
)
N
SCH
CINRSCH ( x, y )
CEU
CSCH ( x, y ) , for x 2 y 2 [ R CCU , R]
CEU
I SCH ( x, y ) N
(5.26)
, as well as for the EFFR-A scheme:

CCU
CSCH
( x, y )
, for x 2 y 2 (0, R CCU )
CCU
I
(
x
,
y
)
N
SCH
CMU
( x, y )
C
CINRSCH ( x, y ) CMUSCH
, for x 2 y 2 [ R CCU , R CMU ).
I
(
x
,
y
)
N
SCH
C CRU ( x, y )
CRUSCH
, for x 2 y 2 [ R CMU , R ]
I SCH ( x, y ) N
(5.27)
In can be noticed that the CINR Eqs. (5.25), (5.26) and (5.27) are not distinguished for
UL and DL traffic, but when substituting the CCI for each type of users in each
scheme, the corresponding UL and DL expressions described in Subsections 5.1.1.1
and 5.1.1.2 should be used.
5.1.2
Cell Coverage Comparison
By using the CINR calculation introduced in Section 5.1.1, the maximal cell radius for
each RUP scheme and the range definition for dividing different user-type zones of
66
each scheme can be determined. And accordingly, their respective cell coverage can
be estimated and compared.
Table 5.2: Transmission power applied in studied schemes.
Scheme
PTx_SCH
in UL
[mW]
PTx
in UL
[mW]
PTx_SCH
in DL
[mW]
PTx
in DL
[mW]
Reuse 1
66.67
2000
66.67
2000
Reuse 3
200
2000
200
SFR
EFFR
EFFR-A
CCU
CEU
66.67
200
CCU
CEU
66.67
200
CCU
CMU
CRU
66.67
200
200
EFFR-B
CCU
CEU
66.67
200
3333
2000
2000
2000
2000
CCU
CEU
40
120
CCU
CEU
66.67
200
CCU
CMU
CRU
66.67
200
600
CCU
CEU
66.67
600
2000
2000
2000
2000
Figure 5.1 gives the considered cellular scenario which consists of 37 hexagonal cells
with central BSs. For the evaluation, antenna gain is neglected at the receiver as well
as at the transmitter. 30 non-overlapping frequency subchannels with a bandwidth of
20 MHz are located at 5.47GHz. In order to determine the user-type zones for each
scheme, the CINR at the cell border and at the border of each zone is of interest, where
the most robust Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS), i.e. BPSK has to be used.
The minimum receiver requirement for BPSK is 6.4 dB which is taken from the
802.16 standard [42]. The maximum transmission power of BSs is restricted to 2000
mW or 33 dBm, and for UTs is 200mW or 23 dBm. Table 5.2 details the transmission
power on a subchannel used by each type of users for all studied schemes. Thermal
noise of -174 dBm/Hz and a noise figure of 5 dB for BS as well as 7 dB for UT are
assumed.
For the path loss, the suburban C1 Metropol path loss model from the IST WINNER
project [35] is chosen, which has also been implemented in the simulation
environment OpenWNS described in Appendix A. The C1 Metropol is a composition
of two models, a LOS and a NLOS model. Eqs. (5.28) and (5.29) list their parameters,
respectively.
LOS:
10
41.9
10
6.457 105
23.8
2.38
10
(5.28)
67

NLOS:
10
27.7
10
1.698 103
40.2
4.02
10
(5.29)
The other main relevant parameters used for evaluation are shown in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3: Assumptions for evaluation
Parameter
System bandwidth
Center frequency
Subcarriers (FFT size)
OFDMA symbol duration
Number of data subcarriers
Number of subchannels
Number of interfering cells
UT thermal noise density
Noise figure at [BS, UT]
Minimum CINR
Value
20 MHz
5470 MHz
2048
102.858 s
1440
30
36 (up to 3 tiers)
-174 dBm/Hz
[5, 7] dB
6.4 dB
In the following, we will compare the coverage of all studied RUP schemes under
LOS, NLOS as well as combined LOS-NLOS condition, separately. First, the CINR
level at the cell border is evaluated with varying cell radius R, so that the maximum
cell radius Rmax for each scheme can be found. Then, with the determined Rmax, the
CINR for a user traversing the cell across the x-axis is given, with which the ranges for
partitioning CCUs and CEUs (or CMUs and CRUs) for all in Chapters 3 and 4
mentioned schemes as well as the coverage using each scheme will come out.
5.1.2.1
LOS Condition
Figure 5.6a plots the UL CINR perceived at the BS versus the cell radius R, while a
UT as a transmitter is located at the cell border. And Figure 5.6b represents the DL
CINR received at the cell border with varying cell radius. Both scenarios are under
LOS propagation. The maximum cell radius (CINR of 6.4 dB) is highlighted by stems.
In general, the CINR decreases with an increasing cell radius for both UL and DL
situations. The both UL and DL CINR using the EFFR-A or -B scheme are better than
using the other schemes with any cell radius. This is mainly due to the fact that the
UTs at the cell border using the EFFR-A or -B work with a large co-channel distance
(D5 = 3 3 R ). Comparing UL and DL, applying the EFFR-A or -B scheme the DL
CINR (see Figure 5.6b) is higher than their UL CINR (see Figure 5.6a). This is
because in DL the BS may use three times stronger transmission power (600 mW)
68
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.6: CINR versus the cell radius R using C1 LOS path loss model: (a) UL CINR perceived at
the central BS while a UT as a transmitter located at the cell border; (b) DL CINR received at the cell
border.
than the maximum transmission power of a UT (200 mW) on one subchannel, see
Table 5.2. However, with the other schemes, the UL CINR seems slightly better than
the DL CINR. Another phenomenon exposed in both Figure 5.6a und Figure 5.6b is
that except EFFR-A and EFFR-B schemes, the other schemes do not provide a
sufficient CINR level at the cell border for DL or over cell radius for UL under LOS
propagation. Using the EFFR-A or -B scheme, the maximal cell radius reaches 2800 m
for UL and 4424 m for DL, respectively.
As cell radius for UL and DL should be identical, we choose the minor maximal cell
radius 2800 m as cell radius R to evaluate the CINR distribution along with varying
distance between a UT and the BS. Figure 5.7 displays the CINR for a UT traversing
the cell across the x-axis for both UL (Figure 5.7a) and DL (Figure 5.7b) under LOS
propagation. One can see the BS position and the cell border. The range of coverage of
a scheme is marked by two stems, whose height indicates the minimum receiver
requirement (6.4 dB) for the PHY mode BPSK. The CINR by using the EFFR series
is better than using the SFR scheme at any position for both UL and DL. In the figures
we can also find the positions of the ranges for partition CCUs and CEUs (or CMUs
and CRUs) for all mentioned RUP schemes. The CINR of CCUs by using SFR is
worse than with the Reuse-1 scheme, since the CEUs of some neighboring cells reuse
the same resources at the same time with higher transmission power. Though the
CINR of the CEUs using the SFR is better than using the Reuse-1, it is still worse than
using the Reuse-3 scheme.
69
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.7: CINR distribution, when a UT traverses the cell with a radius of 2800m under the C1 LOS
propagation: (a) UL CINR received by the BS; (b) DL CINR received by the UT.
For the Reuse-1, Reuse-3 and EFFR, their coverage for UL is quite similar to the DL
coverage (see Figure 5.7 and Table 5.6). On the contrary, the SFR can reach maximum
1232 m from the BS for DL (see Figure 5.7b), but 1372 m for UL (see Figure 5.7a).
This is because the transmission power on each subchannel for DL is smaller than for
UL (see Table 5.2). As a result for the example power allocation chosen for CCUs and
CEUs, respectively, SFR can cover 29% of the cell for UL, but 23.4% of the cell for
DL, see Table 5.6. Among all schemes, only the EFFR-A or -B scheme has the
capability of serving the whole cell under LOS propagation. For DL, they even can
provide a CINR higher than 6.4 dB at the cell border (see Figure 5.7b).
5.1.2.2
NLOS Condition
Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.9 show the comparable results under NLOS propagation,
where the path loss coefficient is nearly two times higher than under LOS
propagation, see Eq. (5.29).
Comparing Figure 5.8 and Figure 5.6, the CINR under NLOS propagation at small
radii is higher than with LOS, as the CCI is substantially reduced caused by the bigger
path loss coefficient . Besides the EFFR-A and -B scheme, the Reuse-3 and the EFFR
scheme also allow for cell radii of 270 m for UL (see Figure 5.8a) and 248 m for DL
(see Figure 5.8b) in a NLOS scenario. Nevertheless, applying EFFR-A or B scheme
the larger maximal cell radii can be attained, namely, 298 m for UL and 391m for DL.
And the SFR scheme and the Reuse-1 scheme can still not provide a sufficient CINR
70
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.8: CINR versus the cell radius R using C1 NLOS path loss model: (a) UL CINR perceived at
the central BS while a UT as a transmitter located at the cell border; (b) DL CINR received at the cell
border.
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.9: CINR distribution when a UT traverses the cell with a radius of 298m under the C1 NLOS
propagation: (a) UL CINR received by the BS; (b)DL CINR received by the UT.
for both UL and DL. Similar to LOS results as shown in Figure 5.6, other than the
EFFR-A and B scheme, the UL CINR over the cell radius R is higher than the DL
CINR with the other schemes. This is because in UL the receiver is located at the
center of the cell and not at the border, which reduces the received interference.
71
Like Figure 5.7, Figure 5.9 shows CINR distribution for both UL and DL under NLOS
propagation for a UT traversing across the cell, where the smaller UL maximal cell
radius of the EFFR-A scheme (298 m) is chosen as a cell radius for evaluation.
Figure 5.9 exhibits similar features as which in Figure 5.7. Moreover, either LOS or
NLOS, the CINR using the static Reuse schemes and the SFR for DL decays always
more rapidly than for UL, which means the the DL CCI when using those schemes is
more severe than the UL CCI. EFFR covers the cell up to 270 m.
5.1.2.3
Combined LOS-NLOS Condition
In urban Manhattan-like scenarios, the source and the destination have direct LOS
connection along the streets. In contrast, the interferers are shadowed behind buildings,
thus a NLOS path results. The same effect occurs in wide-area scenarios when the BSs
are deployed with an antenna tilt. Then, with high probability, the UTs of a cell have a
LOS connection to the BS while the UTs of the surrounding interfering cells perceive
NLOS attenuation. In both deployments, the carrier signal is attenuated by LOS
propagation, whereas interfering signals are attenuated with NLOS path loss.
Figure 5.10 plots the UL and DL CINR versus the cell radius of the LOS-NLOS
scenario. The curves differ from that shown in Figure 5.6 and Figure 5.8. In
comparison with pure LOS and pure NLOS condition, even the Reuse-1 and the SFR
now provide sufficient CINR for both UL and DL. And all schemes reach their
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.10: CINR versus the cell radius R using LOS-NLOS path loss model: (a) UL CINR perceived
at the central BS while a UT as a transmitter located at the cell border; (b) DL CINR received at the cell
border.
72
Table 5.4: Maximum cell radius under LOS, NLOS and combined LOS-NLOS propagations
(PBS_max = 2 W, PUT_max = 200 mW)
path loss
LOS
NLOS
LOSNLOS
Reuse-1
SFR
Reuse-3 /
EFFR
-
EFFR-A /
EFFR-B
2800 m
UL
DL
UL
4424 m
262 m
DL
298 m
248 m
390 m
UL
2436 m
3920 m
3920 m
3920 m
DL
2436 m
3920 m
3920 m
6160 m
- no valid maximal cell radius
maximum radii far beyond that reached in LOS and NLOS scenarios (see Table 5.4).
Besides, the CINR under combined LOS-NLOS propagation is much higher than with
the other two conditions. This is because the interference attenuates faster than the
carrier signal due to its higher path loss coefficient = 4.02. Due to the relative
increase of the carrier signal compared to the interference, the CINR increases which
results in a maximum of the CINR curve among all conditions.
In UL, except the Reuse-1, for all the other schemes the maximal radius up to 3920 m
can be reached (see Figure 5.10a). In DL, however, same as LOS and NLOS scenarios,
the EFFR-A and B schemes gain the best CINR, which results in the maximal cell
Table 5.5: Optimal range definition for different type of users for RUP schemes under LOS, NLOS and
combined LOS-NLOS propagations (PBS_max = 2 W, PUT_max = 200 mW, RLOS = 2800 m, RNLOS = 298 m,
RLOS-NLOS = 3920 m)
path loss
LOS
NLOS
LOSNLOS
SFR
EFFR series
EFFR-A
Range
(CCUs)
Range
Ratio
Range
(CCUs)
Range
Ratio
Range
(CMUs)
Range
Ratio
UL
728 m
0.26
896 m
0.32
1764 m
0.63
DL
728 m
0.26
924 m
0.33
1764 m
0.63
UL
150 m
0.50
174 m
0.58
276 m
0.93
DL
154 m
0.52
176 m
0.59
272 m
0.91
UL
2464 m
0.63
2464 m
0.63
DL
1988 m
0.51
2464 m
0.63
- no need of range definition
73
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.11: CINR distribution when a UT traverses the cell with a radius of 3920m under the LOSNLOS propagation: (a) UL CINR received by the BS; (b) DL CINR received by the UT.
radius of 6160 m (see Figure 5.10b).

For Reuse-1, Reuse-3 and EFFR schemes, the UL CINR over the cell Radius R is quite
similar to that of the DL CINR, whereas SFR offers a better UL CINR than the DL
CINR, and with EFFR-A and B schemes their UL CINR is worse than the DL CINR.
This is because using the SFR the DL transmission power for a CEU on a subchannel
is minor than the UL transmission power, see Table 5.2. On the contrary, in the EFFRA or B scheme, CEUs-traffic is served with higher transmission power in DL than in
UL. Therefore, the UL CINR of the EFFR-A and B attenuates faster than their DL
CINR, which causes a minor maximum cell radius of 3920 m.
Again, we utilize the minor valid maximal cell radius 3920 m of all studied RUP
techniques for UL and DL (see Table 5.5), as cell radius R to evaluate the CINR
distribution along with varying distance between a UT and the BS. Like Figure 5.7
under LOS condition and Figure 5.9 under NLOS condition, Figure 5.11 presents the
CINR for a UT traversing the cell across the x-axis for both UL (Figure 5.11a) and DL
(Figure 5.11b) under combined LOS-NLOS propagation. It should be noted that in UL,
unlike the pure LOS and NLOS cases, all RUP techniques own an identical CINR
distribution. And the ranges for partition CCUs from CEUs for SFR, EFFR and EFFRB schemes (or from CMUs and CRUs for EFFR-A scheme) occur at the same place,
see Table 5.5. Moreover, in UL, not only the CINR of CCUs using SFR is not worse
than using the Reuse-1 anymore, but also its CINR of CEUs is not inferior to the
Reuse-3 scheme. All these phenomena expose that the level of CCI under combined
74
LOS-NLOS condition is rather low and does not affect the CINR much. This also
causes that in a aystem with limited interference, there is no difference among the
EFFR series any more in UL, and in DL the EFFR-A scheme is useless within cells,
since the optimal range for dividing CMUs and CRUs overlaps with the cell edge at
3920 m (see Figure 5.11b), which means no need to partition CRUs from CMUs to
attain 100% cell coverage.
5.1.2.4
Conclusion
Table 5.6 summarizes the corresponding maximal reaches of all studied schemes and
their cell coverage percentage for both UL and DL. The table contains results for
different propagation scenarios using different cell radii taken from the preceding
sections.
Table 5.6: Maximal reach and coverage percentage of each studied schemes under LOS, NLOS and
combined LOS-NLOS propagations (PBS_max = 2 W, PUT_max = 200 mW, RLOS = 2800 m, RNLOS = 298 m,
RLOS-NLOS = 3920 m)
schemes
Reuse-1
SFR
Reuse-3 / EFFR
EFFR-A / EFFR-B
maximum
reach
coverage
percentage
maximum
reach
coverage
percentage
maximum
reach
coverage
percentage
maximum
reach
coverage
percentage
UL
868 m
11.6%
1372 m
29%
1736 m
46.5%
2800 m
100%
DL
896 m
12.4%
1232 m
23.4%
1736 m
46.5%
3220 m
100%
UL
172 m
40.3%
238 m
77.1%
274 m
97.1%
298 m
100%
DL
174 m
41.2%
208 m
58.9%
270 m
96%
390 m
100%
UL
2464 m
47.8%
3920 m
100%
3920 m
100%
3920 m
100%
DL
2436 m
46.7%
3136 m
77.4%
3920 m
100%
6160 m
100%
path loss
LOS
NLOS
LOSNLOS
It can be seen, that in a LOS scenario, by application of the EFFR scheme (or the
Reuse-3 scheme ) and the EFFR-A or -B scheme (with FRF of 9 for remote users) in
UL, the maximal reaches are extended from 1736 m to 2800 m, which means the
system is interference-limited. In an interference-limited system, the CINR value is
more influenced by the interference level than by the fixed noise level. Therefore,
increasing FRF can benefit the CINR at the cell border and extend the coverage range.
On the contrary, under the NLOS and LOS-NLOS propagations the system is noiselimited, since the maximal reaches with different FRFs (FRF of 3 for EFFR scheme
75
R*
R* = 3/2 R
Figure 5.12: Cell coverage percentage computation when the maximum reach R by using a certain
scheme is larger than the internally tangent circle radius R* of the hexagonal cell.
and FRF of 9 for EFFR-A and B schemes) are close: between 274 m and 298 m in
NLOS UL, and even no change in LOS-NLOS UL case (both are 3920 m).
In DL, however, besides an increased value of FRF, the power for the cell remote
users (CRUs) in the EFFR-A and B schemes can be set triple higher than for the cell
edge users (CEUs) in the EFFR scheme, see Table 5.2. Thus, increasing the carrier
signal power and reducing interference benefits both, interference- and noise-limited
systems.
For calculation of the cell coverage percentage, Eq. (5.30)
R '2
,
3
3 R2
2
Cell Coverage Percentage
2
R ' 6 ( S ' S ) ,
3
3 R2
for R ' (0, R* ]

(5.30)
for R ' ( R* , R]
is used with
S ' arccos(
R*
*
2
*2
) R '2 ; S R R ' R
R'
and R *
3
R
2
(5.31)
, where R ' is the maximum reach by using a certain scheme in a hexagonal cellular
system with a cell radius of R, R* is the internally tangent circle radius of the
hexagonal cell, and S ' S denotes the shadowed area illustrated for example in
Figure 5.12.
76
According to the results presented in Figure 5.6, Figure 5.8, and Figure 5.10, the cell
radii for CINR distribution analysis under different propagation condition (refer to
Figure 5.7, Figure 5.9, and Figure 5.11) are determined, namely, RLOS = 2800 m, RNLOS
= 298 m, and RLOS-NLOS = 3920 m, respectively. The curves in Figure 5.6 indicate that
except for the EFFR-A and EFFR-B schemes, no cell radius is found for the other
schemes (including the EFFR) under LOS propagation that a sufficient CINR level can
be provided at the cell border. And the results in Figure 5.7 and in Table 5.6 show that
the maximal reach by using the EFFR under LOS with a cell radius of 2800 m is 1736
m. Hence, the cell coverage percentage by using the EFFR scheme for example can be
calculated as follows:
Cell Coverage PercentageEFFR LOS
R '2
3
3 R2
2
17362
3
3 28002
2
46,5%.
Figure 5.13: DL cell coverage percentage of each all studied schemes under LOS, NLOS and combined
LOS-NLOS propagations as given in Table 5.6.
Figure 5.13 visualizes the results of the cell coverage percentage given in Table 5.6 in
DL. It can be seen that the EFFR series always provide better cell coverage than the
SFR and the Reuse-1 schemes. And with the EFFR scheme, high cell coverage of
more than 96% can also be offered under NLOS condition though with a smaller
radius, see Figure 5.8. But only the EFFR-A and EFFR-B schemes can achieve 100%
cell coverage in every situation. In addition, under LOS condition (or in an
interference-limited system), the enhancement on the coverage by using the RUP
77
5.2 Cell Capacity Analysis
technique is more remarkable than under NLOS and LOS-NLOS propagations (or in
noise-limited systems).
5.2
Cell Capacity Analysis
Based on the CINR analysis in the previous section, this section provides an analysis
of the mean cell capacity for the two static Reuse schemes and all aforementioned
RUP techniques.
5.2.1
Mean Cell Capacity Computation
If perfect link adaptation is assumed, the subchannel data throughput (see Table 5.7) at
a certain position ThrSCH(x, y) can be derived by the perceived CINR for each
Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) in the scenario as described in Table 5.3. We
use the seven different PHY modes and their corresponding CINR measures from the
air interfaces of standard IEEE 802.16e-2004 [42].
Table 5.7: PHY modes and corresponding subchannel throughput
Modulation
Coding rate
BPSK
QPSK
QPSK
16QAM
16QAM
64QAM
64QAM
1/2
1/2
3/4
1/2
3/4
2/3
3/4
Min. receiver CINR

[dB]
6.4
9.4
11.2
16.4
18.2
22.7
24.4
PHY Throughput per

subchannel [Mb/s]
0.233
0.467
0.7
0.933
1.4
1.867
2.1
In the next step, the average subchannel throughput ThrSCH-avg can be obtained by
integrating the ThrSCH(x, y) over the entire cell and dividing it by the cell area [43]. In
the end, we calculate the mean cell capacity CAP by multiplying the ThrSCH-avg by the
number of available subchannels. As the number of available subchannels is different
for each scheme, and the EFFR series calculates the ThrSCH-avg differently for different
zone-type of users, in what follows we give the calculations for all studied schemes
separately.
A. SFR Scheme and Reuse Schemes
78
The average subchannel throughput for static Reuse schemes and the SFR scheme is
represented as
ThrSCH _ avg
ThrSCH ( x, y )dxdy
cellArea
cellArea
(5.32)
The whole bandwidth, which means all 30 subchannels (see Table 5.3) in the system,
are available for the SFR and the Reuse-1 scheme, whereas just one third of the
bandwidth 10 subchannels can be used by the Reuse-3 scheme.
SFR
CAP SFR ThrSCH
_ avg 30
reuse 1
reuse 1
ThrSCH _ avg 30
CAP
reuse 3
reuse 3
ThrSCH
_ avg 10
CAP
(5.33)
B. EFFR Scheme
Using the EFFR series, the subchannel allocation depends on the certain zone of a user.
So, according to different zone-types of the users we give their average subchannel
throughput separately. For the CEUs
EFFR
ThrSCH
_ avg _ CEU
1
cellArea CCUArea
(5.34)
EFFR
EFFR
ThrSCH
ThrSCH
_ CEU ( x, y ) dxdy
_ CEU ( x, y ) dxdy ,
CCUArea
cellArea
and for the CCUs

EFFR
ThrSCH
_ avg _ CCU
EFFR
ThrSCH
_ CCU ( x, y ) dxdy
CCUArea
CCUArea
(5.35)
Finally, the mean cell capacity can be calculated as

EFFR
EFFR
CAP EFFR M ThrSCH
_ avg _ CEU 3 N ThrSCH _ avg _ CCU
(5.36)
, where M denotes the number of available subchannels for the CEUs and 3N for the
CCUs. In addition, they are subjected to the constraints that 0 < N < 10 and
M N 10 which is the number of subchannels for the Primary Segment, see Eq.
(4.2) for S = 30 as assumed in Table 5.3. N should not be zero, since in this case there
are only reuse-3 subchannels available in an EFFR system, which always favor the
CEU-connections. This leads to a high probability of starvation of CCU-connections,
when not all CEU-connections can be satisfied in full-load or overload situations.
79
N 0 means M = 0 which is also unsuitable set, as in this case the full set of
subchannels S = 30 is available for each cell, and actually the EFFR system is now a
Reuse-1 system.
C. EFFR-A Scheme
EFFR A
Calculation of ThrSCH
should be as same as that in EFFR scheme. The average
_ avg _ CCU
EFFR
subchannel throughput for the CMUs and CRUs are similar to the ThrSCH
,
_ avg _ CEU
however, not same
EFFR A
ThrSCH
_ avg _ CMU
1
CMUArea CCUArea
(5.37)
EFFR A
EFFR A
ThrSCH
ThrSCH
_ CMU ( x, y ) dxdy
_ CMU ( x, y ) dxdy ,
CCUArea
CMUArea
and
EFFR A
ThrSCH
_ avg _ CRU
1
cellArea CMUArea
(5.38)
EFFR A
EFFR A
ThrSCH
ThrSCH
_ CRU ( x, y ) dxdy
_ CRU ( x, y ) dxdy .
CMUArea
cellArea
The mean cell capacity for the EFFR-A scheme is

EFFR A
CAP EFFR A M 2 ThrSCH
_ avg _ CRU
EFFR A
EFFR A
M1 ThrSCH
_ avg _ CMU 3 N ThrSCH _ avg _ CCU
(5.39)
, where M1 and M2 are the available reuse-3 subchannels for CMUs and available
reuse-9 subchannels for CRUs, respectively. Likewise, they are subject to the
constraints
0 N 10
0 M 2 3
3 M M N 10
2
1
(5.40)
With M2 = 0, the EFFR-A scheme is just the EFFR scheme. And the EFFR-A scheme
is equal to the EFFR-B scheme, if M2 = 3.
D. EFFR-B Scheme
80
EFFR B
SCH _ avg _ CEU
Thr
EFFR B
SCH _ avg _ CCU
and Thr
can be calculated just as same as which in the
EFFR scheme. But the mean cell capacity should be reckoned up as

EFFR B
EFFR B
CAP EFFR B M 2 ThrSCH
_ avg _ CEU 3 N ThrSCH _ avg _ CCU
(5.41)
, where M2 and N must be conformed to the constraints N > 0 and 3M2 + N = 10.
5.2.2 Cell Capacity Comparison

As the performance of EFFR series depends strongly on the N and M combination, the
numerical results for the mean cell capacity versus the number of reuse-1 subchannels
N will be displayed for all studied schemes under LOS, NLOS and combined LOSNLOS conditions, assuming S = 30 subchannels in 20 MHz, see Table 5.3.
5.2.2.1
LOS Condition
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.14: Mean cell capacity under the C1 LOS propagation, having the same environment as in
Figure 5.7: (a) mean UL cell capacity; (b) mean DL cell capacity.
Under LOS propagation, the SFR scheme outperforms the Reuse-1 and Reuse-3
schemes for both UL (see Figure 5.14a) and DL (see Figure 5.14b). But the
improvement is limited. Using the EFFR series, they never perform worse than using
the SFR and static Reuse schemes with any value of N. With an increasing number of
subchannels for the CCUs N, the enhancement becomes more and more remarkable,
however, at the cost of sacrificing resources for the other users in a cell. This is
81
because CCUs are close to the BS, so they always can get high quality of CINR, and
thereby use high grade PHY mode to transmit. Hence, a tradeoff between capacity
maximization and fairness should be made. In addition, Figure 5.14 shows that all
EFFR schemes reach similar gains. Nevertheless, together with the results from the
Figure 5.7 in Subsection 5.1.2.1 and Figure 5.13 in Subsection 5.1.2.4, only the EFFRA and EFFR-B schemes can provide 100% coverage. And the EFFR-A with M2 = 1
always performs slightly better than the EFFR. As a consequence, the EFFR-A scheme
with M2 = 1 is the best solution for CCI mitigation among all studied schemes in a
cellular LOS scenario.
5.2.2.2
NLOS Condition
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.15: Mean cell capacity under the C1 NLOS propagation, having the same environment as in
Figure 5.9: (a) mean UL cell capacity; (b) mean DL cell capacity.
Figure 5.15 displays the mean reachable cell capacities of all studied schemes under
NLOS propagation. In UL as shown in Figure 5.15a, the SFR surpasses the Reuse-1
and Reuse-3 schemes more significantly than in DL (see Figure 5.15b). Nevertheless,
this doesnt mean that the SFR performs better in UL, since the total system
transmission power using SFR is much higher than with the other schemes as
exhibited in Table 5.2. Compared to the performance under LOS condition, the EFFR
series can outperform the other schemes, when the number of exclusively assigned
reuse-1 subchannels is N 5 in UL and N 4 in DL, respectively. This is due to the
fact that the RUP techniques are used for Inter-Cell Interference (ICI) mitigation. As
explained in Subsection 5.1.2.4, the NLOS scenario presents actually a noise-limited
82
system, which means the benefit from the interference mitigation will not much effect
on the CINR value. Thus, the interference advantage by using the EFFR series can
only compensate the loss of the available bandwidth compared to the SFR scheme,
when more than 60% of the whole frequency bandwidth (N 4) is used. In both UL
and DL, the EFFR performs slight better than the EFFR-A and EFFR-B schemes.
However, in consideration of the coverage as shown in Figure 5.9, the EFFR cannot
provide 100% coverage, but the EFFR-A and EFFR-B do. Furthermore, the EFFR-A
with M2 = 1 is the second best among the EFFR series. So, with a comprehensive
consideration of cell coverage and mean reachable cell capacity, the EFFR-A with N
5 and M2 = 1 combination is still the best way to alleviate CCI in a cellular NLOS
scenario.
5.2.2.3
Combined LOS-NLOS Condition
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.16: Mean cell capacity under the combined LOS-NLOS propagation, having the same
environment as in Figure 5.11: (a) mean UL cell capacity; (b) mean DL cell capacity.
In a combined LOS-NLOS scenario, it can be seen in Figure 5.16 that similar to the
NLOS condition the EFFR series cannot provide visible enhancement on the system
capacity until the number of exclusively reserved reuse-1 subchannels is N > 7 in UL
and N > 4 in DL respectively, in comparison with the SFR scheme. Nonetheless,
similar to the presented results in Subsection 5.1.2.4, the SFR and the Reuse-1
schemes can never cover the whole cell area under all propagation conditions.
Accordingly, the main effect with the usage of the exclusive RUP techniques (EFFR
series) in a noise-limited system is to enlarge the cell coverage while maintaining the
83
cell capacity of the SFR scheme. Note that in an interference-limited system for
example under the C1 LOS condition, both cell coverage and cell capacity can be
significantly enhanced by using the EFFR series, whereas the inclusive RUP technique
SFR scheme can just slightly increase the cell capacity and limitedly optimize the cell
coverage.
5.2.3
Area Spectral Efficiency
Table 5.8: Mean cell capacity under LOS, NLOS and combined LOS-NLOS propagations (RLOS = 2800
m, RNLOS = 298 m, RLOS-NLOS = 3920 m)
path loss
LOS
NLOS
LOS-NLOS
schemes
UL mean cell
capacity
[Mbps]
DL mean cell
capacity
[Mbps]
UL mean cell
capacity
[Mbps]
DL mean cell
capacity
[Mbps]
UL mean cell
capacity
[Mbps]
DL mean cell
capacity
[Mbps]
Reuse-1
2.3287
2.5308
7.0151
7.0148
4.1781
4.1781
Reuse-3
2.8541
2.9119
8.5446
8.5442
6.4045
6.4045
4.0058
3.3130
13.8567
11.8236
13.2830
9.6509
3.3085
3.2281
6.4693
6.3898
4.5948
4.5948
5.0853
4.9308
8.8045
8.6888
6.0225
6.0225
6.8620
6.6335
11.1397
10.9879
7.4503
7.4503
8.6387
8.3362
13.4748
13.2869
8.8781
8.8781
10.4155
10.0389
15.8100
15.5859
10.3059
10.3059
12.1922
11.7416
18.1452
17.8849
11.7337
11.7337
13.9690
13.4430
20.4804
20.1839
13.1615
13.1615
15.7457
15.1470
22.8156
22.4829
14.5893
14.5893
17.5225
16.8497
25.1508
24.7819
16.0171
16.0171
SFR
EFFR
M:N
= 9:1
M:N
= 8:2
M:N
= 7:3
M:N
= 6:4
M:N
= 5:5
M:N
= 4:6
M:N
= 3:7
M:N
= 2:8
M:N
= 1:9
M+N =10 subchannels are available for each Reuse-3 cell, refer to Eq. (5.33);
M+N* subchannels are available for each EFFR cell, refer to Eq. (5.36).
Table 5.8 and Table 5.9 give the cell capacity and the area spectral efficiency for the
two static Reuse schemes, the SFR scheme as well as the EFFR scheme with various
M to N combinations. The cell area depends on the propagation conditions. According
to the cell radii, namely RLOS = 2800 m, RNLOS = 298 m, RLOS-NLOS = 3920 m calculated
in Section 5.1.2, cell areas are therefore 20.3689 km2 under LOS condition, 0.2307
84
2
km under NLOS condition and 39.9231 km

respectively, see Eq. (5.4).
under LOS-NLOS condition,
Table 5.9: Area spectral efficiency under LOS, NLOS and combined LOS-NLOS propagations (RLOS =
2800 m, RNLOS = 298 m, RLOS-NLOS = 3920 m)
LOS
NLOS
LOS-NLOS
UL area
spectral
efficiency
2
[bps/Hzkm ]
DL area
spectral
efficiency
2
[bps/Hzkm ]
UL area
spectral
efficiency
2
[bps/Hzkm ]
DL area
spectral
efficiency
2
[bps/Hzkm ]
UL area
spectral
efficiency
2
[bps/Hzkm ]
DL area
spectral
efficiency
2
[bps/Hzkm ]
Reuse-1
0.00572
0.00621
1.52027
1.52020
0.00523
0.00523
Reuse-3
0.00701
0.00715
1.85173
1.85164
0.00802
0.00802
SFR
0.00983
0.00813
3.00293
2.56233
0.01664
0.01209
M:N = 9:1
0.00812
0.00792
1.40198
1.38475
0.00575
0.00575
M:N = 8:2
0.01248
0.01210
1.90805
1.88298
0.00754
0.00754
M:N = 7:3
0.01684
0.01628
2.41412
2.38122
0.00933
0.00933
M:N = 6:4
0.02121
0.02046
2.92017
2.87945
0.01112
0.01112
M:N = 5:5
0.02557
0.02464
3.42624
3.37767
0.01291
0.01291
M:N = 4:6
0.02993
0.02882
3.93231
3.87590
0.01470
0.01470
M:N = 3:7
0.03429
0.03300
4.43838
4.37412
0.01648
0.01648
M:N = 2:8
0.03865
0.03718
4.94444
4.87234
0.01827
0.01827
M:N = 1:9
0.04301
0.04136
5.45051
5.37057
0.02006
0.02006
EFFR
Generally, under NLOS condition, all schemes can reap their maximum cell capacity
and area spectral efficiency, nevertheless with a small cell area. The inclusive RUP
schemeSFRcan attain a better cell capacity and better area spectral efficiency
under all propagation conditions compared to the static Reuse schemes, but, it still
cannot compete with the EFFR scheme. Under LOS condition, starting from M:N =
8:2 the EFFR scheme can surpass all the other schemes in terms of both cell capacity
as well as the area spectral efficiency. Under NLOS condition, with relatively big N
values (N > 4 in UL and N > 3 in DL, respectively), the EFFR can also gain the best
performance among all schemes. Only under LOS-NLOS condition, with very big N
values in UL (N > 7, which means only a few subchannels can be used by the CEUs in
UL), however, N > 4 in DL, the EFFR can outperform the others. All these again
imply that the exclusive RUP techniques are very helpful, especially for the
interference-limited systems (e.g., under C1 LOS condition), to enhance the cell
coverage, the cell capacity and the area spectral efficiency.
5.3 Comparison between Analytical and Simulation Results
5.3
85
Comparison between Analytical and Simulation Results
The static Reuse, SFR and EFFR schemes are also implemented in a system-level
simulator OpenWNS (described in Appendix A). And comprehensive performance
evaluations of these frequency reuse schemes by means of computer simulations using
the OpenWNS are presented in Chapter 6 and Appendixes B, C, D. In this section, the
analytical results using a Matlab simulator are compared to the simulation results
performed in the simulation tool OpenWNS, by applying the SFR scheme the EFFR
scheme as well as the Reuse-1 and Reuse-3 schemes using certain scenarios. The
discrepancies between analytical and simulation results are explained and justified.
The simulation results presented in this section can also be found in the succeeding
Chapter 6.
Due to the power constraint of UTs, in UL each CCU using RUP techniques and each
UT using the Reuse-1 scheme can maximally occupy 3 subchannels at the same time,
whilst each CEU using RUP techniques and each UT using the Reuse-3 scheme can at
maximum use 1 subchannel to send packets. In DL, on the contrary, the whole
available bandwidth can be used by the BS in OFDMA-based communication
networks with any scheme. This also results in the equal total system transmission
power of all schemes in DL, but not in UL. Besides, in DL all schemes are assumed to
use the Proportional Fair (PF) scheduling strategy to assign available resources to
traffic links, whereas in EFFR UL, different scheduling strategies are used to allocate
resources of reuse-1 subchannels in the Primary Segment and those in the Secondary
Segment. Hence, in the following, only LOS DL and NLOS DL cases are taken into
account, since the DL implementations in the simulation tool OpenWNS (described in
Appendix A) are more approximate to the conditions assumed in the analytical model
in the Matlab simulator.
In both analytical model and simulation tool, 25 UTs are uniformly distributed within
each hexagonal cell. The total system transmission power is kept constant at 2000mW
except for the SFR UL (see Table 5.2). And for both SFR and EFFR schemes, the
power ratio of high power level to low power level is set as 3. The specific power
allocation for each type of users in each scheme presented in Table 5.2, the main
relevant parameters given in Table 5.3 as well as the switching thresholds for the PHY
modes in Table 5.7 are adopted in this subsection. Furthermore, 20 ms superframe is
assumed, in which using the TDD frame structure 87 and 96 OFDMA symbols in total
are used for up- and down-stream data transmission, respectively. Another difference
from the evaluations in the preceding sections is that scenarios with surrounding
interfering cells just up to the 2nd-tier are investigated owing to the capability
constraints of hardware used for the simulations. This is also why the two EFFRderivatives are not discussed, but only the EFFR scheme is studied in this section.
86
In what follows, firstly, by using the analytical CINR calculation, the maximal cell
radii and the range definitions for dividing different types of users for RUP techniques
under both LOS and NLOS propagations are dimensioned. Then, with the ascertained
cell radii and range ratios, the analytical and simulation results in terms of cell
coverage percentage, overall cell capacity and spectral efficiency are compared and
(a) received at cell border using C1 LOS
(b) received at cell border using C1 NLOS
Figure 5.17: DL CINR received at cell border versus cell radius R: (a) using C1 LOS path loss model;
(b) using C1 NLOS path loss model.
(a) under LOS propagation
(b) under NLOS propagation
Figure 5.18: DL CINR distribution received by a UT: (a) when the UT traverses the cell with a radius
of 1000m under C1 LOS condition; (b) when the UT traverses the cell with a radius of 220m under C1
NLOS condition.
87
clarified.
Figure 5.17 on the next page gives the DL CINR at the cell border in LOS and NLOS
scenarios, respectively. It can be seen none of the investigated schemes can provide a
sufficient CINR level of 6.4 dB at the cell border under LOS condition, whereas under
NLOS propagation the Reuse-3 and the EFFR scheme with a maximum cell radius of
220 m can provide sufficient CINR level at the cell border.
Hence, for the next step to determine range ratios for dividing different user-type
zones for RUP schemes, the cell radii of 1000 m (which is assumed in many
publications) and 220 m are chosen for the LOS and NLOS scenarios, respectively.
Figure 5.18 on the next page plots the DL CINR level received by a UT, when the UT
traverses the focused cell across the x-axis. The BS position and the cell borders are
indicated in both figures, and the range of coverage of a scheme is marked by two
stems, whose height indicates the minimum receiver requirement (6.4 dB) for the PHY
mode BPSK.
Figure 5.18a shows that under LOS propagation the BS can reach the most remote
CCUs at a distance of 288 m by applying the SFR scheme (as visible from the
discontinuity of the CINR curve) with a relatively lower transmission power of 40 mW
compared to the EFFR scheme (see Table 5.2), and 368m by applying the EFFR
scheme with a power of 66.67 mW, respectively. In addition, in a SFR system the
most remote CEUs with a distance of 496 m far away from the BS can receive valid
DL packets. This implies the UTs located over half of the cell radius away from the
BS cannot be served any more. With the usage of the EFFR scheme, by contrast, the
most remote CEUs with a distance of 720 m far away can be reached by the central BS.
In the following performance comparison for the subsequent LOS evaluation, a range
ratio of 0.4 (which means the maximal distance between the BS and the CCUs is 400
m) is chosen to partition the CCUs and the CEUs for both SFR and EFFR scheme.
Although the range ratio of 0.4 is a little large, and with a range ratio of 0.3 seems
more suitable for the SFR, yet an extremely unfairness thereby occurs. In a SFR
system, a range ratio of 0.3 means among 25 users merely 3 users as CCUs can have
67% of the resource to utilize, whilst the remaining 22 users are just allowed to use the
33% bandwidth. Therefore, with a range ratio of 0.4 a trade off is made between
fairness and adequacy. Under NLOS propagation, as shown in Figure 5.18b, the most
remote CCUs at a distance of 120 m away from the BS can be reached by applying the
SFR scheme, whereas a region with a radius of 137.6 m for CCUs can be covered by
the central BS in an EFFR system. Thus, a range ratio of 0.6 is chosen for the
subsequent NLOS evaluation. In other words, the CCU-Zone radius is set to 132 m in
the SFR and EFFR systems. Besides, Figure 5.18b shows that the SFR is still not able
to provide a sufficient CINR level at the cell border under NLOS condition. On the
contrary, the EFFR scheme and the Reuse-3 can.
88
Figure 5.19: DL cell coverage percentage of all studied schemes under LOS and NLOS propagations.
The concrete overall DL cell coverage percentage performance resulting from both,
analytical models implemented in the Matlab simulator and the simulation
environment OpenWNS, is displayed in Figure 5.19. It can be seen that the
theoretically derived overall cell coverage percentages of all studied schemes coincide
well with experimental results for both LOS and NLOS cases. The slightly
discrepancies are due to the user distribution differences in the simulation scenarios
and in the analytical scenarios. Although evenly distributed users are assumed in both
analytical scenario and simulation scenario, yet the specific location of each user in
both tools is generated randomly and cannot be identical. Under both conditions, the
EFFR scheme and the Reuse-3 can much enhance the cell coverage performance
compared to the Reuse-1 and the SFR scheme. Under LOS propagation the cell
coverage can be tripled by applying the EFFR scheme or the Reuse-3 scheme in
comparison with that using the Reuse-1 and the SFR scheme. Under NLOS
propagation the whole cell can be covered through the EFFR scheme or the Reuse-3
scheme. They are able to improve the cell coverage percentage by around 45%
compared to a Reuse-1 system, and by around 35% compared to a SFR system.
The mean achievable DL cell capacity and the average DL cell spectral efficiency of
all investigated schemes obtained via simulations and from the analysis are presented
in Figure 5.20 and Figure 5.21, respectively. To compare the analytical and simulation
results, MAC and PHY overhead is subtracted in the system capacity calculation.
(a) under LOS condition
89
(b) under NLOS condition
Figure 5.20: Mean DL cell capacity of all studied schemes: (a) under LOS condition; (b) under NLOS
condition.
(a) under LOS condition
(b) under NLOS condition
Figure 5.21: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of all studied schemes: (a) under LOS condition; (b)
under NLOS condition.
It can be seen that the simulation results are always lower than the analytical results
under both LOS and NLOS conditions. There are mainly two reasons for this. First, 3
OFDMA symbols as one resource element is assumed in the simulations. And the
scheduler implemented in the simulator allocates resources to every data link by
means of resource elements. That means in some instances a resource element might
not be completely occupied by a link in case this link is satisfied. However, the
90
remaining free capacity within this resource element cannot be utilized by other links
either. This results in lower efficiency of radio resource usage and leads to lower than
optimal throughput. Secondly, due to the PF scheduling strategy applied in simulations
the unsatisfied links, which in the majority of cases can only use lower PHY modes,
yet often have opportunities to transmit. This causes an overall reduction of capacity
and lower spectral efficiency.
The power (ratio 1:3 used in this studies, see Table 5.2) applied for CCUs and CEUs,
respectively, could be optimized analytically to achieve the highest spectrum
efficiency. For this purpose, an iterative process should be applied to find for LOS and
NLOS conditions, separately, the optimum range ratio. This has not been done in this
work, since analytical and simulation results have some deviations making it
questionable that the value of an analytically (numerically) calculated optimum ratio
would be.
5.4
In this chapter, theoretical analysis of a series of RUP approaches for mitigating ICI in
OFDMA-based cellular environments is carried out. With CINR calculations, the
range definition for dividing different user-type zones for each RUP scheme can be
determined individually. Furthermore, through numerical evaluations, the cell
coverage and the mean cell capacity of all studied reuse techniques under different
propagation conditions are exhibited. The results show that the EFFR series can
outperform the SFR and the static Reuse schemes under any propagation mode, where
significant coverage gains and cell capacity improvements can be achieved by
applying the novel EFFR schemes with adequate resource allocations.
CHAPTER 6
Performance Evaluation by Means of Simulation
Performance Evaluation by Means of

Simulation
6.1
6.2
6.3
Simulation Scenario and Simulation Setup ............................................... 92

Simulation Results ..................................................................................... 101
Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................... 145
This chapter addresses the detailed performance evaluation of RUP techniques in

OFDMA-based cellular radio networks by means of stochastic event-driven simulation.
The aforementioned EFFR scheme, the SFR scheme and the IFR scheme are
integrated into the so-called WiMAC module, which is an implementation of the IEEE
802.16 standard [42] in the OpenWNS as described in Appendix A. The OpenWNS is
an event-driven simulator comprising emulation of a protocol stack that is embedded
in a simulation environment that cares for stochastic processes representing the real
radio propagation and data communications world. Influences of traffic characteristics,
varying interference and the behavior of protocol related algorithms can be jointly
analyzed in the OpenWNS.
The first section gives a brief description of the simulation environment developed
within the scope of this work and presents the simulation parameters which are the
same in all performance evaluation studies in this chapter.
The comprehensive performance evaluation is presented in the second section, where
the proposed EFFR scheme is compared with the SFR scheme, the IFR scheme as well
as two static Reuse schemes. In this chapter, the focus of interest is not only on the
improvement of the overall systems cell capacity but also on the cell edge
performance gain as well as the weakest user performance enhancement that can be
achieved by using the exclusive RUP EFFR scheme. Furthermore, relevant factors
which play important roles in the realization of the RUP designs and significantly
influence the system performance are studied and the respective results are compared.
92
6.1
6. Performance Evaluation by Means of Simulation
Simulation Scenario and Simulation Setup
6.1.1
Cellular Scenario
A cellular layout according to Figure 5.1 is used as the underlying geographic scenario,
yet with surrounding cells up to the 2nd-tier, only. The scenario comprises 19
hexagonal cells, each with a central BS and 25 User Terminals (UTs), which are
randomly positioned per cell, uniformly distributed over the cell area. According to the
analytical results for dimensioning purpose presented in Section 5.3, the cell radius R
is set to 1000 m for LOS propagation scenarios and 220 m for NLOS propagation
scenarios, respectively. The distance D 3 R between BSs is therefore 1732 m and
381 m for LOS and NLOS, respectively.
Measurements are only performed in OpenWNS for the central (grey) cell at the
corresponding BS and UTs. Stations in the two tiers of surrounding cells are not
evaluated. They only serve to generate interference to the central cell. Nevertheless,
the same event driven stochastic simulation, with identical average traffic load, and
with the same degree of detail, is conducted at all 19 BSs and 475 UTs. All BSs are
assumed to operate synchronously in TDD. In order to avoid fatal BS-to-BS and SSsto-SSs interference, UL and DL subframes are assumed to occur simultaneously in the
19 cells of the network studied. Mobility of the UTs is not considered in this work.
6.1.2
Performance Metrics
In order to estimate the performance of the scenario the following metrics are defined.
All schemes studied in this work are used to mitigate excessive Inter-Cell Interference
(ICI) generated by the neighboring cells, which may severely degrade the performance
of the UTs which are located near the cell edge. Therefore, the performance metrics of
interest will be given not only in terms of the overall cell but also regarding the CEUs
and possibly the weakest users (which are close to the cell borders) separately; and in
both low offered traffic situation as well as in full load situation, respectively.
Carrier
Signal strength during packet reception measured at the destination

stations receiver in dBm. Transmit as well as receive antenna gain is
taken into account. The carrier signal is averaged during packet reception.
Interference Measured at the destination stations receiver in dBm. All concurrent

transmissions in co-channel cells (inter-cell interference) and all
concurrent transmissions of own cell (intra-cell interference) are
accounted for. The interference level is averaged during packet reception.
It also includes the thermal noise and the noise figure of the receiver.
93
6.1 Simulation Scenario and Simulation Setup

CINR
Calculated as the ratio between carrier and interference signal strength in

dB.
Throughput The amount of user data of all MAC packets successfully arriving at the
WiMAX MAC SAP during a fixed time window. The throughput is
measured at the destination station in kilobit per second (kbps). Separate
values are measured for packets travelling from / to every UT in UL / DL
direction.
Cell coverage percentage
Measured as the successfully served UTs
percentage. Packets travelling from / to those UTs in UL / DL direction
can be received with the satisfied CINR condition, which is here 6.4 dB
for the robust PHY mode BPSK1/2.
Spectral efficiency
Measures the achieved aggregate throughput normalized to
the available system bandwidth. This metric is usually given in Bits per
second per Hz (bps/Hz), and allows a convenient comparison of radio
technologies independent of the available bandwidth.
All schemes studied in this work are used to mitigate excessive ICI generated by the
neighboring cells, which may severely degrade the performance of the UTs which are
located near the cell edge. Therefore, the performance metrics of interest will be given
not only in terms of the overall cell but also regarding the CEU-traffic and possibly the
weakest-user-traffic (which are very close to the cell borders), separately. In addition
to that, the system performance from low to full traffic load will be concerned and
evaluated.
6.1.3
Link Adaptation and Error Modeling
The link adaptation is performed in the WiMAC scheduling strategy. For each packet,
according to the estimated CINR a Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) is chosen.
Table 6.1: Switching thresholds and PHY data rates per subchannel for Modulation and Coding
Schemes (PHY modes)
Modulation
Code rate
BPSK
QPSK
QPSK
16QAM
16QAM
64QAM
64QAM
1/2
1/2
3/4
1/2
3/4
2/3
3/4
Min. CINR
[dB]
6.4
9.4
11.2
16.4
18.2
22.7
24.4
PHY data rate per

subchannel [Mbps]
0.233
0.467
0.7
0.933
1.4
1.867
2.1
94
Table 6.1 depicts the CINR threshold of each MCS with a maximum BER of 10-6.
These values are taken from the IEEE 802.16 WiMAX standard [42]. The estimated
CINR determines the MCS with the next lower threshold. In order to avoid
transmission errors, conservative CINR thresholds are chosen. Thus, as long as the
CINR is estimated accurately, transmission errors are kept even below 10-6 in our
simulation studies.
6.1.4
Frame Structure and Overhead
The IEEE 802.16m basic frame structure introduced in [41] is adopted as the MAC
frame used in the simulation studies, see Figure 6.1. Each 20 ms superframe is divided
into four equally-sized 5 ms radio frames. According to the standard, 2048 data
carriers are available in 20MHz channel bandwidth. Each OFDMA symbol is 102.857
s long. Using the TDD frame structure, TTG and RTG with a total length of 165.714
s are inserted between the DL and UL switching points in each frame, resulting in a
whole number of 47 OFDMA symbols in each 5 ms frame.
Figure 6.1: IEEE 802.16m basic frame structure for 20 MHz channel bandwidth [41].
Every superframe contains a Superframe Header (SFH) and a Bandwidth (BW)

request and initial ranging phase, which are located in the first frame. The SFH
includes the preamble (1 OFDMA symbol), the FCH as well as the DL and UL MAPs
(2 OFDMA symbols). The BW-request and initial ranging phase needs 2 OFDMA
symbols. As a result, 24 OFDMA symbols but 18 OFDMA symbols can be used for
95
DL and UL traffic in the first frame, respectively. Other than the first frame, each of
the remainder 3 frames is equally divided between DL and UL data phases, in
consideration of the symmetric traffic load assumed. That means 24 OFDMA symbols
and 23 OFDMA symbols are applied for DL and UL data transmission, respectively.
The OpenWNS-based implementation is assumed to transmit FCH, DL and UL MAPs
without errors. This idealization allows evaluating the RUP enabled network even
when the control signaling would have been the systems bottleneck. In the
simulations, the lengths of UL and DL MAPs are fixed and they are always
transmitted using the most robust MCS BPSK .
6.1.5
Resource Allocation and Scheduling
6.1.5.1
Available Bandwidth
Table 6.2: Available bandwidth for the cells using the EFFR scheme with different M to N combination
compared to the SFR, IFR and two static Reuse schemes.
Scheme
EFFR
(M:N)
9:1
8:2
7:3
6:4
5:5
4:6
3:7
2:8
1:9
SFR
Reuse-3
IFR
Reuse-1
Nr. of
reuse 1
subchannels
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
24
27
20
0
30
30
Nr. of
reuse 3
subchannels
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
10
10
0
0
Total
available
subchannels
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
10
30
30
Available
bandwidth
percentage
40.0%
46.7%
53.3%
60.0%
66.7%
73.3%
80.0%
86.7%
93.3%
100%
33.3%
100%
100%
An OFDMA system with a 20 MHz system bandwidth is investigated in this work.

The frequency channel is subdivided into 2048 subcarriers, which are grouped into 30
subchannels. The whole 20 MHz bandwidth can be used by the Reuse-1 scheme, the
IFR scheme and the SFR scheme. On the contrary, each cell applying the Reuse-3
scheme and the EFFR scheme can access just part of the system bandwidth. Only one
third of the whole bandwidth can be utilized by the Reuse-3 cell. And the EFFR
scheme with an increasing number of dedicated reuse 1 subchannels N can own more
96
and more available resources, though at the cost of losing the precious reuse 3
subchannels for the CEUs, see Table 6.2.
6.1.5.2 Power Allocation

In view of a constant system power assumed, the maximal transmission power for the
BS and UTs is fixed to 2 W and 200 mW, respectively. Different cell-specific power
masks in response to diverse spectrum usage are applied to all studied approaches as
given in Figure 6.2. A power mask describes the fraction of the maximum transmit
power which the BS or a UT uses depending on the part of the spectrum.
P(f)
P(f)
P(f)
P(f)
Cell A
f
P(f)
P(f)
P(f)
P(f)
Cell B
f
P(f)
P(f)
P(f)
P(f)
Cell C
f
(a) Reuse-1 & IFR
(b) SFR
(c) EFFR
(d) Reuse-3
Figure 6.2: Different cell-specific power masks over system bandwidth for all studied approaches
including the Reuse-1 scheme, the IFR scheme, the SFR scheme, the EFFR scheme and the Reuse-3
scheme.
For the Reuse-1 scheme and the IFR scheme, since every cell may use the whole
system bandwidth, a uniform transmission power allocation is thereby used, see
Figure 6.2a. The same fraction of the overall transmission power is assigned to all
parallel transmissions over the whole bandwidth.
For the SFR scheme (Figure 6.2b) and the EFFR scheme (Figure 6.2c), like mentioned
in Sections 3.2.2 and 4.1.2.3, two different power levels are applied to the CCUs and
the CEUs. In Section 5.3 and subsequent Sections 6.2.1 and 6.2.2, the high power level
is set to be triple to the low power level. A discussion of the performance
corresponding to diversified power ratios between CCUs and CEUs is presented in
Section 6.2.3. Note that the both power levels for CCUs and CEUs in the EFFR
scheme are higher than in the SFR scheme for DL traffic (see Table 5.2), whereas in
UL they remain identical (see Table 5.2). This is because the whole bandwidth is
available for the SFR, whereas the EFFR uses only part of the total system bandwidth,
see Table 6.2. Thus, in DL, the BS can offer higher power to each subchannel for the
EFFR scenario than for the SFR scenario. Different from the DL transmissions, in UL,
each CEU sends packet on a subchannel with its full power, and each CCU employs
one third of its power on a subchannel to avoid generating excessive ICI for the
neighboring cells. As a consequence, each CCU can maximally occupy three
97
subchannels simultaneously (depending on the power ratio of the high power level to
the low power level), whilst each CEU can maximally use one subchannel in UL phase.
As the BS holds sufficient power to dominate the whole available bandwidth, such
connection constraints do not occur in DL.
With the Reuse-3 scheme, the transmission power over the available bandwidth is
tripled to that in the Reuse-1 system, but just on one third of the spectrum
(Figure 6.2d). Each UT may use maximally one subchannel to transmit data in a
Reuse-3 scenario, whilst a Reuse-1 UT can possess at maximum three subchannels
concurrently.
6.1.5.3
Scheduling
The resource assignment and OFDMA scheduling process is optimized for RUP
schemes in OpenWNS to handle not only full load situations but also low and
moderate traffic load situations. Both the SFR scheme and the EFFR scheme resort to
the ICI-dispersion mechanism of the IFR scheme to avoid unnecessary ICI in low and
mitigate ICI in moderate traffic load case by applying specific frequency allocation
patterns (sequences) among neighboring cells. The resource allocation carried out by
each cell among directly neighboring cells start from different subchannels up.
The scheduling of data packets in OFDMA systems is required to be able to exploit the
multi-user diversity and provide fairness at the same time. Hence, in each cell, the BS
scheduler allocates resources for both DL and UL directions using the Proportional
Fair (PF) scheduling strategy. PF is a compromise-based scheduling algorithm, which
aims at maintaining a balance between maximization of system throughput and
fairness among UTs, which allows all users at least a minimal level of service. This is
done by assigning each data flow a data rate that is inversely proportional to its
anticipated resource consumption. A consequence of this is that UTs that can apply a
high PHY mode will be assigned less radio resources than other UTs that are heavier
interfered and therefore must use lower PHY modes to carry the same amount of
traffic. The scheduling process is outlined in Figure 6.3. In each allocation step, a
single connection is selected based on the PF strategy. Then, the scheduler reserves
resources for this connection taking into account that these resource blocks should be
free (not have been allotted to other connections yet), and at the same time the
transmitter of this connection still has enough remaining power which can be spent on
these resource blocks. When suitable resources are found, the PHY mode selection
will be performed according to the allocated power used for this connection and
expected CINR at the receiver. After that, the resource occupation state of the
upcoming superframe and the power allocation for this connection are updated in the
database at the BS. The scheduling algorithm successively allocates resources to data
connections until all resources are assigned, or no more MAC PDUs need to be
98
transmitted, or transmission power is exhausted (only in UL, since each UT has

limited transmission power). Detailed resource allocation for each of the studied
schemes is described in Chapters 3 and 4.
start of scheduling cycle
Connection Selection
Resource Selection
Power Allocation
PHY Mode Selection
Database Adaptation
Resource
available?
FALSE
TRUE
MPDUs
pending?
FALSE
TRUE
Power
available?
TRUE
FALSE
end of scheduling cycle
Figure 6.3: Resource scheduling process
The scheduling process is accomplished before starting the upcoming superframe. And
its duration is not counted in the simulation time.
99
In order to eliminate other influencing factors when evaluating the performance of

RUP techniques neither Segmentation-and-Reassembly (SAR) nor Automatic Repeat
Request (ARQ) protocols are used.
6.1.6
Simulation Parameters
The overall system configuration is chosen according to band class index 2 as defined
by the WiMAX profile [44]. Hence, an IEEE 802.16m system operating in TDD mode
is considered. A bandwidth of 20MHz with a mid frequency of 5.47 GHz is used. The
superframe length is set to 20 ms. Thermal noise of -174dBm/MHz is considered and a
noise figure of 5 dB for BS and 7 dB for UT are added separately to that.
Table 6.3: Simulation parameters and values assumed
Parameter
Value
System bandwidth
Center Frequency
Subcarriers (FFT size)
Total data carriers
Data carriers per subchannel
OFDMA symbol duration
Number of subchannels
Superframe length
Number of interfering cells
LOS path loss
Cell radius
NLOS path loss
UTs per cell
20 MHz
5470 MHz
2048
1440
48
102.857 s
30
20 ms
18
1000 m
220 m
25
Range for weakest users
176 m 220 m
Path loss
LOS path loss
model
NLOS path loss
Thermal noise density
Noise figure at [BS, UT]
Transmission power [BS, UT]
Traffic model
Packet size
Link adaptation
SAR
ARQ
23.8log(d)+41.9
40.2log(d)+27.7
-174 dBm/MHz
[5, 7] dB
[2000, 200] mW
Symmetric
96 Byte
Adaptive
None
None
Comment
CEPT band B
Available for data transmission
Available for data transmission
194 OFDMA symbols

Up to the 2nd-tier
BPSK at the cell border
Only defined and evaluated in NLOS
scenarios
WINNER LOS C1 Metropolitan suburban,
including antenna gain 11.8 dB
Fixed for both BS and UT

Negative exponential IAT
Fixed
CINR threshold in Table 6.1
All simulation studies are performed with a fixed packet size of 96 Bytes. The InterArrival Time (IAT) of packets is controlled so that the desired offered traffic is
achieved. It follows a negative exponential distribution. For all UTs a symmetric
100
traffic load in DL and UL is assumed. All BSs and UTs in the scenario are equipped
with omni-directional antennas.
In this chapter, two path loss propagation conditions (namely, the WINNER LOS and
NLOS suburban C1 Metropol path loss model [35], see Eqs. (5.28) and (5.29)) will be
considered in the following performance evaluations. The corresponding radii used for
LOS is 1000 m and 220 m for NLOS, respectively. The proposed EFFR scheme is
evaluated with four M to N combinations (8:2 | 7:3 | 6:4 | 5:5) under LOS condition
and (7:3 | 6:4 | 5:5 | 4:6) under NLOS condition, respectively.
According to the results presented in Section 5.3, the maximum valid reach by using
the Reuse-1 scheme is approximately 0.4 of the cell radius of 1000m under LOS
condition, whilst 0.6 of the cell radius of 220m under NLOS. Thus, the range ratio r/R
to divide UTs into CCUs and CEUs for the SFR scheme and the EFFR scheme is set
as 0.4 for LOS and 0.6 for NLOS in the subsequent scenarios in Sections 6.2.1 and
6.2.2, where r is the maximal distance between the BS and the CCUs and R is the cell
radius. That is to say, among 25 UTs, 5 of them are CCUs and the remaining 20 UTs
are CEUs in LOS scenarios, whereas there are 12 CCUs and 13 CEUs in NLOS
scenarios. As indicated in Section 5.3, high cell capacity and 100% coverage can be
achieved by exploiting the EFFR scheme under NLOS condition. Hence, deeper
insight into the performance of the weakest users, located close to the cell edges
between 176 m and 220 m away from the BS (i.e., R'/R [0.8, 1]), will be gained.
Table 6.3 presents all relevant simulation parameters together with the values assumed.
In addition, neither shadowing nor fast fading is considered in the following.
All performed simulations compromise 5 runs, each with different random seed,
resulting in a different random distribution of the stations per run. The results of the 5
runs are averaged, in order to have a more accurate evaluation of the system, with a
higher statistical relevance. The simulation time for each run is 2 s, which in reality
can be accomplished in almost 400 hours (more than two weeks), and needs 2 gigabyte
memory to store the data, since the used scenarios are huge, each consisting of 19 cells
including 19 BSs and 475 UTs. All simulation results presented in this work took more
than six months to be finished and consume large memories. Owing to the time
constraint and the capability constraints of hardware, we have not been able to run
simulation experiments with more than 5 seeds.
6.2
Simulation Results
6.2.1 Reference Scenario

The system configuration studied in this section is named Reference Scenario which
is taken into account in the following to compare the performance of OFDMA-based
communication networks using EFFR scheme and other frequency reuse techniques
such as SFR, IFR, Reuse-1 as well as Reuse-3. Through an investigation of the five
frequency reuse techniques under different propagation conditions, a thorough and
comprehensive assessment of its strengths and weaknesses can be made.
Results of the Reference Scenario will be compared to that from other scenarios, see
Sections 6.2.2 and 6.2.3 that apply different range ratios and power ratios, respectively.
In what follows, the overall system performance and detailed observation on the
performance of different types of UTs are presented. Through individually dissecting
the performance of the CCUs and the CEUs, the reasons for the overall performance
difference among all frequency reuse techniques can be found. Moreover, the fairness
among individual types of UTs can also be disclosed.
6.2.1.1 Performance in LOS DL

Figure 6.4 displays the mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by the CCUs and the
CEUs, respectively. As expected, using the EFFR scheme, the mean CCU carrier
strength is very close to that using the Reuse-1 scheme, whereas the mean CEU carrier
strength is similar to that using the Reuse-3 scheme. Since the overall BS transmission
power is fixed, and using the SFR scheme the BS transmission power is shared among
all 30 subchannels, the power assigned to each subchannel for the CCUs is thereby
lower than for the subchannels with the Reuse-1 scheme, and the power allotted to
each subchannel for the CEUs is lower than for the subchannels with the Reuse-3
scheme. This leads to the mean DL CCU carrier strength of the SFR scheme being 2
dB lower than with the Reuse-1 scheme and the EFFR scheme, and the mean DL CEU
carrier strength being 2 dB lower than using Reuse-3 or EFFR schemes.
The main idea of the RUP techniques is through mitigating ICI from neighboring cells
to enhance the cell edge performance and the overall system capacity in a cellular
system. Figure 6.5 exhibits the mean DL interference level perceived by the CCUs and
the CEUs of the five investigated frequency reuse schemes. Compared to the Reuse-1
scheme, the ICI can be reduced by both, SFR and EFFR. For both CCUs (Figure 6.5a)
and CEUs (Figure 6.5b), the interference by using the EFFR scheme can be reduced
more effectively than using the SFR scheme, and for CEUs tends closely to the Reuse3 scheme.
102
(a) Mean DL carrier perceived by CCUs
(b) Mean DL carrier perceived by CEUs
Figure 6.4: Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of UTs versus offered traffic
per user under LOS condition. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 1000
m. The range ratio r/R of 0.4 for partitioning CCUs and CEUs is assumed. And for both SFR and
EFFR schemes, the power ratio of high power level to low power level is set as 3. (a) Mean DL carrier
signal strength perceived by CCUs; (b) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by CEUs.
(a) Mean DL interference perceived by CCUs
(b) Mean DL interference perceived by CEUs
Figure 6.5: Mean DL interference level perceived by different types of UTs versus offered traffic per
user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean DL interference
level perceived by CCUs; (b) mean DL interference level perceived by CEUs.
In Figure 6.5a, it can be seen that, in general, the mean interference suffered by the
CCUs in the EFFR system is lower than in the Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme. This is
because the CCUs of the EFFR scheme are only interfered by the CCU transmissions
in the neighboring cells that are close to their BSs, but relatively far from the CCUs in
6.2 Simulation Results
103
the focused cell. In contrast, the CCUs using the Reuse-1 scheme or the IFR scheme
are very probably interfered by the CEUs in the neighboring cells, which are relatively
closer to the CCUs in the focused cell. As visible, the more exclusive reuse-1
subchannels N in the Primary Segment of the EFFR scheme are preassigned to the
CCUs, the more interference reduction can be gained at the CCUs, owing to the
adoption of the interference-disperse mechanism from the IFR scheme. At low to
moderate and with large N, even under high traffic load, the EFFR CCUs obtain even
less ICI than the Reuse-3 CCUs. This results from two reasons. One is that the
resource allocation is just like using the FRF of 3 for the CCUs at low offered traffic
due to adaptation of IFR mechanism. The other is that the transmission power for each
EFFR reuse-1 subchannel is only one third of the transmission power used on each
subchannel applying the Reuse-3 scheme. In this way, the interference perceived by
the UTs using the EFFR reuse-1 subchannels is correspondingly much lower.
However, with increasing traffic load, the resource assignment for the EFFR CCUs
varies gradually from reuse-3 to reuse-1, so that the interference advantages owing to
the lower power does not pay off the interference exacerbation caused by the increased
co-channel transmissions. On the contrary, the EFFR CEUs apply exactly the
exclusive reuse-3 mechanism. Thus, as shown in Figure 6.5b, they perform almost
identical, yet slightly inferior to the Reuse-3 scheme, since the reuse-3 mechanism in
the EFFR scheme is carried out among CEUs, whilst in the Reuse-3 among all UTs.
Regarding the SFR scheme, since it applies FRF of one to the CCUs and FRF of three
to the CEUs, the ICI can be alleviated for its CCUs at low traffic load ( 50 kbit/s in
Figure 6.5a) compared to the Reuse-1 scheme due to the adoption of the IFR
mechanism and lower transmission power. Nevertheless, the ICI at its CEUs (refer to
Figure 6.5b) is still much higher than with the Reuse-3 scheme and the EFFR scheme
at moderate to high load (> 150 kbit/s). This inherent disadvantage is mainly due to its
inclusive RUP design as explained in Section 5.1, where the CEUs suffer not only the
same quantities of ICI as the Reuse-3 CEUs, but also the extra ICI from the CCUs
transmissions in the remaining Reuse-1 cells.
With SFR, its low CCU carrier signal strength (refer to Figure 6.4a) and the high CCU
interference level (refer to Figure 6.5a) lead to the worst CCU CINR level in DL
among all studied reuse schemes, as shown in Figure 6.6b. Note that the mean CCU
CINR level of the SFR is even lower than with the Reuse-1 scheme, but still above 6.4
dB, the required CINR threshold. In contrast to the SFR, the mean CCU CINR level of
the EFFR scheme drops off from the Reuse-3 CCU CINR level to the Reuse-1 CCU
CINR level, with increasing traffic load and a large value of N is recommended. As for
the mean CEU CINR level (see Figure 6.6c), although the SFR scheme outperforms
the Reuse-1 and the IFR schemes, its CEU CINR is barely able to reach 3.7 dB at high
load which is far below the required CINR threshold of 6.4 dB. Among all schemes,
104
(a) Mean overall DL CINR
(b) Mean DL CINR perceived by CCUs
(c) Mean DL CINR perceived by CEUs
Figure 6.6: Mean overall DL CINR values and the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by
different types of UTs as a function of offered traffic per user under LOS condition, having the same
environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the corresponding mean DL
CINR values perceived by CCUs; and (c) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by
CEUs.
only the CEUs using the EFFR scheme or the Reuse-3 scheme can achieve the
required DL CINR level of 6.4 dB. Figure 6.6a gives the mean overall DL CINR
levels. Both the EFFR and the SFR schemes can significantly increase the mean
overall CINR compared to the IFR and the Reuse-1 schemes. The mean overall CINR
attained by using the EFFR scheme is very close to and sometimes even higher than in
a Reuse-3 system. In contrast, although the mean CINR can be substantially increased
105
through the SFR scheme compared to the Reuse-1 scheme and the IFR scheme, it is
still worse than using the EFFR or the Reuse-3 scheme due to its inclusive reuse
mechanism. Applying SFR, the interferences experienced on both reuse-1 and reuse-3
subchannels are higher than by using the EFFR and the Reuse-3 scheme. Besides, it
can be seen that the curve for the IFR scheme confirms the explanation given in
Section 3.2.3. The IFR scheme disperses the interference over the whole bandwidth, so
that the mean CINR can be strongly enhanced at low load (e.g., 50 kbit/s). But with
increasing traffic load, the CINR degrades rapidly, and no improvement can achieved
in full load and overload situations.
Nevertheless, the profits in CINR do not imply an enhancement of capacity for certain.
Figure 6.7 presents the corresponding mean overall DL MAC throughput, as well as
the mean DL CCU throughput and the CEU throughput of the five investigated
frequency reuse schemes, respectively. It can be seen that the mean CCU throughput
of all schemes (see Figure 6.7b) does not correspond to the respective CINR levels
displayed in Figure 6.6b. Although the Reuse-3 CCUs can get the best DL CINR level,
their throughput stays lowest. Contrarily, the SFR performs much better than the
Reuse-3 scheme despite of its worst CCU CINR level. The reason is that the Reuse-3
has at most one third of whole bandwidth (10 subchannels here) for all UTs to utilize,
whereas the SFR scheme possesses 20 subchannels alone for CCUs. This means for
the Reuse-3 CCUs the benefits in CINR cannot compensate the loss in the bandwidth.
On the other hand, although the SFR CCUs outperform the Reuse-3 CCUs in
throughput when the offered traffic per user exceeds 50 kbit/s, yet the mean SFR CEU
throughput (see Figure 6.7c) deteriorates rapidly from that point. And in the end it can
only reach one fourth of the mean Reuse-3 CEU throughput. The essential reason is
the unfairness of frequency resource allocation. In an SFR system with a range ratio
r/R of 0.4 used for the LOS scenario, only 5 of 25 UTs are CCUs, the other 20 are all
CEUs. This means that two third of the available bandwidth (20 of 30 subchannels) are
exclusively used by 20% (5 of 25) UTs, whereas the remaining 80% have just a subset
of 33% available bandwidth to utilize. From results in Figure 6.6c, it can be seen that:
although higher power share on the SFR CEUs may improve their CINR level, and
thereby to enhance their throughput compared to the Reuse-1 CEUs, the unfairness of
the frequency resource distribution severely restricts and degrades the CEUs
performance. So, the overall capacity of the SFR scheme is based on total unfairness,
sacrificing throughput of the CEUs favor of CCUs (see Figure 6.7a).
The results in Figure 6.7a show that the Reuse-3 scheme outperforms both the Reuse-1
and the IFR scheme, although only one third of the whole bandwidth is available per
cell with the Reuse-3 scheme. Combined with the CINR results in Figure 6.6, it
implies that the gain in CINR by using the Reuse-3 can compensate the loss in its
bandwidth. However, it cannot beat the EFFR scheme. The lack of the frequency
resources by using the Reuse-3 scheme limits its capacity, although it attains similar
CINR values as the EFFR scheme, see Figure 6.6a. With the IFR scheme, the cell
106
(a) Mean overall DL cell throughput
(b) Mean CCU DL throughput
(c) Mean CEU DL throughput
Figure 6.7: Mean DL MAC throughput under LOS condition as a function of offered traffic per user
in the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding
mean CCU DL throughput; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU DL throughput.
throughput can be considerably improved above that of Reuse-1 at low (up to 50

kbit/s) and moderate (from 50 kbit/s to 150 kbit/s) traffic loads. However, as explained
before, it cannot surpass the Reuse-1 scheme in full load and overload situations (
150 kbit/s). The EFFR inherits the merit of the IFR scheme, so that it behaves as a
Reuse-3 scheme at low traffic load (up to 50 kbit/s). The SFR scheme adopts the IFR
mechanism either, and performs much better than the Reuse-1 scheme. However, its
performance is still inferior to that gained with the EFFR scheme. This is because even
if the Major Segment is sufficient for serving all UTs (which means the exclusive
107
reuse-3 occurs in the SFR system in this case), the CCUs are still allowed to send
packets with lower transmission power, which leads to the poorer cell capacity than
using the EFFR and no clear advantage compared to the Reuse-3 scheme.
Here it should be noted that with increased traffic load the saturation point of a system
is reached, once the throughput does not increase linearly any more. For example in
Figure 6.7, the saturation point by applying the Reuse-3 is at about 50 kbit/s load per
user (see Figure 6.7b and c), which cumulates to a system throughput of around 955
kbit/s (see Figure 6.7a). When the Reuse-1 scheme is used, the system is saturated at
app. 700 kbit/s with 150 kbit/s offered traffic per user (see Figure 6.7a). Other than
with these static Reuse schemes, the saturation points by using the ICI-coordination
designs (introduced in Chapters 3 and 4 including the IFR, the SFR and the EFFR) in
this chapter (and in Appendix B, C and D) are not in compliance with this rule. This is
because, as mentioned in Section 6.1.5.3, in OpenWNS the resource assignment and
OFDMA scheduling process is optimized in RUP schemes to handle not only full load
situations but also low and moderate traffic load situations. Both the SFR scheme and
the EFFR scheme adopt the ICI-dispersion mechanism of the IFR scheme to avoid
unnecessary ICI in low and mitigate ICI in moderate traffic load case by applying
specific frequency allocation patterns (sequences) among adjacent cells. The resource
allocation carried out by each cell among adjacent cells starts from different
subchannels up. As a result, the mean throughput under the IFR, the SFR or the EFFR
may also increase over-proportionally with increased offered traffic, before their
saturation points are reached. For example, as elucidated in Section 3.2.3, using the
IFR scheme, the system operates with increasing traffic load like sliding from a Reuse3 system to a Reuse-1 system. The results in Figure 6.7a, b and c show that the
throughput curves of the IFR are completely consistent with the curves of the Reuse-3
scheme until the traffic load increases to 50 kbit/s. This implies that up to 50 kbit/s
offered traffic, only 1/3 of the whole available bandwidth is used in each cell (with
loading factor 0.3, as explained in Section 3.2.3). With a further increased traffic
load, the IFR disperses the ICI over the whole bandwidth and can surpass the Reuse-1
scheme (see Figure 6.7a), but its CEUs are still interfered severly (see Figure 6.7c).
And in a full-load situation at about 150 kbit/s load per user (see Figure 6.7a, b and c),
the IFR system cannot perform better than the Reuse-1 scheme. Hence, this point is
actually the saturation point by applying the IFR with a system throughput of around
700 kbit/s.
Under static Reuse schemes all UTs always have the same saturation point, see
Figure 6.7b, c, where both, CEUs and CCUs are saturated at 50 kbit/s load per user.
An overall system saturation point results at about 955 kbit/s at 50 kbit/s offered traffic
per user, see Figure 6.7a. This is because UTs are served the same way, i. e. CEUs and
CCUs in static Reuse schemes are not handled, differently. With ICI-coordination
RUP schemes (including SFR and the EFFR), CEUs and CCUs are handled,
differently. In SFR, CEUs are only allowed to access the Major Segment (1/3 of the
108
Figure 6.8: Cell capacity and the corresponding mean user throughput of all studied schemes in LOS
DL, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4.
system bandwidth), whereas the whole bandwidth is available for CCUs. Moreover,
transmission power and scheduling of CEUs and CCUs are also different in the SFR,
namely, CEUs are served by the Major Segment, preferentially, with high power. In
EFFR, the system bandwidth for both, CEUs and CCUs is same. But, on the reuse-3
subchannels, CEUs have higher priority for occupying subchannels than CCUs. In
addition, secondary reuse-1 subchannels under EFFR are scheduled based on CQIestimation. All this together leads to CEUs and CCUs having different saturation
points under ICI-coordination RUP schemes. For example in Figure 6.7b and c, CCUs
under SFR are saturated at 350 kbit/s load per user, whereas CEUs are saturated at 50
kbit/s load; and CCUs under EFFR with given M to N combination, say 6:4, are
saturated at 400 kbit/s load per user, whereas CEUs are saturated at 50 kbit/s load.
Once all the available bandwidth of a system is used up with increasing traffic load,
the system reaches its saturation point, which for the investigated ICI-coordination
schemes in this chapter is the point, where all UTs (including both CCUs and CEUs)
are saturated. Thus, as shown in Figure 6.7a, the SFR system reaches its saturation
point at about 1.53 Mbit/s with 350 kbit/s offered traffic per user. The saturation point
of the EFFR system with M:N = 8:2 is at about 1.68 Mbit/s with 200 kbit/s load per
user; of the EFFR with M:N = 7:3 at about 2.06 Mbit/s with 300 kbit/s load per user; of
the EFFR with M:N = 6:4 at about 2.46 Mbit/s with 400 kbit/s load per user; as well as
of the EFFR with M:N = 5:5 at about 2.86 Mbit/s with 500 kbit/s load per user,
respectively.
Among all investigated schemes, the EFFR scheme outperforms all the other schemes
in almost every situation, regardless of which M to N combination is used. Under the
LOS propagation, the EFFR with any M:N combination can achieve a cell capacity
109
above 1.6 Mbit/s in DL, see Figure 6.8. And the EFFR with M:N = 5:5 gains the best
performance of all schemes. It reaps an immense gain of app. 300% compared to the
Reuse-1 scheme, and an app. 200% gain over the Reuse-3 as well as gets an advantage
of app. 87% over the SFR scheme.
To assess the performance of schemes for ICI mitigation in a multi-cellular system, the
achievable cell throughput should be concerned combined with another important
(a) Mean overall DL cell coverage percentage
(b) Mean DL CCUs coverage percentage
(c) Mean DL CEUs coverage percentage
Figure 6.9: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per
user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall DL cell
coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding mean CCUs coverage percentage; as well as (c) the
corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in DL traffic.
110
performance indicator, namely, the cell coverage percentage. Figure 6.9a exhibits the
mean DL cell coverage percentage versus the traffic load per user in each cell under
LOS condition. The results in Figure 6.9a show that the EFFR scheme can have a very
close performance to the Reuse-3 scheme, which is the best among all schemes in
terms of cell coverage. Yet there is still an around 35% coverage gap in DL. Although
by applying the EFFR scheme the full cell coverage cannot be achieved under the LOS
condition, it still significantly increases the cell coverage by about 45% for DL over
the Reuse-1 scheme and the IFR scheme. The SFR scheme, on the contrary, only
slightly improves the coverage performance at full load and overload situations ( 350
kbit/s).
Figure 6.9b and Figure 6.9c give the corresponding CCUs coverage percentage and
CEUs coverage percentage of the five investigated frequency reuse schemes in LOS
DL case, respectively. The utilization of the EFFR scheme allows all UTs including
both CCUs and CEUs to have a very close performance to the Reuse-3 scheme. By
using the Reuse-1 and IFR schemes, more than 90% of their CCUs can also be validly
served. However, the performances of their CEUs are extremely poor that none of
them can be reached by the BS when offered traffic over the saturation point at 150
kbit/s, as shown in Figure 6.9c. With the EFFR scheme in contrast, the mean CEUs
coverage percentage can be improved up to around 56%. As concerning the SFR
scheme, with the results presented in Figure 6.9c, it can be seen that the mean CEUs
coverage can also be ameliorated by about 18% in full load situation (350 kbit/s).
However, only 65% of its CCUs can be validly served in this case (see Figure 6.9b)
and even lower in overload situations (> 350 kbit/s), which is much inferior to the
Reuse-1 scheme. This is because in DL the power level assigned to the SFR CCUs is
lower than with the Reuse-1 scheme (refer to Figure 6.4b), which leads to the lower
mean CCU CINR values (refer to Figure 6.6b). The poor CCU coverage percentage
also implies that the assumed range ratio r/R of 0.4 is not adequate, in fact too big for
the SFR scheme under LOS propagation (refer to Figure 5.18a). On the other hand, the
range ratio of 0.4 means the number of CCUs is only 5. And the 5 CCUs (i.e., 20% of
the UTs) can use 67% of the resources (here 20 subchannels), whereas the other 20
CEUs have just the remaining 33% bandwidth to utilize. It is quite unfair for the CEUs
in this case. If the range for the CCUs is set further reduced, the unfairness for CEUs
would be further enlarged. As a consequence, no matter how much the traffic demands
of the CCUs is, the CEUs would be starved even in a very low offered traffic situation.
Deeper observation on the performance of the RUP techniques depending on the range
ratios is presented in Section 6.2.2.
Together taking the mean DL cell capacity into consideration (refer to Figure 6.7 and
Figure 6.8), the exclusive RUP technique EFFR outperforms all the other schemes and
111
can gain substantial improvements in terms of both the overall cell capacity as well as
the cell coverage under LOS path loss propagation.
Figure 6.10: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes as a function of
offered traffic per user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4. It can be
seen that the simulation results generated by OpenWNS match the analytical results from the Matlab
simulator quite well, refer to Figure 5.21a.
Accomplishment of high system capacity depends on two decisive factors: one is the
CINR level at the receiver; the other is the available bandwidth in the cell. In order to
enhance the system capacity, both should be concerned. For instance, though the best
CINR level can be achieved in a Reuse-3 system among all studied schemes (refer to
Figure 6.6), its mean cell throughput is inferior to the EFFR scheme due to the lack of
the available bandwidth (refer to Table 6.2). On the contrary, a SFR cell owns a
bandwidth three times larger than a cell using the Reuse-3 scheme. However, its
achievable suboptimal CINR level results in that its mean throughput performance
cannot outperform the Reuse-3 system in the majority of cases (refer to Figure 6.7a).
In this context, the spectral efficiency is another important metric to estimate the
system performance, which decouples the available bandwidth from the capacity. The
average DL cell spectral efficiency depending on the traffic load for LOS path loss is
indicated in Figure 6.10. It can be seen that the EFFR schemes are able to provide the
most efficient usage of the radio resources at their saturation points (200 kbit/s load for
EFFR 8:2, 300 kbit/s load for EFFR 7:3, 400 kbit/s load for EFFR 6:4, and 500 kbit/s
load for EFFR 5:5, respectively), which are higher than the DL cell spectral efficiency
by using the Reuse-3 scheme with a traffic load of 50 kbit/s (its saturation point, refer
to Figure 6.7a). In contrast, the SFR scheme enables an improvement of the cell
spectral efficiency over the Reuse-1 to a certain but minor extent at its saturation point
with a traffic load of 350 kbit/s. Here, it should be noted that the cell spectral
112
efficiency by using the Reuse-3 scheme is three times larger than its system spectral
efficiency, since only 1/3 of the system bandwidth is required by each Reuse-3 cell.
For the Reuse-1, IFR and SFR schemes, however, the whole system bandwidth is
available for each cell. Hence, the cell spectral efficiency of these schemes shown in
the figure is actually also their system spectral efficiency.
6.2.1.2 Performance in LOS UL

In UL, except the SFR scheme, the carrier strength and the mean interference level of
different types of UTs using all the other schemes are similar to that in DL (refer to
Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5), as displayed in Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12.
Figure 6.11: Mean UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS versus offered traffic per
user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean CCU UL carrier
signal strength perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the
central BS.
Compared to Figure 6.4, the SFR scheme gains a better carrier strength performance
for both CCUs and CEUs in UL than in DL. Similar to using the EFFR scheme, the
mean SFR CCU carrier strength is very close to that using the Reuse-1 scheme, whilst
its mean CEU carrier strength is almost identical to that using the Reuse-3 scheme.
This is because in UL the both power levels for CCUs and CEUs using the SFR
scheme are higher than in DL, as explained in Section 6.1.5.2, and are the same as
using the EFFR scheme.
Figure 6.12 exhibits the mean UL interference level perceived by CCUs and CEUs of
the five investigated frequency reuse schemes. Higher transmission power can enhance
carrier strength, yet also leads to more ICI. In comparison with the results presented in
113
(a) Mean CCU UL interference
(b) Mean CEU UL interference
Figure 6.12: Mean UL interference level perceived at the central BS versus offered traffic per user
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean CCU UL interference
level perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL interference level perceived at the central BS.
Figure 6.5, owing to higher transmission power available for each type of SFR UTs,
the ICI perceived by SFR UTs is also increased in UL. With the same power allocation
for each type of UTs in both RUP schemes, the mean CEU inference level can be
significantly reduced by using the EFFR scheme compared to the Reuse-1 scheme,
whereas using the SFR scheme the inference level is even inferior to that using the
Reuse-1 scheme by about 2 dB for both CCUs and CEUs.
Figure 6.13 presents the corresponding mean overall UL CINR level and the mean UL
CINR levels perceived by different types of user versus offered traffic per user,
respectively. For the SFR scheme, increased carrier strength and increased interference
level result in similar UL CINR values to DL CINR values for overall and both types
of UTs (refer to Figure 6.6). The other schemes have also similar results in UL and DL,
owing to similar carrier and inference strength in both transmission directions.
Figure 6.14 displays the mean overall UL MAC throughput as well as the
corresponding mean CCU and CEU UL throughput as a function of offered traffic per
user under LOS condition. It can be seen that all investigated schemes have similar
behavior in UL as in DL (refer to Figure 6.7). Yet their UL MAC throughput is
slightly lower than the DL MAC throughput. This is because as described in Section
6.1.4 for each superframe the UL phase is shorter than the DL phase for 9 OFDMA
symbols in total. Thus, the lower UL throughput arises from the relatively less
resource assignment. Like in DL, the EFFR scheme can also provide a considerable
improvement on the overall cell throughput in UL and outperforms all the other
114
(a) Mean overall UL CINR
(b) Mean CCU UL CINR
(c) Mean CEU UL CINR
Figure 6.13: Mean UL CINR values perceived at the central BS as a function of offered traffic per
user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall UL CINR
values perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CCU UL CINR perceived at the central BS; as well as (c)
Mean CEU UL CINR perceived at the central BS.
schemes in almost every situation, regardless of with which M to N combination. The

saturation point of the EFFR system with M:N = 8:2 is reached at about 1.5 Mbit/s
with 150 kbit/s load per user; of the EFFR with M:N = 7:3 at about 1.9 Mbit/s with 250
kbit/s load per user; as well as of the EFFR with M:N = 6:4 at about 2 Mbit/s; and of
the EFFR with M:N = 5:5 at about 2.1 Mbit/s with 300 kbit/s load per user,
respectively. In contrast, the SFR system reaches its saturation point about 1.16 Mbit/s
with 300 kbit/s offered traffic per user. And the saturation point by applying the
115
(a) Mean overall UL cell throughput
(b) Mean CCU UL throughput
(c) Mean CEU UL throughput
Figure 6.14: Mean UL MAC throughput under LOS condition as a function of offered traffic per user
in the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding
mean CCU UL throughput; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU UL throughput.
Reuse-3 is at about 50 kbit/s load per user, which cumulates to a system throughput of
around 1.18 Mbit/s. Under the LOS propagation, the EFFR with whatever combination
can achieve a cell capacity above 1.5Mbit/s in UL, see Figure 6.15. And again, the
EFFR with M to N combination of 5:5 gains the best performance in system
throughput of all schemes. It reaps a noticeable cell capacity increase of app. 300%
compared to the Reuse-1 scheme, and an app. 74% gain over the Reuse-3 as well as
gets an advantage of app. 78% over the SFR scheme.
116
Figure 6.15: Cell capacity and the corresponding mean user throughput of all studied schemes in LOS
UL, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4.
As mentioned before, the benefits with applying the EFFR scheme are not only
reflected by throughput gains but also by the enhancement of the cell coverage
percentage. Figure 6.16 gives the mean UL coverage percentage of the five
investigated reuse schemes versus offered traffic per user under LOS condition. In
comparison with the DL performance presented in Figure 6.9, the overall UL cell
coverage percentage (see Figure 6.16a) by using the Reuse-3 and the EFFR schemes is
better than in DL by about 10% in full load and overload situations, which is actually
caused by the better UL coverage percentage of their CEUs (see Figure 6.16c). With
the SFR scheme, the overall UL cell coverage remains similar to the DL performance
when the offered traffic per user is smaller than 400 kbit/s. After this point in overload
situations, the UL performance becomes slightly better than its DL performance,
which results from its bettering UL CCUs coverage performance (see Figure 6.16b). In
contrast, the UL CCUs coverage percentage of the Reuse-1 and the IFR schemes
becomes worse by around 8%, so that their overall UL performance decreases slightly.
It is unchanged that in UL the EFFR scheme and the Reuse-3 scheme still attain the
best performance among all schemes in terms of not only the overall cell coverage but
also the CCUs and the CEUs coverage percentage. They improve the UL cell coverage
by more than 50% compared to the SFR scheme, as well as by around 60% compared
to the Reuse-1 and the IFR schemes in full- and overload situations.
Viewing the cell coverage performance with the UL mean cell capacity performance
together (refer to Figure 6.14 and Figure 6.15), it can be seen that the exclusive RUP
techniqueEFFR schemehas superiority over all the other schemes. Based on
maintaining the coverage percentage of both CCUs and CEUs close to the Reuse-3
scheme, it substantially improves the mean user throughput in UL LOS path loss
situation.
117
(a) Mean overall UL cell coverage percentage
(b) Mean UL CCUs coverage percentage
(c) Mean UL CEUs coverage percentage
Figure 6.16: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per
user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall UL cell
coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding mean CCUs coverage percentage; and (c) the
corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in UL traffic.
Lastly, the corresponding average UL cell spectral efficiency depending on the traffic
load for LOS path loss is shown in Figure 6.17. It can be seen that the Reuse-3 and the
EFFR 7:3 schemes are able to provide the most efficient usage of the radio resources
at their saturation points (50 kbit/s load for the Reuse-3 and 250 kbit/s load for the
EFFR 7:3, respectively) among all schemes. And the EFFR scheme with other M to N
combinations can achieve close but slight lower UL cell spectral efficiency at their
(much higher throughput) saturation points than the Reuse-3 scheme.
118
Figure 6.17: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes as a function of
offered traffic per user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4.
All things considered, the EFFR scheme is the most attractive solution among all the
five investigated reuse schemes under LOS propagation. It not only reaps substantial
gains in the overall system performance, but also enhances the cell edge performance.
With the EFFR scheme, the medium is able to be more effectively utilized, the overall
cell capacity is significantly improved, and large cell coverage can be attained.
6.2.1.3 Performance in NLOS DL

In this subsection, a comprehensive performance evaluation under NLOS condition is
provided, which includes the estimation of the CINR value, the mean MAC
throughput, the mean cell coverage percentage as well as the average cell spectral
efficiency for both DL and UL traffic, respectively. Like in the previous subsection,
not only the overall system performance, but also detailed observation on the
performance of different types of UTs (the CCUs, the CEUs and weakest users) are
presented. Through an investigation of the five frequency-reuse techniques under LOS
and NLOS conditions, their performance behavior is compared, and different
characteristics of each scheme due to different propagation conditions are disclosed.
Unlike the LOS case, the cell radius of 220m is assumed, which is the maximum cell
radius for the Reuse-3 and the EFFR schemes under NLOS condition calculated in
Section 5.3. Furthermore, the proposed EFFR scheme with another four M to N
combinations (7:3 | 6:4 | 5:5 | 4:6) are evaluated. According to the analysis results
presented in Section 5.3, the maximum valid reach by using the Reuse-1 scheme is
0.6R under NLOS condition. Hence, the range ratio r/R of 0.6 to divide UTs into
119
CCUs and CEUs for the SFR scheme and the EFFR scheme is chosen for NLOS
simulations. That is to say, among 25 UTs, 12 UTs are CCUs and the remaining 13
UTs are CEUs.
(b) Mean DL CINR perceived by weakest users
(c) Mean DL CINR perceived by CCUs
(d) Mean DL CINR perceived by CEUs
Figure 6.18: Mean overall DL CINR values and the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived
by different types of UTs as a function of offered traffic per user under NLOS condition. 25 UTs are
uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 220 m. The range ratio r/R of 0.6 for
partitioning CCUs and CEUs is assumed. The weakest users are those UTs located between 176 m and
220 m away from the BS (i.e., R'/R [0.8, 1]). And for both SFR and EFFR schemes, the power ratio
of high power level to low power level is set as 3. (a) mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the
corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by weakest users; (c) the corresponding mean DL
CINR values perceived by CCUs; as well as (d) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived
by CEUs.
120
Figure 6.18a displays the mean overall CINR levels perceived by UTs for DL as a
function of offered traffic per user under NLOS condition. Generally, the mean CINR
in a NLOS scenario is much higher than in a LOS scenario (refer to Figure 6.6a) for all
schemes. Both the EFFR scheme and the SFR scheme can significantly increase the
mean CINR compared to the IFR scheme and the Reuse-1 scheme in both scenarios. In
the LOS case, the mean CINR attained by using the EFFR scheme is very close to and
sometimes even higher than in a Reuse-3 system. In the NLOS case, however, the
mean CINR of the EFFR scheme cannot catch up with the values of the Reuse-3
scheme any more. But, it is still much better than the other schemes. In contrast, in
both LOS and NLOS cases, the improving amplitude on the mean DL CINR with the
SFR is less than using the EFFR. This is because the SFR applies an inclusive reuse
mechanism. With the SFR design, the interferences experienced on both reuse-1
subchannels and reuse-3 subchannels are higher than by using the EFFR and the
Reuse-3.
Detailed observations on individual types of users are exhibited in Figure 6.18b, c and
d. The results in Figure 6.18b show that among all schemes, only the near cell border
UTs (weakest users), who apply the EFFR scheme or the Reuse-3 scheme, can achieve
valid DL CINR levels above 6.4 dB with offered traffic per user > 100 kbit/s.
Figure 6.19 presents the corresponding mean DL MAC throughput of all studied
schemes under NLOS propagation. Comparing the results under LOS condition (refer
to Figure 6.7a) and NLOS condition (Figure 6.19a), it can be seen that all studied
schemes can reap more cell throughput in the NLOS scenario than in the LOS scenario.
This is because all schemes can get higher mean CINR level under NLOS condition
than under LOS condition (refer to Figure 6.6a and Figure 6.18a). But, the RUP
techniquesthe EFFR scheme and the SFR schemegain less improvement under
NLOS than under LOS, in comparison with the conventional methods. The reason is
that under LOS propagation the system is interference-limited whereas under NLOS
propagation the system is noise-limited, as explained in Chapter 5. The RUP
techniques investigated in this work are designed for dealing with excessive ICI in a
cellular network. Thus, they work more effectively in an interference-limited system
than in a noise-limited system. Despite that, in both path loss models, the EFFR
scheme can substantially enhance the mean overall cell throughput and offers the best
performance in every traffic load situation.
As shown in Figure 6.19a, although a high saturation point at about 4.2 Mbit/s with
400 kbit/s offered traffic per user can be reached by using the SFR scheme, its mean
throughput is just similar to the Reuse-1 when the traffic load is between 150 kbit/s
and 250 kbit/s, and cannot catch up with the Reuse-3 until the offered traffic increases
to 300 kbit/s. By contrast, the EFFR scheme performs much better than the SFR
scheme, and even exceeds the Reuse-3 scheme in full and overload situations. The
saturation point by applying the Reuse-3 is reached at about 3.6 Mbit/s with 150 kbit/s
121
(c) Mean CCU DL throughput
(b) Mean weakest user DL throughput
(d) Mean CEU DL throughput
Figure 6.19: Mean DL MAC throughput under NLOS condition as a function of offered traffic per
user in the same environment as in Figure 6.18: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the
corresponding weakest user DL throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU DL throughput; as well
as (d) the corresponding mean CEU DL throughput.
load per user, whereas the saturation point of the EFFR system with M:N = 7:3 is
reached at about 3.6 Mbit/s with 150 kbit/s load per user; of the EFFR with M:N = 6:4
at about 3.97 Mbit/s with 200 kbit/s load per user; and of the EFFR with M:N = 5:5 at
about 4.36 Mbit/s with 250 kbit/s load per user; as well as of the EFFR with M:N = 4:6
at about 4.74 Mbit/s with 300 kbit/s load per user, respectively. With M to N
combination of 4:6 the EFFR scheme gains the best cell capacity performance among
all schemes (see Figure 6.20), and can reap a considerable increase of app. 133%
122
Figure 6.20: Cell capacity and the corresponding mean user throughput of all studied schemes in
NLOS DL, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18.
compared to the Reuse-1 scheme, an app. 30% DL gain over the Reuse-3 as well as
gets an advantage of app. 12% over the SFR scheme.
By observing individual behavior of different types of UTs, the merits of the EFFR
can be further reflected. It can be seen that the EFFR significantly enhances the
throughput of the CEUs (see Figure 6.19d) and the weakest users (see Figure 6.19b)
without negatively affecting CCU performance (see Figure 6.19c). The SFR scheme,
however, cannot improve its CEUs performance much compared to the Reuse-1, even
though its CCU throughput is not bad. And its weakest users, which are close to the
cell borders, can even not be served by the BS at all. As for the IFR scheme, it can
only better the user performance when system is not highly loaded. But it performs
exactly like the Reuse-1 in overload situations.
In brief, the EFFR scheme has superiority over the other schemes and can gain
substantial improvements not only in overall cell capacity but also in cell edge
throughput.
Except the system throughput, the cell coverage percentage is another important
performance indicator used to estimate the effects of the ICI mitigation in a multicellular system. Figure 6.21a exhibits the overall cell coverage percentage versus the
traffic load per user in each cell under NLOS condition in DL. The results show that
the EFFR scheme has a very close performance to the Reuse-3 scheme, and both are
much better than the other schemes. Unlike the LOS case (see Figure 6.9a), the
utilization of the EFFR scheme under NLOS condition enables the cell coverage of
approximately 100%, which means almost all UTs within the focused cell can be
served. In contrast, the SFR scheme can barely support 63% of the cell coverage, and
123
(b) Mean DL weakest users coverage percentage
(c) Mean DL CCUs coverage percentage
(d) Mean DL CEUs coverage percentage
Figure 6.21: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per
user under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18: (a) mean overall DL cell
coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding weakest users coverage percentage; (c) the corresponding
mean CCUs coverage percentage; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in
DL traffic.
the Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme can even just cover 54% and 62% of a cell,
respectively, in full load situation.
Figure 6.21b, c and d show the corresponding mean coverage percentage of the most
remote UTs, the CCUs as well as the CEUs, respectively. Apparently, the EFFR
adopts the merit of the Reuse-3 scheme at ICI mitigation so that it considerably
enlarges the coverage percentage of the CEUs and the weakest users compared to the
124
Reuse-1 scheme. The SFR scheme can also significantly improve the mean CEUs
coverage, nevertheless, its cell border UTs can still not be covered just like using the
Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme, which confirms the analysis results presented in Section
5.3.
As a consequence, with the EFFR scheme the ICI can be successfully reduced, so that
both wide cell coverage and high data rate can be achieved in NLOS DL.
Figure 6.22: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes as a function of
offered traffic per user under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18.
Figure 6.22 gives the average DL cell spectral efficiency depending on the traffic load
for the NLOS case, which is the third important metric for system performance
estimation. It can be seen that the EFFR schemes triples the cell spectral efficiency at
their saturation points (150 kbit/s load for EFFR 7:3, 200 kbit/s load for EFFR 6:4, 250
kbit/s load for EFFR 5:5, and 300 kbit/s load for EFFR 4:6, respectively, refer to
Figure 6.19a) compared to the Reuse-1 with a traffic load of 150 kbit/s (its saturation
point, refer to Figure 6.19a) and reaches the second best place, whereas the SFR just
slightly improves and the IFR even cannot better the cell spectral efficiency
performance. The Reuse-3 scheme can provide the best cell spectral efficiency
performance with a traffic load of 150 kbit/s (its saturation point, refer to Figure 6.19a).
However, as mentioned before, the system spectral efficiency of Reuse-3 can only
reach 1/3 of its cell spectral efficiency due to just 1/3 of the system bandwidth
available for each Reuse-3 cell, whereas for the SFR scheme, the cell spectral
efficiency presented in the figure is exactly its system spectral efficiency. Hence,
actually, the Reuse-3 is inferior to the SFR scheme in terms of system spectral
efficiency. The system spectral efficiency by using the EFFR scheme is also lower
than its cell spectral efficiency (53.3% of its cell spectral efficiency with EFFR 7:3,
125
60% with EFFR 6:4, 66.7% with EFFR 5:5, and 73.3% with EFFR 4:6, respectively)
due to limited available bandwidth for each cell, see Table 6.2. Even so, the system
spectral efficiency by using the EFFR 5:5 and EFFR 4:6 can still surpass that using all
the other schemes, including the SFR and the Reuse-3 schemes.
Taking all performance indicators into account, it can be noted that the EFFR schemes
(except M:N = 7:3) can offer the best system capacity, the best overall cell coverage
percentage and a moderate average cell spectral efficiency (but the best system
spectral effficency) among all investigated schemes, which is an attractive solution for
frequency reuse one deployment.
6.2.1.4 Performance in NLOS UL

Figure 6.23 presents the corresponding mean UL MAC throughput of all studied
schemes under NLOS propagation. It can be seen in Figure 6.23a that the SFR always
performs inferior to the Reuse-3 and the EFFR with any traffic load, although its
saturation point can be reached at about 3.06 Mbit/s with 200 kbit/s offered traffic per
user, which is much higher than the saturation points of the Reuse-1 and the IFR
schemes at about 1.42 Mbit/s with 100 kbit/s load per user and 2.22 Mbit/s with 150
kbit/s load per user, respectively. Detailed observation on the mean UL throughput of
diverse types of UTs can be found in Figure 6.23b, c and d. Like in DL (refer to
Figure 6.19), the EFFR significantly betters the CEUs including the weakest users
performance compared to the Reuse-1 and IFR scheme, and doubles the mean CEU
throughput and the weakest user throughput of the SFR scheme. In short, the EFFR
improves the user performance of all cell regions so as to make the whole system
throughput enhanced.
The benefits using the EFFR scheme are not only reflected in high data rate but also in
high cell user coverage percentage, as shown in Figure 6.24. From the results it can be
seen that like in DL (refer to Figure 6.21) among all schemes only the EFFR and the
Reuse-3 can attain 100% cell coverage percentage. The next is the SFR scheme with
around 81% cell coverage, as shown in Figure 6.24a. Furthermore, it can be noticed
that the weakest users coverage percentage (see Figure 6.24b) by using the SFR is
considerable increased from 0% to 46%, compared to Figure 6.21b. This leads to a
significantly bettered overall cell coverage percentage, nonetheless, at the expense of
sacrificing the overall cell throughput (refer to Figure 6.23a and Figure 6.19a).
Figure 6.25 gives the corresponding UL cell spectral efficiency of all five investigated
schemes under NLOS condition. Similar to the DL situation (refer to Figure 6.22), the
EFFR scheme achieves a moderate UL cell spectral efficiency, which is inferior to that
using the Reuse-3, though much better than with the other reuse schemes. And
different to the DL is that the more the resources invested for the EFFR CEUs the
higher cell spectral efficiency can be gained by the EFFR.
126
(c) Mean CCU UL throughput
(b) Mean weakest user UL throughput
(d) Mean CEU UL throughput
Figure 6.23: Mean UL MAC throughput under NLOS condition as a function of offered traffic per
user in the same environment as in Figure 6.18: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the
corresponding weakest user UL throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU UL throughput; as well
as (d) the corresponding mean CEU UL throughput.
127
(b) Mean UL weakest users coverage percentage
Figure 6.24: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per
user under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18: (a) mean overall UL cell
coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding weakest users coverage percentage.
Figure 6.25: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes as a function of
offered traffic per user under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18.
128
6.2.1.5 Conclusion
The EFFR scheme outperforms all the other schemes, as it can attain the best MAC
throughput and the best coverage percentage in both UL and DL under any
propagation mode; as well as the best cell spectral efficiency under LOS condition and
a second best cell spectral efficiency (but the best system spectral efficiency) under
NLOS condition in both UL and DL. Moreover, the enhancements by using the EFFR
scheme favor not only the CCUs but also the CEUs and eventually the weakest users,
who are more susceptible to the ICI, in every traffic situation. Compared to the
analytical results, see Figure 5.21b the cell spectral efficiency of EFFR schemes is in
between 0,3 and 0,4, SFR is at 0,2 and Reuse-3 close to 0,6. Simulation results of
analysis and very detailed simulation match quite well.
Under LOS path loss, the proposed EFFR scheme tends to increase the overall CINR,
and the cell capacity and the cell coverage can be remarkable upgraded compared to
static Reuse schemes. But an around 35% coverage gap in DL and an about 25%
coverage gap in UL still exist. In NLOS case, by contrast, the profit in the overall cell
capacity by applying the EFFR scheme seems not such great as in LOS case. Yet the
EFFR scheme enables the cell coverage of approximately 100% for both DL and UL,
which means almost all UTs within a cell can be validly served.
6.2.2
Impact of Range Ratio on System Performance
In the realization of RUP designs, the range definition for dividing CCU-zone and
CEU-zone plays a very important role and could influence the system performance
severely. In Chapter 5, based on CINR calculation the maximal cell radius and
adequate range definitions for seperating different user-type zones for each RUP
scheme are analyzed. In this section, a thorough simulation study on the SFR scheme
and the EFFR scheme with diverse range ratios r/R defined as the CCU-zone radius to
the cell radius is provided. Like the performance evaluation for the Reference Scenario
in Section 6.2.1, the results of the RUP techniques (namely, the SFR scheme and the
EFFR scheme) are compared with two static Reuse schemes and the IFR scheme.
However, in the following assessments it will be noted that the overall performance by
applying the static Reuse schemes and the IFR scheme stays constant with varying
range ratios. This is because no specific treatments for different types of UTs in terms
of resource scheduling and power allocation are carried out in these techniques. In the
concrete, all UTs (no matter CCUs or CEUs) in these schemes have equal
opportunities to access the medium and are allowed to use the same power on each
subchannel to transmit data for both DL and UL.
Table 6.4: The number of different types of UTs with diverse range ratio definitions when 25 UTs
are uniformly distributed in each cell.
Range ratio [r/R]
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
# CCU
0
1
3
5
8
12
16
21
# CEU
25
24
22
20
17
13
9
4
All simulation parameters used in Reference Scenario remain unchanged in this

section except that the performance estimation does not depend on increasing offered
traffic, but on various range ratios r/R from 0.1 to 0.8 with a constant offered traffic
500 kbps per user. Table 6.4 lists the number of different types of UTs separately with
mutable range ratio definitions when 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell. It
can be noted that the larger the range ratio r/R, the more UTs belong to the CCUs and
the larger the CCU area is. And the range ratio r/R of 0.1 is a special case with zero
CCUs and all UTs are CEUs.
130
6.2.2.1
Performance in LOS DL
by different types of UTs depending on range ratio r/R under LOS condition, which is defined as the
zone radius for the CCUs r to the cell radius R. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a
cell radius of 1000 m. Offered traffic per user of 500 kbps is assumed. And for both SFR and EFFR
schemes, the power ratio of high power level to low power level is set as 3. (a) Mean overall DL CINR
values; (b) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs; and (c) the corresponding
mean DL CINR values perceived by CEUs.
Figure 6.26 shows the impact of range ratios on mean DL CINR values under LOS
condition. For both CCUs and CEUs, the CINR of all investigated schemes reduces
with an increasing range ratio r/R. And it is certain that the CINR performance with
131
the Reuse-3 is always better than using the Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme due to the
larger distance of the interfering cells and the higher power allocation for each link.
The EFFR scheme takes advantage of the location-specific predominance of the CCUs
to allow them to occupy resources with FRF of 1, and applies the interference-awarereuse mechanism on the Secondary Segment (refer to Section 4.1.2.2). Thus, the EFFR
CCU CINR is very close to the Reuse-1 when the range ratio is r/R 0.4, and keeps
constant no longer decreasing after that, as shown in Figure 6.26b. Concerning the
inherent vulnerability of the CEUs, the EFFR scheme reserves resources for them
using dedicated FRF of 3 and higher transmission power, so that it achieves a decent
mean CEU CINR, which is similar to the Reuse-3 performance, as shown in
Figure 6.26c. In contrast to the EFFR scheme, the SFR owing to its inclusive reuse
mechanism gains the worst CCU CINR performance among all schemes and relatively
inferior CEU CINR performance after r/R > 0.2. From Figure 6.26b, it can be seen that
the EFFR can hold the mean CCU CINR values above the required CINR threshold of
6.4 dB for every range ratio, whereas for the SFR, r/R values not greater than 0.4 are
permitted. In terms of the CEU CINR performance (see Figure 6.26c), the EFFR
scheme can hold the valid CINR level until the range ratio r/R exceeds to 0.6 while for
the SFR it may not exceed 0.3. And for the Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme, valid CEU
CINR values can never be supplied.
As a result, as shown in Figure 6.26a, the mean overall CINR performance of the
EFFR and the Reuse-3 scheme is relatively stable and decent above the required CINR
threshold of 6.4 dB in every situation. This is not the case for the Reuse-1 and the IFR
scheme, where the mean overall CINR is always lower than the required CINR
threshold. The SFR scheme cannot hold an acceptable mean overall CINR level after
r/R > 0.4.
High CINR results in high data rate. Hence, Figure 6.27a shows a clear advantage by
using the EFFR scheme compared to the Reuse-1 or the IFR scheme. However, CINR
is merely one factor to influence the system capacity, the other is available bandwidth.
Lack of available bandwidth (see Table 6.2) could also degrade the throughput
performance. That explains why the Reuse-3 cannot catch up the EFFR throughput
performance (except the throughput by using EFFR 8:2 with r/R > 0.6), although they
have alike overall CINR value. The overall cell throughput of the RUP techniques
EFFR and SFR varies with the range ratio, whereas static and the IFR scheme are
independent of the r/R selection. When comparing the overall cell throughput of EFFR
and SFR, the performance of the SFR is obviously more sensitive to the range ratio
and undulates more heavily. The SFR with a range ratio r/R = 0.4 reaches its best
performance of about 1.95 Mbps. When r/R > 0.4 the SFR performance deteriorates
rapidly, so that from r/R of 0.5 it is inferior to the Reuse-3 performance and with r/R
0.6 it is even worse than the Reuse-1 performance. In contrast, except the M to N of
132
Figure 6.27: Mean DL MAC throughput under LOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the
same environment as in Figure 6.26: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean
CCU DL throughput; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU DL throughput.
8:2, the EFFR scheme with the other M to N combinations (i.e. with further decreasing
number of reuse-3 subchannels and increasing number of reuse-1 subchannels) can
surpass all the other schemes in DL LOS case. And the more reuse-1 subchannels N
are assigned for the CCUs, the greater the overall cell capacity gain is.
Detailed observation on the mean DL throughput performance of different types of
UTs can be found in Figure 6.27b and c for the CCUs and the CEUs, respectively.
Regarding the CCU performance, it is obvious that the RUP techniques outperform the
none-RUP techniques in the majority of cases. When comparing the RUP techniques,
133
it can be observed that the mean CCU performance of the SFR decays from r/R = 0.3
on more rapidly than using the EFFR scheme. Furthermore, with r/R > 0.5, the SFR
CCU performs the worst among all the schemes, whereas the EFFR scheme can still
outperform the Reuse-1 and the IFR, regardless of the M to N combination. Except M
to N of 8:2, the EFFR scheme with the other M to N combinations exceeds even all the
other schemes in every situation. According to the CEU performance displayed in
Figure 6.27c, the EFFR scheme and the Reuse-3 scheme are superior to the other
schemes. With the usage of the SFR, the CEU throughput performance can be
improved compared to the Reuse-1 with r/R < 0.6, yet it is still much inferior to the
EFFR and the Reuse-3. From r/R = 0.6 on, where the number of CEUs is 13 (refer to
Table 6.4), the mean CEU throughput is 0, which means 52% UTs cannot be served at
all. That also implies that the maximal cell coverage by applying the SFR with proper
range ratio selection is 48%. Another interesting phenomenon is that the EFFR
throughput performance for the CEUs even exceeds that of Reuse-3 when the range
ratio is r/R < 0.4, and the more the number of reuse-1 subchannels N is used in the
EFFR, the higher the mean CEU throughput can be achieved. This is because the
EFFR scheme owns a salient feature different to the SFR scheme that all unsatisfied
UTs, whether they are CCUs or CEUs, have the same chance to get reuse-1 resources,
if they can find usable resource in accordance with CINR estimation. In this way, even
when the range ratio is r/R = 0.1, which means all UTs are CEUs and no CCUs, the
reuse-1 subchannels are not wasted and can be used by suitable UTs who can receive
valid CINR values.
In conclusion, the EFFR (except with M:N = 8:2) is superior to all the other
investigated schemes under LOS condition. It is based on ensuring the CEU
performance similar to the Reuse-3 scheme, promotes CCU performance by peeling
off part resources from the reuse-3 resources to lunch in the reuse-1 utilization. As a
consequence, not only the overall cell capacity is noteworthy increased, but also the
CEU throughput performance can be substantially ameliorated.
The mean overall cell coverage percentage and the corresponding mean coverage
percentage of different types of UTs depending on range ratio r/R in LOS DL are
illustrated in Figure 6.28. It has been elucidated before that the SFR is an inclusive
RUP design whereas the EFFR uses the exclusive RUP technique. Hence, the mean
CCUs coverage percentage by using the SFR is inferior to the Reuse-1 when the range
ratio is r/R > 0.3 (see Figure 6.28b), and its CEUs perform much worse than with the
Reuse-3 scheme when the range ratio is r/R > 0.1 (see Figure 6.28b). In contrast, the
CCUs of the EFFR scheme can gain a very similar and even slightly better coverage
performance than with the Reuse-1 scheme, as well as its CEUs can have a slightly
worse but also very close performance to the Reuse-3 scheme. That results in an
overall better cell coverage performance by using the EFFR scheme than by using the
SFR scheme with any range ratio definition, as shown in Figure 6.28a. The curves in
134
Figure 6.28: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.26: (a) mean overall DL cell
corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in DL traffic.
the figures disclose that the EFFR can keep a similar overall cell coverage percentage
as the Reuse-3 scheme with an adequate range ratio definition (here for example when
the range ratio is 0.4). With further enlarging the CCU-zone, the CCUs coverage
performance deteriorates fastly like in a Reuse-1 system, which causes the gradually
attenuated overall cell coverage performance as shown in Figure 6.28a. Yet it is still
much better than the SFR scheme, the IFR scheme and the Reuse-1 scheme.
135
Together with the throughput performance displayed in Figure 6.27a, it can be

observed that the EFFR scheme (except with M:N = 8:2) with a range ratio r/R 0.4
can gain the best overall cell capacity and the second best cell coverage (but very close
to the best, namely the Reuse-3 scheme) among all investigated schemes under LOS
condition. The SFR scheme with a range ratio r/R from 0.2 to 0.4 can also improve the
cell throughput significantly compared to the Reuse-1 and Reuse-3 schemes. But
according to the SFR design, the CEUs are just allowed to utilize the Primary Segment,
which is only one third of the whole available bandwidth. Even if there may be still
free resources remaining in the other two third of the bandwidth resources for the
CCUs, the CEUs cannot not use it. So, with a range ratio r/R of 0.2 or 0.3 means only
1 or 3 CCUs use the 67% resources, whereas the other 24 or 22 CEUs use the
remaining 33% (refer to Table 6.4), which exposes an extremely unfairness of
resource distribution between the CCUs and the CEUs. With a range ratio r/R of 0.4,
which means the number of CCUs is 5 and the remainder 20 UTs are CEUs, the
unfairness of resource assignment is relatively reduced, however, its overall cell
coverage percentage is also decreased close to the Reuse-1 scheme. And after this
point, neither throughput performance nor cell coverage performance of the SFR can
be hold. Both performances downgrade so quickly that they are even worse than using
the static Reuse schemes. Therefore, with respect to the range ratio definition for
dividing CCU-zone and CEU-zone, the EFFR scheme can provide more flexibility,
more robustness and more fairness among UTs than the SFR scheme.
Figure 6.29: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range
ratio r/R under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.26.
Figure 6.29 exhibits the average DL cell spectral efficiency of the five investigated
reuse schemes depending on range ratio r/R under LOS condition. The results show
136
that the EFFR scheme with M:N = 6:4 and M:N = 5:5 can gain a better performance
than all the other schemes when a range ratio r/R 0.7 is chosen.
Taking all evaluated performance into consideration (refer to Figure 6.27a,
Figure 6.28a and Figure 6.29), it can be concluded that except with M:N = 8:2 the
EFFR scheme outperforms all the other schemes with a range ratio r/R 0.4, where
the best overall cell capacity, the second best cell coverage (but very close to the best)
and the best cell spectral efficiency can be gained.
6.2.2.2 Conclusion
In this section, a comprehensive performance evaluation in terms of CINR, MAC
throughput, coverage percentage as well as cell spectral efficiency of all investigated
frequency reuse schemes depending on range ratio r/R in LOS DL is presented and
explained. The other corresponding simulation results for LOS UL and under NLOS
condition can be found in Appendix C. The results in LOS DL show that except with
the M to N combination of 8:2, the other EFFR schemes with a range ratio r/R 0.4
reap remarkable benefits in overall system capacity and cell spectral efficiency while
maintaining a close overall cell coverage percentage to the Reuse-3. Furthermore, with
respect to range ratio definition for dividing CCU-zone and CEU-zone in RUP designs,
the proposed EFFR scheme can provide more flexibility and robustness than the SFR
scheme. Among all M to N combinations, the EFFR 5:5 scheme with a range ratio r/R
0.4 is an optimal solution for ICI mitigation in an OFDMA-based cellular system,
which surpasses all the other schemes providing the best overall cell throughput, the
second best (but very close to the best) cell coverage percentage as well as the best cell
spectral efficiency.
6.2.3 Impact of Power Ratio on System Performance

Historically power control has been employed in cellular systems to minimize near-far
dynamic range effects by constraining the transmission power to be received with a
constant power level. Use of fractional power control in interference-limited
environments has been shown to provide improvements in aggregate throughput [45].
And [26] shows that the power masks have a significant impact on the SFR systems
performance. In order to disclose and compare the impact of various power allocations
on the system performance using the SFR and the EFFR schemes, a deep simulation
study is provided in this section. Like in the previous sections, the results by applying
RUP techniques are compared to that using the static Reuse schemes and the IFR
scheme. Since the available power is distributed evenly over all resource blocks in
each static Reuse system cell and in each IFR cell (namely, for both UL and DL, a
transmission power of 67 mW is used on each subchannel in a Reuse-1 system and in
an IFR system, as well as 200 mW is used on each subchannel in a Reuse-3 system),
their performances play just a referenced role in the following evaluations and stay
constant with altering power ratio Phigh/Plow.
All simulation parameters used in the Reference Scenario (refer to Section 6.2.1)
remain unchanged in this section except that the performance estimation does not
depend on increasing offered traffic, but on various power ratios Phigh/Plow from 1 to 10
with a constant offered traffic 500 kbps per user. According to the assumptions of
constant system power and fixed maximal transmission power of BSs and UTs as well
as Eqs. (3.4), (3.6), (4.8) and (4.10), Table 6.5 and Table 6.6 give an overview of
power allocations for CCUs and CEUs using the SFR and the EFFR, respectively, on
each subchannel for both UL and DL. As explained in Section 6.1.5.2, the both power
Table 6.5: Transmission power applied for CCUs on each subchannel in the RUP schemes for both DL
and UL with varying power ratios.
Phigh/Plow
=
PCEU /PCCU
1:1
2:1
3:1
4:1
5:1
6:1
7:1
8:1
9:1
10:1
PCCU in DL
[mW]
EFFR 8:2
143
91
67
53
43
37
32
29
26
23
EFFR 7:3
125
87
67
54
45
39
34
31
28
25
EFFR 6:4
111
83
67
56
48
42
37
33
30
28
EFFR 5:5
100
80
67
57
50
44
40
36
33
31
EFFR 4:6
91
77
67
59
53
48
43
40
37
34
SFR
67
50
40
33
29
25
22
20
18
17
PCCU in UL
(for all EFFR
& SFR)
[mW]
200
100
67
50
40
33
29
25
22
20
138
Table 6.6: Transmission power applied for CEUs on each subchannel in the RUP schemes for both DL
and UL with varying power ratios.
Phigh/Plow
=
PCEU/PCCU
1:1
2:1
3:1
4:1
5:1
6:1
7:1
8:1
9:1
10:1
PCEU in DL
[mW]
EFFR 8:2
143
182
200
211
217
222
226
229
231
233
EFFR 7:3
125
174
200
216
227
235
241
246
250
253
EFFR 6:4
111
167
200
222
238
250
259
267
273
278
EFFR 5:5
100
160
200
229
250
267
280
291
300
308
EFFR 4:6
91
154
200
235
263
286
304
320
333
345
SFR
67
100
120
133
143
150
156
160
163
167
PCEU in UL
(for all EFFR
& SFR)
[mW]
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
levels for CCUs and CEUs in the EFFR scheme are always higher than in the SFR
scheme for DL traffic, whereas in UL they remain identical. Furthermore, it can be
noted that in DL the power levels for CCUs and CEUs using the EFFR scheme are
also different with different M to N combinations. This is because different M to N
combination results in different total available bandwidthnumber of subchannels
for each EFFR cell (refer to Table 6.2). And with the assumption of fixed BS
transmission power, the more reuse-1 subchannels N is reserved for the CCUs, the
relatively more power can be used for each reuse-3 subchannel and each reuse-1
subchannel when the power ratio is Phigh/Plow > 3.
6.2.3.1 Performance in LOS DL

Figure 6.30 shows the mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of
UTs versus power ratio Phigh/Plow under LOS condition. In both SFR and EFFR
systems, since the transmission power applied by the BS on each subchannel decreases
for the CCU-traffic and increases for the CEU-traffic with increasing power ratio, the
DL carrier strength perceived by CCUs degrades, whilst it perceived by CEUs
increases. Besides, due to higher power portion applied for both CCUs and CEUs in
the EFFR scheme than using the SFR, the mean DL carrier strength perceived by UTs
in an EFFR system is always stronger than in a SFR system.
Although the trends of the DL carrier strength with increasing power ratio Phigh/Plow
are similar for both the SFR scheme and the EFFR scheme, the trends of their DL
interference level perceived by CCUs and CEUs run completely in opposite directions,
as shown in Figure 6.31. Increasing power ratio P high /P low means downgrading
139
Figure 6.30: Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of UTs versus power ratio
under LOS condition, which is defined as high power level to low power level used for the SFR and
the EFFR schemes. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 1000 m. Offered
traffic per user of 500 kbps and the range ratio r/R of 0.4 for partitioning CCUs and CEUs are assumed.
(a) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by CCUs; (b) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived
by CEUs.
Figure 6.31: Mean DL interference level perceived by different types of UTs versus power ratio of
high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition,
having the same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean DL interference level perceived by CCUs;
(b) mean DL interference level perceived by CEUs.
140
transmission power for the CCU-traffic and upgrading transmission power for the
CEU-traffic, which results in the reduced ICI from the neighboring cells for the CCUs
and increased ICI for the CEUs in an EFFR system. However, this is not the case in a
SFR system. Due to the inclusive reuse design in a SFR network, CEU-traffic in some
neighboring cells shares the same resources with the CCU-traffic in the focused cell,
which means part of the ICI perceived by the CCUs is generated by the CEU-traffic in
these neighboring cells. With increasing power ratio Phigh/Plow, increased transmission
power is applied for these CEU-communications, which results in the increasing DL
interference level perceived by the CCUs (see Figure 6.31a). In opposite to the CCUtraffic, the CEU-traffic in the focused cell only shares resources with CCU-traffic in
the neighboring cells, which are applied with reduced transmission power along with
increasing power ratio Phigh/Plow. That is why the curve of the SFR scheme in
Figure 6.31b trends downward.
The mean DL carrier strength in Figure 6.30 and the mean DL interference level in
Figure 6.31 result in the mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs and CEUs
separately, as displayed in Figure 6.32b and c. It can be seen that using the EFFR
scheme the mean DL CINR perceived by the CCUs is similar to the Reuse-1 CCU
performance, and with the M to N combination of 5:5 the EFFR scheme performs even
better than the Reuse-1. Moreover, the EFFR CCU CINR performance stays relatively
stable with increasing power ratio Phigh/Plow and always above the required CINR
threshold of 6.4 dB, whereas using the SFR scheme its DL CCU CINR performance
degrades with increasing power ratio and cannot maintain a valid mean CINR value
when the power ratio Phigh/Plow is greater than 4. For the CEU-traffic, the SFR scheme
performs even worse since its mean DL CINR never reaches the required CINR
threshold, although higher transmission power is used. In contrast, the DL CEU CINR
of the EFFR scheme keeps very close to that using the Reuse-3 scheme and always
valid. The CCU performance and the CEU performance lead to the mean overall DL
CINR performance of all investigated schemes presented in Figure 6.32a. The EFFR
and the Reuse-3 own similar overall DL CINR performance, which is much better than
with the other schemes. Applying the SFR, the overall DL CINR can also be
significantly enhanced compared to the Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme. However, when
the power ratio Phigh/Plow is larger than 3, its overall DL CINR cannot hold valid any
more. That also explains why the overall DL cell throughput using the SFR is better
than using the Reuse-1 and the IFR but worse than using the Reuse-3 scheme when the
power ratio Phigh/Plow is larger than 3 (see Figure 6.33a). When the power ratio
Phigh/Plow is smaller than 4, the SFR takes advantage of its plentiful available resources
and thereby gains decent mean DL cell capacity, which can compare favorably with
the EFFR scheme.
Figure 6.33b and c give insight into the corresponding mean DL throughput of
different types of UTs depending on power ratio Phigh/Plow. It can be noticed that when
141
by different types of UTs depending on power ratio of high power level to low power level used for
the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.30:
(a) mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs;
and (c) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CEUs.
Phigh/Plow is equal to 1, no CEUs can be served at all with the SFR scheme. This
implies that the improvement in the overall cell throughput at this point is purely in
consequence of the enhancement of its CCU throughput performance. And with
increasing power ratio Phigh/Plow, a tradeoff between a reduced overall cell capacity and
enhanced CEU performance in a SFR system occurs clearly. As a consequence, only
with a power ratio Phigh/Plow of 2 or 3, the SFR can outperform the static Reuse
142
Figure 6.33: Mean DL MAC throughput under LOS condition depending on power ratio of high
power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes in the same environment as in
Figure 6.30: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean CCU DL throughput;
and (c) the corresponding mean CEU DL throughput.
schemes and the IFR scheme in terms of the overall cell capacity, and at the same time
improves the CEU throughput performance.
Overall, the SFR scheme cannot rival the EFFR scheme. Both CINR and throughput
performance using the SFR are severely impacted by power ratio. On the contrary,
whether in CINR or in throughput, and whether for CCUs or for CEUs, the RUP EFFR
143
Figure 6.34: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus power ratio of
high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition,
having the same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean overall DL cell coverage percentage; (b) the
corresponding mean CCUs coverage percentage; as well as (c) the corresponding mean CEUs
coverage percentage in DL traffic.
scheme can always hold a relatively constant and better performance than the RUP
SFR scheme with varying power ratios.
Besides the throughput performance, the coverage percentage is another important
issue. Figure 6.34 displays the mean overall cell coverage percentage and the
corresponding mean coverage percentage of different types of UTs depending on
144
power ratio Phigh/Plow in LOS DL. It is obvious that the EFFR scheme performs much
better than the SFR in this respect. In comparison with the Reuse-1 and the IFR
schemes, the SFR can just slightly ameliorate the DL cell coverage when the power
ratio Phigh/Plow is equal to 2 or 3, which are the only two cases where the SFR
outperforms the static Reuse schemes and the IFR scheme in terms of the overall cell
capacity (refer to Figure 6.33a). With further increasing power ratio Phigh/Plow the
overall DL coverage percentage can be improved by using the SFR scheme, which
mostly arises from the promotion in the CEUs coverage percentage but at the sacrifice
of the CCUs coverage. The EFFR scheme by contrast can have an overall DL
coverage percentage and CEUs coverage percentage very close to that using the
Reuse-3 scheme, which is the best among all schemes. However, the curves of the
EFFR in Figure 6.34b reveal that with a power ratio Phigh/Plow > 4 for the EFFR with
an M to N combination of 8:2 as well as with a power ratio Phigh/Plow > 5 for the EFFR
with the other M to N combinations their CCUs coverage percentage starts performing
inferior to that using the Reuse-1 scheme. Therefore, a power ratio Phigh/Plow < 5
should be the optimal choice for the EFFR scheme under LOS condition.
Figure 6.35: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on power
ratio of high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS
condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.30.
Lastly, the average DL cell spectral efficiency depending on power ratio Phigh/Plow for
LOS path loss is indicated in Figure 6.35. It can be seen that in comparison with the
Reuse-1 and the IFR schemes the SFR can just slightly ameliorate the DL cell spectral
efficiency when the power ratio is Phigh/Plow 4, whereas the EFFR not only
substantially promotes the cell spectral efficiency which is similar to the Reuse-3
performance, but also significant increases the overall cell capacity which is noticeable
better than using the Reuse-3 (refer to Figure 6.33a).
6.3 Summary and Conclusion
145
Among all M to N combinations in the EFFR scheme, the M to N of 6:4 and 5:5
perform the best (see Figure 6.33a, Figure 6.34a and Figure 6.35). With a power ratio
Phigh/Plow 5, they reap the best performance in cell capacity and cell spectral
efficiency while maintaining a close overall cell coverage percentage to the Reuse-3
scheme.
6.2.3.2 Conclusion
By means of comprehensive and detailed performance evaluation presented in this
section, it can be concluded that the RUP EFFR design is more attractive than the RUP
SFR design under LOS condition (simulation results for LOS UL, NLOS DL and
NLOS UL are presented in Appendix D, where the preference of EFFR over the other
techniques is confirmed). The power ratio has a severe impact on the performance of
the SFR scheme, whereas using the EFFR scheme its performance including CINR,
throughput, cell coverage as well as cell spectral efficiency is superior and relative
stable under various power ratios. With an inappropriate power allocation, the
performance of the SFR will be strongly deteriorated. Furthermore, although the SFR
scheme outperforms the Reuse-1 and IFR schemes, it can never surpass the Reuse-3
scheme. With a careful selection of power ratios, the SFR may gain benefits in overall
cell throughput. But its CEU throughput performance, its cell coverage performance as
well as its cell spectral efficiency are still far more inferior to that using the Reuse-3
scheme. In this sense, the contribution of the SFR scheme for ICI mitigation and
bettering the CEUs performance is limited. In contrast, the EFFR scheme can provide
considerably better overall cell throughput than with the Reuse-3 scheme, whilst it can
hold its CEUs performance and cell coverage performance similar to the Reuse-3
scheme. In terms of the spectral efficiency, the EFFR scheme performs much better
than the Reuse-1 and the SFR scheme, and can supply a similar performance to (or
even better performance with a power ratio Phigh/Plow 5 using M:N = 6:4 or M:N =
5:5) than the Reuse-3. As a consequence, with the respect to the power allocation, the
proposed RUP EFFR design always performs better than the RUP SFR in every
situation, and can provide more flexibility and robustness than the SFR scheme. With
the EFFR scheme the medium is able to be more effectively utilized, and the
performance of all UTs including both CCUs and CEUs are advanced.
6.3
The simulation results presented confirm that exclusive RUP is more effective than
inclusive RUP in terms of ICI mitigation. Even with less available bandwidth, the
proposed EFFR scheme can provide considerable improvements, and beat the SFR
scheme, the IFR scheme as well as the static Reuse schemes. With the utilization of
146
the EFFR scheme, not only the overall cell performance but also the performance of
the CEUs can be substantially enhanced. In all three scenarios, the EFFR scheme can
always achieve the best overall cell throughput and the best cell coverage (similar to
the Reuse-3) among all investigated schemes under both LOS and NLOS conditions.
Under LOS propagation, the EFFR scheme can also gain the best cell spectral
efficiency, which is very similar to and in some cases even better than using the
Reuse-3 scheme, whereas under NLOS condition, it is inferior to the Reuse-3 and can
only attain the secondary best place in cell spectral efficiency, yet it still can gain the
best system spectral efficiency and surpass all the other schemes, including the Reuse3 and the SFR schemes.
In comparison to the EFFR scheme, the SFR cannot gain an absolute advantage over
the Reuse-3 scheme in overall cell throughput under any of the propagations. With the
SFR, the CEU performance, the cell coverage performance as well as the spectral
efficiency performance can also be improved to some extent compared to the Reuse-1
scheme. Nevertheless, they are always much inferior to those using the Reuse-3 and
the EFFR schemes. Moreover, the performance of the SFR scheme is strongly
influenced by range ratio definition and power allocation for different types of UTs.
With an inappropriate selection of range ratio or power allocation, its performance
deteriorates severely and could even become worse than with the Reuse-1 scheme.
Therefore, actually the well-known SFR scheme cannot outperform the static Reuse
schemes. As for the IFR, it never performs better than the Reuse-1 in full-and overload situations, which means no substantial improvement occurs.
In conclusion, with the EFFR scheme, the medium can be more effectively utilized,
more flexibility as well as more robustness can be achieved, the overall cell capacity is
substantially improved, and the cell coverage is enlarged.
CHAPTER 7
Conclusion and Outlook
Conclusion and Outlook

7.1
7.2
7.3
Summary ..................................................................................................... 147

Conclusion .................................................................................................. 148
Outlook ....................................................................................................... 150
The expected convergence of fixed and mobile Internet services, the emergence of
new applications and the growth of wireless subscribers lead to an ever increasing
demand for bandwidth in wireless access. With aggressive spectrum reuse (frequency
Reuse-1) deployments, more available bandwidth for each cell in the networks and
simplified radio network planning can be expected. Nevertheless, unfavorable celledge performance and inferior utilization of the precious frequency resource are
caused due to severe Inter-Cell Interference (ICI). ICI coordination approaches,
designed without (or with slow) inter-cell communication, are promising methods to
solve the problem, whereby significant performance improvements can potentially be
attained without inducing excessive signaling overhead and heavy computational
complexity. In this monograph, a novel resource allocation and reuse technique,
named Enhance Fractional Frequency Reuse (EFFR) scheme, is proposed. Aiming at
mitigating excessive ICI among neighboring cells, the EFFR is combined with a
transmission power allocation and an interference-aware reuse mechanism to achieve
not only wide area coverage but also a great enhancement of overall system capacity
in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) based cellular networks.
7.1
Summary
In this work, an extensive introduction of the state-of-the-art in ICI mitigation

techniques, the categories of these techniques, as well as advantages and limitations of
approaches in each category are presented. In particular, three most representative and
popular ICI mitigation approaches, namely the static Fractional Frequency Reuse
(FFR) scheme, the Soft Frequency Reuse (SFR) scheme and the Incremental
Frequency Reuse (IFR) scheme, are studied. Meanwhile, the notion of inclusive and
exclusive reuse partitioning (RUP) is also elaborated.
148
7. Conclusion and Outlook
Based on a thorough analysis of their advantages and limitations respectively, the

novel ICI mitigation design EFFR scheme and its two variations, EFFR-Advanced
scheme and EFFR-Beyond, are contributed for a better fulfillment of the goals, namely,
to enhance the mean system capacity while restraining the ICI at cell edge. The EFFR
scheme divides the whole available bandwidth into a Primary Segment and a
Secondary Segment. The exclusive reuse-3 subchannels in the Primary Segment will
be preferentially used by cell-edge users with higher transmission power, whereas the
remaining subchannels are all reuse-1 subchannels allowing to be used with lower
power. In addition, the resources in the Secondary Segment will be occupied by means
of Carrier-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (CINR) estimation.
Analytical models are used to evaluate the CINR distributions and the upper bounds of
an OFDMA-based cellular system in terms of cell coverage, mean cell capacity, as
well as area spectral efficiency of the aforementioned RUP techniques (including SFR,
IFR, EFFR, EFFR-Advanced, and EFFR-Beyond) under various propagation
conditions (Line-of-Sight (LOS), Non Line-of-Sight (NLOS), combined LOS-NLOS).
With the usage of the CINR calculation, the maximal cell radius and reasonable
boundary definitions for dividing different user-type zones for each RUP scheme are
determined. The analytical evaluation supports and validates the setup of the
Reference Scenario, which is chosen for simulative performance evaluation.
The comprehensive performance evaluation by means of event-driven simulation is
conducted to compare the systems using the proposed EFFR scheme with those using
the SFR scheme, the IFR scheme, and two static Reuse schemes in terms of CINR
level distribution, mean throughput, coverage percentage, and spectral efficiency
under LOS and NLOS propagation conditions, separately. In order to reach a reliable
evaluation, schemes are simulated with individual power mask, using scenarios with
surrounding interfering cells up to the 2nd-tier. Moreover, this thesis presents the
system performance of each investigated scheme not only from the overall-cell
perspective but also from the perspectives of different types of users (for instance,
Cell-Centre Users (CCUs), Cell-Edge Users (CEUs), and in some cases the most
remote users). Besides, the major parameters that influence the system performance,
such as traffic load, range ratio defined for different types of users, power ratio of
higher power level to lower power level, as well as various RUP for the EFFR scheme
are evaluated.
7.2
Conclusion
ICI coordination techniques may potentially attain significant performance

improvements and have recently gained much attention to mitigate ICI in next
generation wireless communication networks. All ICI coordination approaches
investigated in this thesis are aiming at a high system spectrum efficiency with
7.2 Conclusion
149
frequency reuse factor (FRF) of 1 and efficient reduction of ICI (especially near the
cell edge), simultaneously. Based on a thorough analysis of the static FFR, the SFR
and the IFR schemes, the novel EFFR approach proposes a resource allocation and
reuse mechanism which can provide a considerable improvement with the help of the
Channel Quality Information (CQI) estimation. Concerning the inherent vulnerability
of CEUs, the EFFR scheme reserves resources for them by two specific solutions to
provide better coverage: 1) assign dedicated FRF-3 subchannel; 2) provide higher
transmission power. Taking advantage of the location-specific predominance of CCUs,
the EFFR scheme allows them to occupy resources with FRF-1 and interference
awareness.
The analytical evaluation performed turns out that under LOS condition (or in an
interference-limited system), the enhancement on the coverage with the help of the
RUP techniques focused is more remarkable than under NLOS and LOS-NLOS
propagations (or in noise-limited systems). Besides, the EFFR designs are always able
to provide better cell coverage than with the SFR or the Reuse-1 scheme. Among all
EFFR variations, only the EFFR-Advanced and EFFR-Beyond schemes can reach
100% cell coverage in any case, whether under LOS or under NLOS path loss. With
respect to cell capacity and spectral efficiency, under NLOS condition, all schemes
can reap a higher cell capacity and area spectral efficiency, nevertheless within a
limited cell area. Moreover, although the SFR scheme can attain a better cell capacity
under all propagation conditions compared to the Reuse-3 scheme, its area spectral
efficiency is still much inferior to the Reuse-3. That means the SFR compared to the
Reuse-3 has no overwhelming superiority. In contrast, the results show that the EFFR
series can outperform the SFR and the static Reuse schemes under any propagation
mode, where significant coverage gains and cell capacity improvements can be
achieved by applying the novel EFFR schemes with adequate resource allocations.
The simulation results validate that exclusive RUP is more effective than inclusive
RUP in terms of ICI mitigation. Even with less available bandwidth, the proposed
EFFR scheme can provide considerable improvements, and beat the SFR scheme, the
IFR scheme as well as the static Reuse schemes. With the utilization of the EFFR
scheme, not only the overall cell performance but also the performance of the CEUs
can be substantially enhanced. In all three presented scenarios, the EFFR scheme can
always achieve the best overall cell throughput and the best cell coverage (similar to
the Reuse-3 scheme) among all investigated schemes under both LOS and NLOS
conditions. Under LOS propagation, the EFFR scheme can gain the best spectral
efficiency as well, which is very similar to using the Reuse-3 scheme, whereas under
NLOS condition, it is inferior to with the Reuse-3 and can only attain the secondary
best place in cell spectral efficiency, but still much better than with the SFR and the
Reuse-1 schemes.
150
7. Conclusion and Outlook
In comparison to the EFFR scheme, the SFR cannot gain an absolute advantage over
the Reuse-3 scheme in overall cell throughput under any of the propagations. With the
usage of the SFR, the CEU performance, the cell coverage performance as well as the
spectral efficiency performance can also be improved to some extent compared to the
Reuse-1 scheme. Nevertheless, they are always much inferior to those using the
Reuse-3 and the EFFR schemes. Moreover, the performance of the SFR scheme is
strongly influenced by range ratio definition and power allocation for different types
of users. With an inappropriate selection of range ratio or power allocation, its
performance deteriorates severely and could even get worse than with the Reuse-1
scheme. Therefore, actually the well-known SFR scheme cannot outperform the static
Reuse schemes. As for the IFR, it never performs better than the Reuse-1 in full-and
over-load situations, which means no substantial improvement occurs.
In conclusion, with the usage of the EFFR scheme, the medium can be more
effectively utilized, more flexibility as well as more robustness can be achieved, the
overall cell capacity is substantially improved, and the cell coverage is enlarged.
7.3
Outlook
This work is considered to be the basis for further research concerning radio resource
management (RRM) for ICI mitigation in OFDMA cellular systems. With regard to
that, the performance evaluation could be continued to investigate
- the impact of different CINR thresholds for the guest-reuse of the secondary
resources on the EFFR system performance,
- the system performance with the usage of the EFFR-Advanced and the EFFRBeyond scheme, and compare them with the original EFFR scheme,
- as well as the performance of all aforementioned schemes with non-uniform
distributed traffic (or user terminals) in each cell.
Moreover, the extension of approaches taking mobile user terminals into account
would be of great interest, which would allow studying the tradeoff between
frequency-selective scheduling (based on adjacent subchannels suitable for fixed
users) and interference-averaging operation (based on distributed subchannels proper
for mobile terminals). In addition, the research on local ICI coordination schemes in
collaboration with slow-dynamic global resource management (also be known as
adaptive fractional frequency reuse) to further optimize the utilization of limited
frequency resources, as addressed in Section 2.4, are also very desirable. ICI
mitigation in local (distributed) plus dynamic interference coordination among cells
(or BSs) with slow varying M to N ratio in the EFFR design may provide a feasible
optimal solution to attain both coverage and high spectral efficiency. Finally, future
work could also be directed to the combination of the frequency reuse schemes with
7.3 Outlook
151
the spatial reuse techniques to improve the network performance. An initial idea has
been mentioned at the end of Section 2.2. For example, frequency reuse approaches
would be particularly effective when combined with beamforming antennas, which
additionally allow the exploitation of spatial multiplexing and thus the transmission to
spatially separated terminals on the same frequency/time resources.
APPENDIX A
Simulation Environment Open Wireless Networks Simulator
Simulation Environment Open

Wireless Networks Simulator [36]*
A.1
A.2
A.1
Overview ..................................................................................................... 153

WiMAX MAC Layer ................................................................................. 158
Overview
The Open Wireless Network Simulator (OpenWNS), developed at ComNets, RWTH

Aachen University, is a sophisticated framework for event driven system level
simulation. The highly modular simulator for performance analysis of mobile radio
networks, written in C++, allows stochastic simulations based on prototypic protocol
implementations combined with a detailed channel model. Typically multi-cellular
scenarios with realistic interference, traffic models and propagation behavior are
simulated. The different ISO/OSI layers are configured as modules from the
application layer to the physical layer and radio channel due to the fact that the
modules can be exchanged according to the deployed approaches. Figure A.1 displays
the different modules of the OpenWNS and their corresponding ISO/OSI layers.
The OpenWNS provides modules for the following layers:
1. Multimedia load generator, e.g. voice, video, and web browsing
2. Transport Layer, e.g., TCP and UDP
3. Network Layer, IP
4. Radio Access Technology, including LLC, RLC, and MAC
5. Interference Calculation, including smart antennas and the link-to-system
interface
* The configuration files and the compilable simulator code used to gain the results presented in this thesis
are available for download from [37].
154
Figure A.1: The OpenWNS Modules and their corresponding OSI Layers.
To enable the fast and reliable development of new modules supporting the
performance evaluation of wireless networks, OpenWNS provides a set of support
libraries. The simulator finally consists of one or more modules being loaded at
runtime by the runtime environment. Each module has a specific task and roughly fits
into one of the five categories. The set of support libraries includes:
1. SPEETCL - SDL Performance Evaluation Tool Class Library A library
being used by all simulators that are implemented in the Specification and
Description Language (SDL). SPEETCL functionality currently in use by
non-SDL simulators is the event scheduler, probes, random number
generation, distributions and basic data types for communication protocols.
2. RISE - Radio Interference Simulation Engine A library supporting the
simulation of radio interference. Modules for interference calculation (like
OFDMAPhy) are based on this library. It provides the following models:
Stations (base, relay, mobile)
Transmitter and receiver
155
A.1 Overview
Transmission behavior
Propagation including shadowing and fading
Interference calculation
Mobility
Antennas
3. libWNS - the OpenWNS support library Among others, it features the

following functionality:
Module handling support
Logging system
Configuration facilities
Decorators for SPEETCL mechanisms including probes, probability

distributions and event queuing
Template based containers, extending those available in STL
Layer Development Kit (LDK) - The FUN based toolbox to model

different radio access technologies
The OpenWNS is an event-driven simulator, which means that the state of the whole
system is changed by discrete events like the transmission or reception of a data packet
or the beginning and ending of a frame. These events are organized by a superior
timing instance that keeps track of the simulation time and invokes all necessary
subroutines of the different modules at the time at which an event occurs. The
OpenWNS timing instance is called event scheduler.
A.1.1
FUN
A Functional Unit (FU) represents one functionality of a protocol within one ISO/OSI
layer. All the FUs of a layer form a Functional Unit Network (FUN).The most
fundamental requirement for FUs is the ability to handle data. A basic data unit that is
transmitted between FUs is denoted as a compound. FUs as part of a protocol stack
may receive compounds for processing before and after such a compound has been
transmitted over the air-interface. The first case is called outgoing data flow, while the
latter case is referred to as incoming data flow. Whenever a compound arrives at a FU,
the FU gains control over the compound. It then can realize different behaviors by
handling the compound accordingly. It may choose to mutate or drop the data unit,
buffer it, forward it to other FUs, or inject new compounds into the FUN.
156
The control information added by FUs is a so called command. A command can have
different characteristics for different purposes, like an information command or an
acknowledgment command for the ARQ. A FU is completely invisible to the FUs
above. Even underlying FUs do not need to have knowledge about the added
information by this FU. The only FU that is required to be able to handle this
command is the peer unit of this FU. The set containing all the commands of every FU
within a FUN is called command pool. The union of a data unit and a command pool
is denoted as a compound.
A.1.2
Configurability of the OpenWNS
The C++ programming language is utilized to implement the OpenWNS FUs. In

addition to C++, the Python programming language is applied in order to configure the
parameters. The Python code is applied to lightly change the settings of a simulation
campaign. The attributes of a Python class are passed on to the constructor of a C++
class. The idea behind using Python is the possibility of altering the behavior of the
OpenWNS without recompiling the C++ code.
A.1.3
Simulation Progress
The WNS-CORE is the only executable inside the OpenWNS; it serves as a module
loader to include other required modules. All modules are compiled as shared libraries
and accordingly loaded on demand during startup. Thereby, the two core libraries
SPEETCL and libWNS are included in every simulation. They provide various helper
functions and the fundamental classes for event-driven simulations with one global
timing. All simulators inside the OpenWNS are time-discrete and event-driven.
Simulations need the global time in order to control the chronological sequence of
events computed by the simulation.
A simulation possibly progresses as described in the following. Periodically, the load
generator of each station (UT/BS) generates an Internet Protocol (IP) data packet and
feeds it into the WiMAC protocol layer. Afterwards, the packet traverses several FUs
within the DLL FUN where several events are generated. When time for a certain
event is reached in the simulator the corresponding tasks will be executed immediately.
The creation of a new packet after a certain time by the load generator, the periodic
beginning of a new super-frame or frame respectively, as well as the transmission to a
certain time are events. When the packet leaves the DLL FUN of WiMAC after its
specific calculations, it is forwarded to the PHY module that performs an event-based
transmission to a certain time which is already determined within the WiMAC FUN
above.
A.1 Overview
157
When the simulation time has progressed and the time to conduct the transmission is
reached, the transmission event will be executed. This triggers the RISE module to add
the transmission to the set of currently active transmissions. Until the transmission is
finished, all other packets transmitted at the same time on the same frequency band
will experience the interference generated by the transmission. At this time RISE
models the channels behavior, e.g. interference, shadowing, mobility and path loss and
makes some calculations based on it.
As soon as the transmission is over, the RISE module will initiate the incoming packet
at the PHY service access points of the corresponding destination station. Evidently,
RISE can be regarded as the channel. The PHY module at the destination station will
then receive the CINR values and feed the packet to higher protocol functional units
what is consequently the PHY module.
The PHY module again possibly delivers the packet to the WiMAC until it reaches the
application layer of the corresponding station. Thus, the transmission is finished and
successfully transmitted packets can be used for calculations, like delay and
throughput.
A.1.4
Simulator and traffic model
The simulation flow in the internal simulation time: from time to time, the load
generator of each station generates an IP data packet and feeds it into the WiMAX
protocol layer using its SAP. From there, the packet traverses the different functional
units of the WiMAX data link layer until it eventually reaches a queue inside the
scheduler. When a new frame is started, the scheduler is triggered and packets from
the queue are scheduled. When the packet is scheduled, it is forwarded to the PHY
module that programs an event based on the transmissions start time determined by
the scheduler. When the simulation time has progressed to that start time, the event
will be generated. This triggers the RISE module to add the packets transmission to
the set of currently active transmissions in the scenario. Until the transmission is over,
all other packets transmitted at the same time on the same frequency band will
experience the interference generated by the transmission. This interference takes into
account the path loss and the antenna characteristics in form of the beam patterns.
Once the transmission is over, the RISE module will indicate the incoming packet at
the PHY access points of all stations. The PHY module at the destination station will
then retrieve the CINR values and indicate the packet to higher protocol functional
units. These, in turn, will then deliver it to the WiMAX SAP on top of the WiMAX
MAC layer where it is counted as throughput. The time elapsed since the packet has
passed the senders WiMAX SAP is counted as the packets delay [6].
158
A.2
WiMAX MAC Layer
Figure A.2: WiMAC Functional Unit Network representing the MAC layer at the BS [6].
Figure A.2 shows the structure of the BS FUN of the WiMAX MAC Layer (WiMAC).
The multimedia traffic generator, the transport and the network layer on top, as well as
the PHY layer including interference calculation below the WiMAC are not shown in
the figure. The WiMAC module can be separated into a Radio Link Control (RLC)
and a Medium Access Control (MAC) sublayer. The RLC sublayer is further
subdivided into a user plane, control plane and management plane [6].
A.2.1
User Plane
The user plane handles user data and performs the corresponding RLC layer
functionality such as classification of SDU to connections, QoS control, SAR, ARQ,
and flow control. The traffic generator requests data transmissions through the Data
Link Layer (DLL) SAP which directs SDUs to the upper convergence FU of the
A.2 WiMAX MAC Layer
159
station. There, the SDU enters the WiMAC. First, the header is prepended which
transforms an SDU into a PDU. The classifier FU identifies PDUs with the help of the
Connection Manager. The classifier marks the PDU with the CID that the connection
manager has reported. Depending on the CID the flow separator FU directs the PDU to
the corresponding buffer FU. The PDU stays in the buffer until the scheduler requests
a compound. Then, the respective PDU passes the SAR and the ARQ FUs.
Other FUs, e.g., the Synchronizer, or the ACK Switch are used for internal purposes,
such as flow control of compounds.
A.2.2
Medium Access Control
Access to the radio resource is controlled by the MAC. It offers transmission services
to the user plane as well as to the control plane. PDUs carrying user data and PDUs
carrying control information pass the CRC and the error modeling FUs. A CRC is
appended at the receiver to detect erroneous PDUs. Except for its higher priority, there
is no difference in the handling, transmission and reception of a control and a data
PDU.
The basic part of the WiMAC is the frame configuration framework, which is
composed of the frame builder and its corresponding FUs. Having passed the DL
scheduler, PDUs are sent through the respective timing node.
Incoming traffic takes the reverse path through the FUN. Payload PDUs go through
the error modeling FU which determines a Packet Error Ratio (PER) for each PDU
received. The CRC FU drops the PDU if a bit error has been detected. Finally, PDUs
carrying user data are forwarded to the user plane while PDUs carrying control
information are forwarded to the control plane.
APPENDIX B
Reference Scenario
Reference Scenario
B.1
B.2
B.1
Additional Simulation Results for NLOS DL .......................................... 161

Additional Simulation Results for NLOS UL .......................................... 163
Additional Simulation Results for NLOS DL
Figure B.1 shows the mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by the CCUs, the
CEUs as well as the weakest users, respectively. It can be seen that with the Reuse-3
scheme all kinds of UTs can obtain the best carrier single strength among all schemes.
For the CCUs, the SFR scheme is inferior to the other schemes, whereas for the CEUs
and the weakest users the carrier strength by using the Reuse-1 and IFR schemes
remains the worst. On the contrary, like in the LOS case, using the EFFR scheme, the
mean CCU carrier strength is similar to that using the Reuse-1 scheme, the mean CEU
carrier strength is close to which using the Reuse-3 scheme. And the mean weakest
user carrier is even almost identical to the Reuse-3 scheme.
ICI mitigation in a cellular system is the main tasks and discussion emphasis in this
thesis. Figure B.2 illustrates the mean DL interference level perceived by different
types of UTs with increasing offered traffic per user. Among all five investigated
schemes, all kinds of UTs (whether CCUs or CEUs or weakest users) using the Reuse3 schemes can be minimum interfered.
Compared to the mean CCU DL interference under LOS condition (refer to
Figure 6.5a), the ICI can be reduced by using the SFR scheme. In contrast, it cannot be
decreased but even increased under NLOS condition compared to the Reuse-1 scheme
(see Figure B.2a) at moderate and full traffic loads. Nonetheless, for the CEUs (see
Figure B.2b) and the weakest users (see Figure B.2c) the interference can be reduced
by around 1.5 dB.
In both LOS and NLOS scenarios, the EFFR scheme can reduce the ICI more
effectively than the SFR scheme for the CEUs, and tends to close to the Reuse-3
scheme (see Figure 6.5b and Figure B.2c). Moreover, the ICI decreasing amplitude
with both the SFR scheme and the EFFR scheme under NLOS condition is greater
than under LOS condition. Compared to the Reuse-1 and the IFR schemes, the EFFR
Appendix B
162
(c) Mean DL carrier perceived by weakest users

Figure B.1: Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of UTs versus offered traffic
per user under NLOS condition. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 220
m. The range ratio r/R of 0.6 for partitioning CCUs and CEUs is assumed. The weakest users are those
UTs located between 176 m and 220 m away from the BS (i.e., R'/R [0.8, 1]). And for both SFR
and EFFR schemes, the power ratio of high power level to low power level is set as 3. (a) Mean DL
carrier signal strength perceived by CCUs; (b) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by CEUs; (c)
Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by weakest users.
scheme degrades the mean CEU DL interference by 5 dB under NLOS condition,

while by 1.5 dB under LOS condition. The SFR scheme decreases it by 1.5 dB under
NLOS condition while 0.5 dB under LOS condition.
163
B.2 Additional Simulation Results for NLOS UL
(c) Mean DL interference perceived by weakest users

Figure B.2: Mean DL interference level perceived by different types of UTs versus offered traffic per
user under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) mean DL interference
level perceived by CCUs; (b) mean DL interference level perceived by CEUs; and (c) mean DL
interference level perceived by weakest users.
B.2
Additional Simulation Results for NLOS UL
The mean UL carrier strength perceived at the BS depending on increasing offered

traffic per user under NLOS condition is presented in Figure B.3. Since transmission
power affects the carrier signal strength, and SFR UTs send packets with more power
on each subchannel in UL than in DL, the received carrier signal strength are therewith
Appendix B
164
(a) Mean CCU UL carrier
(b) Mean CEU UL carrier
(c) Mean weakest user UL carrier

Figure B.3: Mean UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS versus offered traffic per user
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) mean CCU UL carrier
signal strength perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the
central BS; and (c) mean weakest user UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS.
increased by about 2 dB compared to DL (refer to Figure B.1). The mean carrier

strength of the other schemes keeps almost unchanged in UL.
Certainly, higher transmission power also generates more ICI among neighboring cells
in cellular systems. Thus, the mean CCU UL carrier strength using the SFR scheme, as
shown in Figure B.4a, is also increased by around 3 dB when comparing to DL
performance (refer to Figure B.2a). However, there is nearly no effect on the SFR
CEUs and its weakest users (see Figure B.4b and Figure B.4c). Another phenomenon
165
(c) Mean weakest user UL interference

Figure B.4: Mean UL interference level perceived at the central BS versus offered traffic per user
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) mean CCU UL interference
level perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL interference level perceived at the central BS; and
(c) mean weakest user UL interference level perceived at the central BS.
can be seen in the figures is that the UL interference levels of the other schemes are all
slightly decreased compared to the DL traffic, although the transmission power
distribution over their available bandwidth is unchanged. And in consequence, for the
CCUs, the EFFR has a close performance to the Reuse-1 and the IFR as expected,
whereas the SFR perceives a higher interference than all the other schemes; for the
CEUs and weakest users, the EFFR attains a close performance to the Reuse-3,
whereas the SFR scheme just like the IFR scheme cannot surpass the Reuse-1 scheme
in terms of the ICI mitigation.
Appendix B
166
(b) Mean weakest user UL CINR
(c) Mean CCU UL CINR
(d) Mean CEU UL CINR
Figure B.5: Mean UL CINR values perceived at the central BS as a function of offered traffic per user
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) mean overall UL CINR
values perceived at the central BS; (b) mean weakest user UL CINR perceived at the central BS; (c)
mean CCU UL CINR perceived at the central BS; as well as (d) mean CEU UL CINR perceived at the
central BS.
The overall mean UL CINR values perceived by the BS is displayed in Figure B.5a.
Like the LOS case, except the EFFR scheme, the other schemes have similar mean
CINR in DL and UL under NLOS condition. However, in LOS case the mean CINR
(refer to Figure 6.6a and Figure 6.13a) reaped by using the EFFR scheme is very close
to and sometimes even higher than with the Reuse-3 scheme, whereas in NLOS case
the EFFR mean CINR for both DL and UL (see Figure 6.18a and Figure B.5a) cannot
167
catch up with the Reuse-3 scheme any more. But it is still much better than with the
other schemes. For the SFR scheme, the weakest users of the SFR scheme (see
Figure B.5b) can even reach a mean UL CINR value of 6.7 dB, which is above the
require valid CINR threshold of 6.4 dB.
(a) Mean UL CCUs coverage percentage
(b) Mean UL CEUs coverage percentage
Figure B.6: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per
user under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) the corresponding
mean CCUs coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in UL traffic.
Figure B.6 presents the mean CCUs and CEUs coverage percentage of five frequency
reuse schemes versus offered traffic per user in NLOS UL. It can be noticed that the
mean CEUs coverage percentage (see Figure B.6b) by using the SFR is much higher in
UL than in DL by about 36% (refer to Figure 6.21d). This leads to a significantly
bettered overall cell coverage percentage, nonetheless, at the expense of sacrificing the
overall cell throughput (refer to Figure 6.23a and Figure 6.19a). Because of the
relatively higher power level for both CCUs and CEUs in UL SFR, its mean UL CINR
level of the CEUs (refer to Figure B.5c) is advanced while its CCU UL CINR level
(refer to Figure B.5d) is a little impaired. As a result, the performance of CEUs
including average throughput and coverage percentage by using the SFR scheme is
enhanced in UL (refer to Figure 6.23d and Figure 6.24d), but at the cost of reducing
the overall and the CCU UL throughput (refer to Figure 6.23a and c).
APPENDIX C
Impact of Range Ratio on System Performance
Impact of Range Ratio on System

Performance
C.1
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.5
C.1
Additional Simulation Results for LOS DL ............................................. 169

Performance in LOS UL ............................................................................ 170
Performance in NLOS DL ......................................................................... 176
Performance in NLOS UL ......................................................................... 182
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 185
Additional Simulation Results for LOS DL
Figure C.1: Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of UTs versus range ratio
r/R under LOS condition, which is defined as the zone radius for the CCUs r to the cell radius R. 25
UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 1000 m. Offered traffic per user of 500
kbps is assumed. And for both SFR and EFFR schemes, the power ratio of high power level to low
power level is set as 3. (a) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by CCUs; (b) Mean DL carrier
signal strength perceived by CEUs.
Appendix C
170
Figure C.1 gives the mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of
UTs versus range ratio r/R under LOS condition. For both CCUs and CEUs, the DL
carrier strength of all investigated schemes degrades with the increasing range ratio
r/R. Since the larger the range ratio r/R, the more UTs belongs to the CCUs and the
larger the CCU area is. That means the average distance between the BS and the CCUs
as well as that between the BS and the CEUs become farther away leading to
decreased carrier signal strength. Due to the interference-aware-reuse mechanism on
the Secondary Segment used in the EFFR scheme (refer to Section 4.1.2.2), the carrier
strength of the EFFR scheme stays constantly at about -81 dBm when the range ratio
r/R is greater than 0.4, whereas perceived carrier strength of the other schemes still
keep decreasing with the increasing range ratio r/R, see Figure C.1a.
Figure C.2: Mean DL interference level perceived by different types of UTs versus range ratio r/R
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean DL interference level
perceived by CCUs; (b) mean DL interference level perceived by CEUs.
In opposite to the carrier strength, the mean DL interference level for both CCUs and
CEUs of all investigated schemes upgrades with the increasing range ratio r/R, as
shown in Figure C.2. Among all, the interference level by using the SFR is influenced
by the range ratio more heavily than with the other schemes.
C.2
Performance in LOS UL
The mean carrier strength and interference level of different types of UTs experienced
at the BS for UL data stream are exhibited in Figure C.3 and Figure C.4 respectively,
which result in the mean CCU and CEU UL CINR levels as well as the corresponding
mean overall UL CINR as presented in Figure C.5.
171
C.2 Performance in LOS UL
Figure C.3: Mean UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS versus range ratio r/R under
LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) Mean CCU UL carrier signal
strength perceived at the central BS; (b) Mean CEU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central
BS.
Figure C.4: Mean UL interference level perceived at the central BS versus range ratio r/R under LOS
condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean CCU UL interference level
perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL interference level perceived at the central BS.
In comparison with the mean DL CINR values (refer to Figure 6.26), it can be seen
that all schemes own similar CINR performances in UL and DL. The deviation of the
EFFR scheme with various M to N combinations arises from different resource
scheduling applied on the reuse-1 subchannels in the Primary Segment for the
Appendix C
172
Figure C.5: Mean UL CINR values perceived at the central BS depending on range ratio r/R under
LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean overall UL CINR values
perceived at the central BS; (b) the corresponding mean CCU UL CINR values perceived at the central
BS; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU DL CINR values perceived at the central BS.
downstream and upstream transmissions. In DL, PF combined with interferenceaware-mechanism is applied on all reuse-1 subchannels, whereas in UL the same
resource scheduling is only used on the reuse-1 subchannels in the Secondary Segment.
In order to attain relatively stable and accurate CINR estimation for the reuse-1
subchannels in the Secondary Segment in UL, the maximum throughput strategy is
carried out on the reuse-1 subchannels in the Primary Segment.
173
Figure C.6: Mean UL MAC throughput under LOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the
same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean
CCU UL throughput; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU UL throughput.
Figure C.6a displays the average overall cell capacity for uplinks as a function of the
range ratio r/R under LOS propagation. Like in DL, the EFFR scheme can provide a
remarkable improvement on the overall cell capacity. And it outperforms all the other
schemes in every situation, regardless of with which M to N combination. The
performance of the SFR scheme is strongly influenced by the range ratio. With an
inappropriate choice of the range ratio, its performance will be severely deteriorated,
whereas using EFFR the cell capacities do not vary so drastic under different range
Appendix C
174
ratios. As a consequence, the proposed EFFR design can gain more robustness than the
SFR scheme.
Figure C.6b and c give the corresponding CCU and CEU mean throughput depending
on the range ratio r/R. When comparing to the DL throughput performance, all
investigated schemes have similar behavior in UL and DL. Yet their UL throughput is
somewhat lower than in DL. This results mainly from two reasons. One is because the
UL phases in total are 9 OFDMA symbols shorter than the DL phases in each
Figure C.7: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean overall UL cell
corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in UL traffic.
175
superframe. The other reason causing the difference between the UL and the DL is due
to the different constraint of transmission power for the BS and the UTs. In all
scenarios in this chapter, a constant total system transmission power is assumed, and
thereby each UT has a maximal transmission power of 200 mW as described in
Section 6.1.5.2. That means in the SFR or the EFFR design each CCU may maximal
use three reuse-1 subchannels simultaneously and each CEU is however allowed to
occupy maximal one reuse-3 subchannel. Likewise, UTs in the IFR and Reuse-1 can
be assigned maximal three subchannels concurrently, whereas using the Reuse-3
scheme each UT cannot utilize more than one subchannel at the same time to transmit
packets.
The similar CINR performance in DL and UL (refer to Figure 6.26 and Figure C.5) is
also reflected in the similar cell coverage performance in DL and UL. Figure C.7
illustrates the mean DL overall cell coverage and the corresponding coverage
percentage of CCUs and CEUs depending on range ratio r/R under LOS condition. It
can be seen that the overall UL cell coverage percentage applying the EFFR scheme is
larger than using the SFR, the IFR and the Reuse-1 schemes when the range ratio is
r/R < 0.8 (see Figure C.7a). Even if the range ratio r/R = 0.8 is chosen, the overall UL
cell capacity can be enhanced by the EFFR scheme and higher than with any of the
other schemes (refer to Figure C.6a), although its cell coverage performance is close to
the Reuse-1 scheme. Moreover, when the range ratio is r/R < 0.4, both cell coverage
and cell capacity of the EFFR scheme are the best among all schemes. In contrast, with
the SFR scheme, the cell coverage and the cell capacity can also be significantly
improved compared to the Reuse-1 with the range ratio r/R < 0.5. Nevertheless, when
a range ratio r/R > 0.5 is chosen, both its cell coverage and cell capacity deteriorate
Figure C.8: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range
ratio r/R under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1.
Appendix C
176
sharply and become the worst among all reuse schemes.
In the end, the corresponding mean UL cell spectral efficiency of all five frequency
reuse schemes depending on range ratios under LOS propagation is shown in
Figure C.8. The results indicates that the proposed EFFR scheme has substantial
superiority over the SFR, the IFR as well as the Reuse-1 schemes, and even slightly
better than the Reuse-3 scheme when the range ratio is r/R < 0.5.
Taking all evaluated performance into consideration (refer to Figure C.6a, Figure C.7a
and Figure C.8), it can be concluded that with a range ratio r/R < 0.5 the EFFR scheme
outperforms all the other schemes in LOS UL, and can gain not only considerable
profits in the overall cell capacity, but also the best cell coverage percentage and the
best cell spectral efficiency.
C.3
Performance in NLOS DL
The subsequent two subsections present and compare the performance of all the
investigated frequency reuse solutions for ICI mitigation under NLOS condition,
where the path loss coefficient is nearly two times higher than under LOS
propagation (see Eq. (5.29)). Different affects caused by range ratio definitions in
comparison with that under LOS condition will be disclosed. Again, 25 UTs are
evenly placed in each cell but with a cell radius of 220 m, which might be the valid
maximal cell radius for the EFFR and the Reuse-3 schemes under NLOS condition
derived from Section 5.3 and has been confirmed in Subsections 6.2.1.3 and 6.2.1.4.
Same as in the Reference Scenario, besides the overall cell performance and the
performance of difference types of UTs, the weakest user performance will also be
evaluated in NLOS case. And the weakest users are those UTs located from 176 m to
220 m away from the BS, which means 4 of 25 UTs belongs to the weakest users
(refer to Table 6.4).
Figure C.9 illustrates the mean DL CINR performance of all investigated frequency
reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R under NLOS condition. Different to the LOS DL
situation, the mean overall DL CINR values of all five schemes are above the required
CINR threshold of 6.4 dB as shown in Figure C.9a, although the overall CINR of the
SFR is inferior to the Reuse-1 and IFR schemes with range ratio r/R 0.7. Even so,
the SFR CEUs cannot get a valid CINR when a range ratio r/R > 0.6 is chosen, and the
mean CINR perceived by its weakest users even does not keep gut enough when the
range ratio is r/R > 0.4. In contrast, with the EFFR scheme, the overall CINR retains
stable above the required threshold with any range ratio assumption located between
the Reuse-3 and Reuse-1 curves. Simultaneously, it can provide sufficient CINR for
177
C.3 Performance in NLOS DL
all UTs whether CCUs or CEUs or weakest users. That is to say, the ubiquity of user
throughput covering the whole cell surface area can be achieved.
Figure C.9: Mean overall DL CINR values and the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived
by different types of UTs depending on range ratio r/R under NLOS condition. 25 users are uniformly
distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 220 m. The weakest users are those users located between
176 m and 220 m away from the BS (i.e., R'/R = [0.8 1]). Offered traffic per user of 500 kbps is
assumed. And for both SFR and EFFR schemes, the power ratio of high power level to low power
level is set as 3. (a) Mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the corresponding mean DL CINR values
perceived by weakest users; (c) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs; as well
as (d) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CEUs.
Appendix C
178
Figure C.10: Mean DL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the
same environment as in Figure C.9: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding
weakest user DL throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU DL throughput; as well as (d) the
corresponding mean CEU DL throughput.
The resulting mean DL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on range
ratio is presented in Figure C.10. In general, the overall cell capacity of all reuse
schemes under NLOS propagation (see Figure C.10a) is much higher than in LOS case
(refer to Figure 6.27a). But the enhancement with the EFFR under NLOS condition is
not as great as under the LOS in comparison with the static Reuse schemes. For
example, the EFFR scheme with an M to N combination of 5:5 provides am best
around 26% overall throughput benefits compared to the Reuse-3 and around 63%
179
compared to the Reuse-1, whereas it reaps an immense increase of approximately

131% over the Reuse-3 and approximately 255% over the Reuse-1. However, under
NLOS condition the UTs close to cell border (i.e. weakest users, see Figure C.10b) of
the EFFR can be served, whilst for the LOS DL this is not the case.
With a range ratio r/R 0.6, the EFFR scheme can offer a stable overall cell capacity.
And it outperforms the Reuse-3 regardless of with which M to N combination.
Moreover, it can be observed that the more numbers of the reuse-1 subchannels N
invested for the CCUs, the more profits in the overall system capacity can be achieved.
Nonetheless, with a further increase of the CCU-zone the cell capacity decreases,
which arises from the improvement of the CEUs (including the weakest users)
performance at the sacrifice of the interests of the CCUs, as shown in Figure C.10b, c
and d.
With respect to the SFR scheme, it only performs better than the Reuse-3 when the
range ratio is 0.4 r/R 0.6 in terms of overall cell capacity. And its performance is
very unstable with different range ratios. It can be noted that the range ratio has a great
impact on the performance, and with an inappropriate choice the performance of the
SFR can be severely damaged. The results show that with r/R 0.5, the CCUs perform
very well due to the sufficiency of the available bandwidth (20 subchannels).
Nevertheless, the improvement on the CEUs is very limited compared to the Reuse-1
scheme. This is because the SFR CEUs are still vulnerable and grievously interfered
by the concurrent CCU transmissions in the adjacent cells, even though higher power
is used on them. And when the range ratio is r/R 0.3, only few UTs are defined as
CCUs who can use the 20 inclusive reuse-1 subchannels, but most of the UTs as the
CEUs are just allowed to utilized the remaining 10 subchannels, which results in both
lower overall cell throughput and lower CEU throughput. Even when the range ratio is
r/R = 0.5, the overall system capacity of the SFR attains its best performance, its
weakest users cannot be served at all and its CEUs performance stays unimproved
compared to the Reuse-1. Further when the range ratio is r/R > 0.5, not only cell
capacity but also mean CCU throughput degrade rapidly, and the cell coverage cannot
be kept any more (the user near to the cell border have no throughput as shown in
Figure C.10b). This effect implies an inappropriate range ratio definition in SFR not
only results in a wasting of precious resources (including spectrum and power), but
also yields excessive ICI to the reuse-1 UTs in the neighboring cells. And when a
range ratio r/R 0.7 is chosen, the overall cell capacity becomes even worse than with
the Reuse-1 scheme.
In contrast, the EFFR bases on ensuring the performance of the CEUs like which with
the Reuse-3, promotes the performance of the CCUs by peeling off part resources
from the reuse-3 resources to lunch into the reuse-1 utilization. As a consequence, the
Appendix C
180
average cell capacity is enhanced due to the increase of available bandwidth while
retaining lower ICI at the cell edge.
The weakest user throughput performance displayed in Figure C.10b can indirectly
reflect the cell coverage performance of all investigated schemes, though Figure C.11
can give more explicit and more detailed coverage percentage depending on various
range ratio definitions. The results show that the Reuse-3 can provide 100% cell
Figure C.11: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.9: (a) mean overall DL cell
DL traffic.
181
coverage under NLOS condition, whilst that is not the case under LOS condition. And
with the proposed EFFR scheme, its mean CCU coverage percentage always coincides
with the Reuse-1 (see Figure C.11c), whereas its mean CEU (including the weakest
users) coverage percentage is very close to that using the Reuse-3 scheme (see
Figure C.11d and b). This leads to a consequence as shown in Figure C.11a that the
range ratio should not be larger than 0.6 so that an approximately 100% cell coverage
can be ensured.
As for the SFR, only with a range ratio r/R 0.2 all UTs can be successful served.
This is due to the fact that the range ratio r/R 0.2 means maximal 1 CCU defined in
each cell, which results in very few ICI generated for the neighboring simultaneous
CEU and CCU transmissions. In the same way, its CEUs perceive also very few ICI
from the concurrent CCU transmissions in the neighborhood, and have a similar
environment to the UTs using the Reuse-3. However, as mentioned before, the cell
coverage performance should be observed combined with the achievable cell
throughput performance. From the results in Figure C.10a, with a range ratio r/R 0.3,
the SFR throughput performance cannot exceed the Reuse-3 scheme. Only with a
range ratio definition of 0.4 r/R 0.6, the SFR can reap a better throughput
performance than both static Reuse schemes. Nevertheless, its cell coverage
percentage performance in these cases can only surpass the Reuse-1, but inferior to the
cell coverage performance with the Reuse-3 and the proposed EFFR scheme. This
denotes that the increase in system capacity comes at the expense of cell coverage
reduction due to increased ICI, which severely impacts CEU coverage percentage and
throughput performance. Besides, with an inappropriate range ratio definition, for
example r/R 0.7, neither its cell coverage performance nor its cell capacity
Figure C.12: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range
ratio r/R under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.9.
Appendix C
182
performance can even match the Reuse-1. On the contrary, the proposed EFFR scheme
never performs worse than the Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme with any range ratio
definition.
Lastly, the average DL cell spectral efficiency of all investigated frequency reuse
schemes depending on range ratio definitions is exhibited in Figure C.12. Different to
that under LOS propagation, the EFFR scheme can never be superior to the Reuse-3
scheme under NLOS condition. And EFFR with different M to N combinations
achieves close cell spectral efficiency performance. But, they still evidently gain the
advantage over the SFR, the IFR and the Reuse-1 scheme. Comparing the EFFR and
the Reuse-3 system, a tradeoff between a reduced cell spectral efficiency and the
achieved cell capacity improvement occurs. Furthermore, as mentioned in Section
6.2.1.3, the system spectral efficiency of Reuse-3 can just reach 1/3 of its cell spectral
efficiency, and the system spectral efficiency of the EFFR scheme is also lower than
its cell spectral efficiency (53.3% of its cell spectral efficiency with EFFR 7:3, 60%
with EFFR 6:4, 66.7% with EFFR 5:5, and 73.3% with EFFR 4:6, respectively).
Hence, actually, the system spectral efficiency by using the EFFR schemes (except
M:N = 7:3) can surpass that with the Reuse-3 scheme, and the EFFR 4:6 can even
outperform all the other schemes, including the SFR and the Reuse-3 shemes.
C.4
Performance in NLOS UL
In Figure C.13, the mean UL MAC throughput of different types of UTs depending on
range ratios is presented. The results in Figure C.13a show that the EFFR scheme can
also provide a remarkable improvement on the overall cell capacity in UL, and it
outperforms all the other schemes in every situation regardless of with which M to N
combination. A little different to the DL is that all performances of the EFFR with
various M to N combinations stay relatively closer with each other.
The SFR can also enhance the system throughput in comparison with the static Reuse
schemes and the IFR scheme until the range ratio r/R < 0.6 is chosen. Nevertheless, it
cannot compare favorably with the EFFR scheme except with the range ratio r/R = 0.5.
And when a range ratio r/R larger than 0.5 is chosen, its performance deteriorates so
drastically that it starts inferior to the Reuse-3 when r/R 0.6, and even worse than the
Reuse-1 when r/R > 0.7. Even so, when comparing the SFR performance in DL (refer
to Figure C.10), its CEU and weakest user performance in UL are better than in DL
due to application of higher transmission power level on them. And although they
cannot come up with which using the EFFR scheme in every situation, they apparently
surpass the CEU and weakest user performance with the Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme.
183
C.4 Performance in NLOS UL
Figure C.13: Mean UL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the
same environment as in Figure C.9: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding
weakest user UL throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU UL throughput; as well as (d) the
corresponding mean CEU UL throughput.
Not only the throughput performance but also the coverage percentage performance of
the SFR CEUs and weakest users are in UL better than in DL (see Figure C.14b and d,
and compared to Figure C.11b and d). And that finally results in a better overall UL
cell coverage percentage as shown in Figure C.14a. But it is still worse than using the
EFFR scheme and the Reuse-3. Yet the gap is reduced in UL.
Appendix C
184
(c) Mean UL CCUs coverage percentage
(d) Mean UL CEUs coverage percentage
Figure C.14: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.9: (a) mean overall UL cell
UL traffic.
The EFFR overall cell coverage performance in UL is also slightly better than in DL.
It can even ensure a 100% cell coverage until r/R = 0.6. However, with further
enlarging the range ratio, some of its CCUs cannot transmit data to the BS successfully
(see Figure C.14c). As a consequence, considering combined with the overall cell
throughput, the range ratio r/R = 0.6 should be the maximum adequate value for the
EFFR scheme in both UL and DL.
C.5 Conclusion
185
Figure C.15: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range
ratio r/R under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.9.
Figure C.15 exhibits the corresponding average cell spectral efficiency of all
investigated reuse schemes under NLOS condition in UL. Like in DL, the Reuse-3 can
always reap the best cell spectral efficiency, and the EFFR gains the second best place.
The SFR scheme can just beat the Reuse-1 and the IFR scheme until r/R = 0.7.
C.5
Conclusion
In this appendix, additional performance estimation in terms of carrier signal,

interference level, CINR, MAC throughput, coverage percentage as well as cell
spectral efficiency of all investigated frequency reuse schemes depending on range
ratio under both LOS and NLOS condition is presented and elucidated. The results in
this appendix and in Section 6.2.2 show that with the EFFR scheme not only the
system performance but also the CEU performance is able to be substantially
enhanced for both DL and UL with any propagation condition. Furthermore, with
respect to range ratio definition for dividing CCU-zone and CEU-zone, the proposed
EFFR scheme can provide more flexibility and robustness than the SFR scheme.
Under LOS propagation, the EFFR scheme except for the M to N combination of 8:2
in DL but with any M to N combination in UL can provide the best system capacity,
the second best (but very close to the best) cell coverage percentage as well as the best
spectral efficiency with a range ratio r/R 0.4. Under NLOS propagation with a range
ratio r/R 0.6, the EFFR surpasses the static Reuse schemes and the IFR scheme in
DL cell capacity, and ensure more than 95% overall cell coverage, as well as provides
second best average DL cell spectral efficiency, whereas in UL it can even provide the
186
Appendix C
best cell capacity among all schemes, 100% cell coverage as well as second best cell
spectral efficiency. Thus, it can be concluded that the EFFR scheme is the best
solution among all five investigated frequency reuses schemes for mitigating ICI, with
which the precious resources can be more effectively utilized, and a good tradeoff
among cell capacity, cell coverage and cell spectral efficiency is made.
APPENDIX D
Impact of Power Ratio on System Performance
Impact of Power Ratio on System

Performance
D.1
D.2
D.3
D.4
D.1
Performance in LOS UL ............................................................................ 187

Performance in NLOS DL ......................................................................... 193
Performance in NLOS UL ......................................................................... 198
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 201
Performance in LOS UL
Since a fixed UT maximal transmission power of 200 mW is assumed and each CEU
is allowed to send packets with its full power, the only difference between DL and UL
is therefore that each type of UTs in SFR and EFFR has the same power allocation
(refer to Table 6.5 and Table 6.6). Therewith the influence on the performance caused
by the ICI difference between inclusive reuse and exclusive reuse can be disclosed.
And the ICI mitigation efficiency by using the SFR scheme and the EFFR scheme can
be easily compared.
Figure D.1 exhibits the mean UL carrier strength perceived at the central BS versus
power ratio Phigh/Plow under LOS condition. As CCUs and CEUs in the SFR transmit
with the same power as they in the EFFR, a close carrier performance can be achieved
by the both RUP techniques. The performance difference among the SFR scheme and
the EFFR scheme with various M to N combinations is due to 2 factors. One is that a
slight difference in the resource assignment and scheduling process exists for the SFR
scheme and the EFFR scheme. In order to attain more precise channel quality
estimation and at the same time not lose fairness among UTs, in the EFFR the reuse-1
subchannels in the Primary Segment are allocated to UTs using the maximum
throughput strategy, while the other subchannels (including the remaining reuse-3
subchannels in the Primary Segment and the reuse-1 subchannels in the Secondary
Segment) are distributed to UTs using the PF scheduling strategy. In the SFR, however,
only PF strategy is used. Another factor causes difference in the carrier performance
between the SFR scheme and the EFFR scheme is that an interference-aware-reuse
mechanism is applied in the Secondary Segment in the EFFR design, whereas plain
reuse without CQI estimation is used in the SFR scheme.
Appendix D
188
Figure D.1: Mean UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS versus power ratio of high
power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition, having
the same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) Mean CCU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the
central BS; (b) Mean CEU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS.
Figure D.2: Mean UL interference level perceived at the central BS versus power ratio of high power
level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition, having the
same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean CCU UL interference level perceived at the central BS;
(b) mean CEU UL interference level perceived at the central BS.
Figure D.2 illustrates the corresponding mean UL interference level of different types
of UTs experienced at the BS. Here a clear ICI difference caused by using inclusive
reuse and exclusive reuse is exposed. For the CCUs, with reduced transmission power
the UL ICI in the EFFR decreases quickly, whereas that is not the case in the SFR.
189
D.1 Performance in LOS UL
Hence, with a power ratio Phigh/Plow starting from 2 the UL ICI using the EFFR is
much lower than using the SFR. This results in the a lot better CCU UL CINR value of
the EFFR compared to the SFR scheme, as shown in Figure D.3b. With a power ratio
Phigh/Plow > 4, the BS of the SFR cannot perceive a valid CINR level of 6.4 dB any
more. For the CEUs (see Figure D.2b), with reduced power for the concurrent CCU-
Figure D.3: Mean UL CINR values perceived at the central BS depending on power ratio of high
the same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean overall UL CINR values perceived at the central BS;
(b) the corresponding mean CCU UL CINR values perceived at the central BS; and (c) the
corresponding mean CEU DL CINR values perceived at the central BS.
Appendix D
190
transmissions in the neighboring cells the UL ICI in the SFR decreases, nevertheless, it
still much higher than using the EFFR scheme. This results in inferior CEU CINR
values of the SFR scheme, which is invalid until when the power ratio Phigh/Plow is
larger than 9, as shown in Figure D.3c. Taking a look at both Figure D.3b and c, all
kinds of UTs using the EFFR can always provide valid transmissions regardless with
which power ratio, whereas using the SFR design it is never the case that the BS can
Figure D.4: Mean UL MAC throughput under LOS condition depending on power ratio of high power
level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes in the same environment as in
Figure 6.30: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean CCU UL throughput;
and (c) the corresponding mean CEU UL throughput.
191
D.1 Performance in LOS UL
receive valid packets from both CCUs and CEUs. As a consequence, with the EFFR
scheme the UL CINR performance is always above the required CINR threshold of 6.4
dB and very close to the Reuse-3 performance (see Figure D.3a), whereas using the
SFR scheme its UL CINR performance decreases with increasing power ratio and
cannot hold valid in most cases, although it is much better than the Reuse-1
performance.
Figure D.5: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus power ratio of high
the same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean overall UL cell coverage percentage; (b) the
corresponding mean CCUs coverage percentage; as well as (c) the corresponding mean CEUs
coverage percentage in UL traffic.
192
Appendix D
The UL CINR performance and the available bandwidth of each investigated scheme
determine its UL throughput performance, as shown in Figure D.4. In general, the
EFFR scheme can provide a remarkable improvement on the overall UL cell
throughput (see Figure D.4a). The SFR scheme, however, can only surpass the Reuse1 and the IFR scheme with any power ratio. But, it can never exceed the EFFR scheme,
which is unlike the DL, although they apply identical power allocation for their UTs
and the SFR even has more available bandwidth than the EFFR. When a power ratio
Phigh/Plow > 4 is chosen, the SFR performs even inferior to the Reuse-3, although the
SFR owns triple available bandwidth than the Reuse-3 scheme.
Detailed observation in terms of mean UL throughput of a CCU and a CEU are
presented in Figure D.4b and c. Figure D.4b shows that the SFR scheme performs
even worse than the Reuse-1 when a power ratio Phigh/Plow > 6 is chosen, which favors
the SFR CEUs so that they can come up to the EFFR CEU throughput performance as
shown in Figure D.4c. The EFFR scheme, by contrast, can always provide a fairly
good performance whether in overall or in different types of UTs respect.
The superiority by applying the EFFR scheme is not only reflected in the mean
throughput but also in the cell coverage percentage. Figure D.5 illustrates the mean UL
overall cell coverage and the corresponding coverage percentage of CCUs and CEUs
depending on power ratio Phigh/Plow under LOS condition. For the CCUs, unlike the
DL, the EFFR scheme gains a close performance to the Reuse-3 scheme of around
95%, and never performs inferior to the Reuse-1. The SFR, by comparison, can only
hold a better performance than the Reuse-1 with a power ratio Phigh/Plow < 3, which is
the outcome of excessive ICI from neighboring cells (refer to Figure D.2a) due to its
Figure D.6: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on power
ratio of high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS
condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.30.
D.2 Performance in NLOS DL
193
inherent but adversely inclusive RUP design. For the CEUs (see Figure D.5c), though
the SFR gains quite well in advance of the Reuse-1 scheme, it is much inferior to the
EFFR performance, which is almost identical with the Reuse-3 performance. As a
consequence (see Figure D.5a), the EFFR and the Reuse-3 provide similar UL overall
cell coverage performance, and gain a dominated advantage compared to the other
schemes.
Finally, the mean UL cell spectral efficiency of all five frequency reuse schemes
depending on power ratio under LOS propagation is given in Figure D.6. It can be
seen that the EFFR scheme outperforms all the other schemes except the point that the
power ratio Phigh/Plow equals 1, regardless of with which M to N combination.
Making a survey of all performance evaluations in respect of power allocation under
LOS condition, it can be concluded that the EFFR scheme is more flexible and stable
than the SFR scheme, and can gain decent performance at the same time including cell
capacity, cell coverage percentage as well as cell spectral efficiency. Furthermore, it
provides substantial improvements not only on the overall performance but also on the
performance of different types of UTs.
D.2
Performance in NLOS DL
Like in Section 6.2.1 and in Appendix C, the performance of all the investigated
frequency reuse solutions depending on power ratio under NLOS condition is revealed
in the following two subsections. According to the analysis results presented in
Section 5.3, the maximum valid reach by using the Reuse-1 scheme is 0.6 R under
NLOS condition. Hence, the range ratio r/R of 0.6 to divide UTs into CCUs and CEUs
for the SFR scheme and the EFFR scheme is chosen for NLOS simulations. That is to
say, among 25 UTs, 12 UTs are CCUs and the remaining 13 UTs are CEUs.
Figure D.7 displays the mean DL CINR performance depending on power ratio
Phigh/Plow used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under NLOS condition. It can be
seen that using the EFFR scheme the mean DL CINR perceived by the CCUs is close
to the Reuse-1 CCU performance (see Figure D.7c), whereas its DL CINR
performance perceived by CEUs and weakest users upgrades gradually close to the
Reuse-3 performance with increasing power ratio Phigh/Plow (see Figure D.7d). But,
since range ratio r/R of 0.6 is assumed, the number of the CCUs and the CEUs is
nearly equivalent, which leads to the mean EFFR overall DL CINR not as good as the
Reuse-3 performance, but much better than the Reuse-1 performance (see Figure D.7a).
Moreover, in comparison with the SFR, the EFFR CINR performance retains
relatively stable with increasing power ratio Phigh/Plow and always above the required
CINR threshold of 6.4 dB, no matter perceived by which type of UTs.
Appendix D
194
For the SFR scheme, although its mean overall DL CINR and its mean DL CCU CINR
are above the valid CINR threshold with any assumed power ratio, the most remote
Figure D.7: Mean overall DL CINR values and the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived
by different types of UTs depending on power ratio of high power level to low power level used for
the SFR and the EFFR schemes under NLOS condition. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell
with a cell radius of 220 m. Offered traffic per user of 500 kbps is assumed. The range ratio r/R of 0.6
for partitioning CCUs and CEUs is assumed, and the weakest users are those UTs located between 176
m and 220 m away from the BS (i.e., R'/R [0.8, 1]). (a) Mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the
corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by weakest users; (c) the corresponding mean DL
CINR values perceived by CCUs; as well as (d) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived
by CEUs.
195
UTs cannot receive valid CINR values until power ratio Phigh/Plow 6, as shown in
Figure D.7b. But on the other hand, higher power ratio causes higher ICI and thereby
lower received CINR level for the CCUs. The CINR gain for CEUs cannot
compensate the CINR loss for CCUs, which results in lower mean overall CINR very
close to that using the Reuse-1 when the power ratio is Phigh/Plow 6.
Figure D.8: Mean DL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on power ratio of high
power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes in the same environment as in
Figure D.7: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding weakest user DL throughput;
(c) the corresponding mean CCU DL throughput; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEU DL
throughput.
Appendix D
196
The key object of investigating RUP techniques is to improve cell-edge performance

while retaining system spectrum efficiency of reuse-1. Figure D.8 exhibits the mean
DL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on power ratio. From the
results it can be seen that the SFR can substantially advance the CEU performance
Figure D.9: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus power ratio of high
power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under NLOS condition,
having the same environment as in Figure D.7: (a) mean overall DL cell coverage percentage; (b) the
corresponding weakest users coverage percentage; (c) the corresponding mean CCUs coverage
percentage; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in DL traffic.
197
(see Figure D.8d) and the most remote use performance (see Figure D.8b) when the
power ratio is Phigh/Plow 5. And at the same time it can hold the overall cell
throughput performance similar to using the Reuse-3 and better than the Reuse-1
performance. The EFFR scheme, by comparison, performs better than the SFR. No
matter with which power ratio, the EFFR can considerably enhance both the CEUs
performance as well as the overall cell throughput. Furthermore, among all four M to
N combinations, the EFFR with M to N combination of 5:5 and 4:6 are better than with
the other two combinations, as they can maintain the mean CCU throughput higher
than using the Reuse-1 while the mean CEU performance close to the Reuse-3
performance, which leads to the overall cell throughput significantly higher than with
both static Reuse schemes in every situation.
Figure D.9 displays the mean overall cell coverage percentage and the corresponding
mean coverage percentage of different types of UTs depending on power ratio
Phigh/Plow in NLOS DL. Like under LOS condition, the EFFR scheme performs much
better than the SFR. Moreover, the CEU coverage performance of all investigated
schemes under NLOS propagation is better than under LOS condition.
The EFFR scheme by contrast can achieve a 100% CCUs coverage when the power
ratio Phigh/Plow does not exceed 7, whereas its mean CEU (including the weakest users)
coverage percentage is always very close to that using the Reuse-3 scheme, and almost
all CEUs can be successful served.
Figure D.10: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on
power ratio of high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under
NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure D.7.
In the end, the average DL cell spectral efficiency of all investigated frequency reuse
schemes as a function of power ratio Phigh/Plow is illustrated in Figure D.10. Different
Appendix D
198
to that under LOS propagation, the cell spectral efficiency performance of the EFFR
scheme is inferior to that with the Reuse-3 scheme under NLOS condition. Even
through, it is still much better than using the Reuse-1, and increases with increasing
power ratio, whereas using the SFR scheme the average DL cell spectral efficiency is
just slightly enhanced compared to the Reuse-1 and reduces with increasing power
ratio.
As a conclusion, in NLOS DL case, the utilization of both SFR and EFFR schemes
allows substantial performance improvements for wireless broadband systems in
multi-cellular deployments. Nevertheless, the SFR system performance is more
susceptible to the power ratio definition, whereas the EFFR design can provide more
robustness and flexible than the SFR scheme in this respect. Moreover, much more
enhancement can be gained with the application of the EFFR scheme than using the
SFR scheme in terms of overall cell capacity, CEU throughput, overall cell coverage
as well as cell spectral efficiency. In the concrete, the above presented results show
that the power ratio Phigh/Plow of 7 is the best choice for the SFR systems, where it
reaps an increase in overall cell throughput by about 33%, in mean CEU throughput by
150%, in overall cell coverage by about 56% and in cell spectral efficiency by around
33%. With the EFFR scheme, the M to N combination of 5:5 and 4:6 are better than
the other combinations, and any of the power ratio Phigh/Plow 7 is adequate to achieve
around 67% gains in overall cell throughput, more than 150% benefits in mean CEU
throughput, 100% cell coverage as well as approximately 167% profits in cell spectral
efficiency.
D.3
Performance in NLOS UL
Like in LOS UL scenario, CEUs in both SFR system and EFFR system send packets
with their full power of 200 mW. Hence, power allocation for both CEUs and CCUs in
an EFFR system is as same as that in a SFR system. Specific power allocation for
CCUs and CEUs with varying power ratios can be found in Table 6.5 and Table 6.6,
respectively.
In Figure D.11, the mean overall UL cell throughput and the corresponding mean UL
MAC throughput of different types of UTs as a function of power ratio are exhibited.
It can be seen that the EFFR scheme regardless of with which M to N combination
outperforms both static Reuse schemes in terms of overall cell throughput and mean
CCU throughput in every situation, whilst its mean CEU and weakest user throughput
keep close to the Reuse-3 throughput performance, which is the best among all
schemes.
199
D.3 Performance in NLOS UL
Figure D.11: Mean UL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the
same environment as in Figure D.7: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding
weakest user UL throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU UL throughput; as well as (d) the
corresponding mean CEU UL throughput.
Figure D.12 displays the mean overall cell coverage percentage and the corresponding
mean coverage percentage of different types of UTs depending on power ratio
Phigh/Plow in NLOS UL. Different to the DL case, applying the SFR scheme all UTs
near the cell rand can successfully send packets to their BS when Phigh/Plow 8 (see
Figure D.12b). Nonetheless, in these situations the BS can receive valid packets from
only less than 60% of the CCUs (see Figure D.12c), which causes the overall UL cell
coverage less than 80%. The results in Figure D.12a show that the SFR reaches its best
Appendix D
200
(c) Mean UL CCUs coverage percentage
(d) Mean UL CEUs coverage percentage
Figure D.12: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure D.7: (a) mean overall UL cell
UL traffic.
UL cell coverage performance of around 84% when Phigh/Plow = 5. And in this case,
neither CCUs nor CEUs can attain full coverage percentage. The EFFR scheme by
contrast performs much better than the SFR. It can be seen that 100 % overall UL cell
coverage can be achieved by using the EFFR scheme with any power ratio selection.
D.4 Conclusion
201
Figure D.13: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range
ratio r/R under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure D.7.
Finally, the average UL cell spectral efficiency of all investigated frequency reuse
schemes as a function of power ratio Phigh/Plow under NLOS condition is exhibited in
Figure D.13. Like in DL, the Reuse-3 can always reap the best cell spectral efficiency.
The EFFR gains the second best place and immense improve the performance
compared to the Reuse-1 and IFR scheme. In contrast, the SFR scheme also
outperforms the Reuse-1, yet its contribution cannot rival the EFFR scheme.
D.4
Conclusion
By means of comprehensive and detailed performance evaluation presented in this

section, it can be concluded that whether under LOS or NLOS condition the EFFR
design is more attractive than the SFR design. The power ratio has a severe impact on
the performance of the SFR scheme, whereas using the EFFR scheme its performance
including CINR, throughput, cell coverage as well as spectral efficiency is superior
and relative stable under various power ratios. With an inappropriate power allocation,
by comparison, the performance of the SFR will be strongly deteriorated. Furthermore,
under both LOS and NLOS propagation, although the SFR scheme outperforms the
Reuse-1 and IFR scheme, it can never surpass the Reuse-3 scheme. With a careful
selection of power ratios, the SFR may gain benefits in overall cell throughput. But its
CEU throughput performance, its cell coverage performance as well as its cell spectral
efficiency are still far more inferior to that using the Reuse-3 scheme. In this sense, the
contribution of the SFR scheme for ICI mitigation and bettering the CEUs
performance is limited. In contrast, the EFFR scheme can provide considerably better
202
Appendix D
overall cell throughput than with the Reuse-3 scheme, whilst it can hold its CEUs
performance and cell coverage performance similar to the Reuse-3 scheme. In terms of
the cell spectral efficiency, the EFFR scheme can also supply a similar performance to
the Reuse-3 under LOS propagation, though cannot catch up with the Reuse-3 in
NLOS case. Even so, it is still much better the Reuse-1 and the SFR scheme. As a
consequence, with the respect to the power allocation, the proposed EFFR design
always performs better than the SFR in every situation, and can provide more
flexibility and robustness than the SFR scheme. With the EFFR scheme the medium is
able to be more effectively utilized, and the performance of all UTs including both
CCUs and CEUs are advanced.
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
List of Abbreviations
3GPP
3GPP-LTE
4G
ACK
AFFR
ARQ
AWGN
BER
BPSK
BS
BW
CCI
CCU
CEU
CID
CINR
CIR
CMU
CoMP
CQI
CRC
CRU
CSI
DECT
DL
DLL
EFFR
EFFR-A
EFFR-B
ETSI
FDD
FDM
FDMA
FFR
FFT
FH
Third Generation Partnership Project

Third Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution
Fourth Generation
Acknowledgment
Adaptive Fractional Frequency Reuse
Automatic Repeat Request
Additive White Gaussian Noise
Bit Error Ratio
Binary Phase Shift Keying
Base Station
Bandwidth
Co-Channel Interference
Cell-Centre User
Cell-Edge User
Connection Identifier
Carrier-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio
Carrier-to-Interference Ratio
Cell-Middle User
Coordinated Multi-Point transmission/reception
Channel Quality Information
Cyclic Redundancy Check
Cell-Remote User
Channel State Information
Digital European Cordless Telecommunications
Downlink
Data Link Layer
Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse
Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse - Advanced
Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse Beyond
European Telecommunications Standards Institute
Frequency Division Duplex
Frequency Division Multiplexing
Frequency Division Multiple Access
Fractional Frequency Reuse
Fast Fourier Transform
Frequency Hopping
Abbreviations
204
FRF
FU
FUN
GPRS
GSM
IAT
ICI
IDMA
IEEE
IFR
IMT
IP
ISI
ISO
LDK
LLC
LOS
LTE
MAC
MCS
MIMO
MS
MU
MUD
NLOS
OFDM
OFDMA
OpenWNS
OSI
PDU
PER
PF
PHY
QAM
QoS
QPSK
RISE
RLC
RNC
RRM
RUP
SAP
Frequency Reuse Factor

Functional Unit
Functional Unit Network
Fractional General Packet Radio Service
Global System for Mobile communications
Inter-Arrival Time
Inter-Cell Interference
Interleave Division Multiple Access
Institute of Electrical and Electronic
Incremental Frequency Reuse
International Mobile Telecommunications
Internet Protocol
Inter-Symbol Interference
International Organization for Standardization
Layer Development Kit
Logical Link Control
Line-of-Sight
Long Term Evolution
Medium Access Control
Modulation and Coding Scheme
Multiple-Input Multiple-Output
Mobile Station
Multi-User
Multi-User Detection
Non Line-of-Sight
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access
Open Wireless Network Simulator
Open Systems Interconnection
Protocol Data Unit
Packet Error Rate
Proportional Fair
Physical Layer
Quadrature Amplitude Modulation
Quality of Service
Quadrature Phase Shift Keying
Radio Interference Simulation Engine
Radio Link Control
Radio Network Controller
Radio Resource Management
Reuse Partitioning
Service Access Point
List of Abbreviations
SAR
SDL
SDMA
SDU
SFH
SFR
SPEETCL
STL
TCP
TDM
TDMA
TG
UDP
UE
UL
UMTS
UT
UTRA
WiMAC
WiMAX
WINNER
WLAN
WNS
Segmentation and Reassembly

Specification and Description Language
Space Division Multiple Access
Service Data Unit
Superframe Header
Soft Frequency Reuse
SDL Performance Evaluation Tool Class Library
Standard Template Library
Transmission Control Protocol
Time Division Multiplexing
Time Division Multiple Access
Task Group
User Datagram Protocol
User Equipment
Uplink
Universal Mobile Telecommunication System
User Terminal
Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
WiMAX MAC Layer
Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access
Wireless World Initiative New Radio
Wireless Local Area Networks
Wireless Network Simulator
205
LIST OF FIGURES
List of Figures
Figure 2.1: Illustration of a cellular system with omni-directional antennas. Each cell is served by one in the
cell-center located BS using a certain frequency bandwidth Fi. .................................................................... 11
Figure 2.2: Cellular networks using different size cell-clusters, in each of which the in the middle located
cell is surrounded by 3 tiers of neighboring cells. (a) When FRF =1, the cell in the centre is interfered by in
total 36 co-channel cells in the near neighborhood; (b) When FRF =3, the cell in the centre is interfered by
12 co-channel neighboring cells; (c) When FRF =7, the cell in the centre is just interfered by 6 co-channel
cells located on the relatively farther 3rd tier. .............................................................................................. 13
Figure 2.3: OFDMA subchannel structure: (a) distributed subchannel; (b) adjacent subchannel [10]. ........ 15
Figure 3.1: Concentric zones in each cell in a system. ................................................................................. 26
Figure 3.2: Frequency partitioning example for comparing exclusive and inclusive FFR scheme in a cellular
system based on FRF =7 for cell-edge users, FRF =3 for cell-middle users and FRF =1 for cell-center users.
...................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.3: Concept of the SFR scheme in a cellular system based on FRF =3 for CEUs and FRF =1 for
CCUs. ........................................................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.4: In a SFR system, less available resources for CEUs while more for CCUs result in unfairness
between CCUs and CEUs, as well as lower spectrum reuse efficiency. ........................................................ 32
Figure 3.5: More co-channel interferences even at low load traffic situation with the usage of the SFR
scheme. ......................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3.6: CEUs are grievously interfered by re-users in the neighboring cells since SFR is a development
design based on inclusive reuse scheme. ...................................................................................................... 33
Figure 3.7: Operation policy of the IFR scheme in a cellular system with 3 various types of neighboring
cells. ............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Figure 4.1: Concept of the EFFR scheme in a cellular system based on exclusive partitioning of reuse-3
subchannels and reuse-1 subchannels in the Primary Segment, as well as interference-aware reuse on the
Secondary Segment. ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.2: Frequency assignment pattern of the EFFR-A scheme in a cellular system with interfering cells
up to the 3rd-tier, where the CCUs use reuse-1 subchannels with lower power, the CMUs use reuse-3
subchannels with moderate power, and the CRUs use reuse-9 subchannels with higher power. ................... 49
Figure 4.3: An example of the available subchannels for the cell 1 in Figure 4.2, consisting of 1 exclusive
reuse-9 subchannels (M2 = 1), 3 exclusive reuse-3 subchannels (M1 = 3) and 12 reuse-1 subchannels (N = 4).
...................................................................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 4.4: Frequency assignment pattern of the EFFR-B scheme in a cellular system with interfering cells
up to the 3rdtier, based on FRF of 1 for CCUs and FRF of 9 for the CEUs. ................................................ 51
Figure 4.5: An example of the available subchannels for the cell 1 in Figure 4.4, consisting of 1 exclusive
reuse-9 subchannels (M2 = 1) and 21 reuse-1 subchannels (N = 7). .............................................................. 52
Figure 5.1: Cellular system with interfering cells up to 3 tiers with 5 different co-channel distance: D1, D2,
D3, D4 and D5. ............................................................................................................................................... 54
Figure 5.2: 5 different interfering cell types distributed up to 3 tiers: (a) 6 interfering cells with cochannel distance of D1 locate on the 1st-tier; (b) 6 and 6 interfering cells, with co-channel distance of D2
List of Figures
208
and D3 respectively, located on the 2 -tier; (c) 12 and 6 interfering cells, with co-channel distance of D4
and D5 respectively, locate on the 3rd-tier...................................................................................................... 56
nd
Figure 5.3: Interfering cells up to the 3rd-tier for a Reuse-3 cellular system: the transmission in the target
cell is interfered by concurrent traffic in the 6 type- cells on the 2nd-tier with co-channel distance of D2 and
6 type- cells on the 3rd-tier co-channel distance of D5, respectively............................................................ 59
Figure 5.4: UL traffic from a CCU in the target cell (cell-type A) is interfered by the CEUs transmissions in
the 12 neighboring type-B cells, which consist of half number of the (a) 6 interfering cells with co-channel
distance of D1 locate on the 1st-tier; half number of the (b) 6 interfering cells with co-channel distance of
D3 located on the 2nd-tier; as well as half number of the (c) 12 interfering cells with co-channel distance of
D4 locate on the 3rd-tier. Besides, it is also interfered by the CCU UL transmissions of the remaining 24
type-A and C cells. ....................................................................................................................................... 60
Figure 5.5: Using the EFFR scheme, the CEUs exclusively use the reuse-3 subchannels with higher
transmission power, whereas the CCUs use the reuse-1 subchannels with lower transmission power. ......... 61
Figure 5.6: CINR versus the cell radius R using C1 LOS path loss model: (a) UL CINR perceived at the
central BS while a UT as a transmitter located at the cell border; (b) DL CINR received at the cell border. 68
Figure 5.7: CINR distribution, when a UT traverses the cell with a radius of 2800m under the C1 LOS
propagation: (a) UL CINR received by the BS; (b) DL CINR received by the UT. ...................................... 69
Figure 5.8: CINR versus the cell radius R using C1 NLOS path loss model: (a) UL CINR perceived at the
central BS while a UT as a transmitter located at the cell border; (b) DL CINR received at the cell border. 70
Figure 5.9: CINR distribution when a UT traverses the cell with a radius of 298m under the C1 NLOS
propagation: (a) UL CINR received by the BS; (b)DL CINR received by the UT. ....................................... 70
Figure 5.10: CINR versus the cell radius R using LOS-NLOS path loss model: (a) UL CINR perceived at
the central BS while a UT as a transmitter located at the cell border; (b) DL CINR received at the cell border.
...................................................................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 5.11: CINR distribution when a UT traverses the cell with a radius of 3920m under the LOS- NLOS
propagation: (a) UL CINR received by the BS; (b) DL CINR received by the UT. ...................................... 73
Figure 5.12: Cell coverage percentage computation when the maximum reach R by using a certain scheme
is larger than the internally tangent circle radius R* of the hexagonal cell.................................................... 75
Figure 5.13: DL cell coverage percentage of each all studied schemes under LOS, NLOS and combined
LOS-NLOS propagations as given in Table 5.6. ........................................................................................... 76
Figure 5.14: Mean cell capacity under the C1 LOS propagation, having the same environment as in
Figure 5.7: (a) mean UL cell capacity; (b) mean DL cell capacity. ............................................................... 80
Figure 5.15: Mean cell capacity under the C1 NLOS propagation, having the same environment as in
Figure 5.9: (a) mean UL cell capacity; (b) mean DL cell capacity. ............................................................... 81
Figure 5.16: Mean cell capacity under the combined LOS-NLOS propagation, having the same environment
as in Figure 5.11: (a) mean UL cell capacity; (b) mean DL cell capacity. .................................................... 82
Figure 5.17: DL CINR received at cell border versus cell radius R: (a) using C1 LOS path loss model; (b)
using C1 NLOS path loss model. .................................................................................................................. 86
Figure 5.18: DL CINR distribution received by a UT: (a) when the UT traverses the cell with a radius of
1000m under C1 LOS condition; (b) when the UT traverses the cell with a radius of 220m under C1 NLOS
condition. ...................................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 5.19: DL cell coverage percentage of all studied schemes under LOS and NLOS propagations. ..... 88
Figure 5.20: Mean DL cell capacity of all studied schemes: (a) under LOS condition; (b) under NLOS
condition. ...................................................................................................................................................... 89
Figure 5.21: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of all studied schemes: (a) under LOS condition; (b) under
NLOS condition............................................................................................................................................ 89
List of Figures
209
Figure 6.1: IEEE 802.16m basic frame structure for 20 MHz channel bandwidth [41]................................ 94
Figure 6.2: Different cell-specific power masks over system bandwidth for all studied approaches including
the Reuse-1 scheme, the IFR scheme, the SFR scheme, the EFFR scheme and the Reuse-3 scheme. .......... 96
Figure 6.3: Resource scheduling process ..................................................................................................... 98
Figure 6.4: Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of UTs versus offered traffic per
user under LOS condition. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 1000 m. The
range ratio r/R of 0.4 for partitioning CCUs and CEUs is assumed. And for both SFR and EFFR schemes,
the power ratio of high power level to low power level is set as 3. (a) Mean DL carrier signal strength
perceived by CCUs; (b) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by CEUs............................................ 102
Figure 6.5: Mean DL interference level perceived by different types of UTs versus offered traffic per user
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean DL interference level
perceived by CCUs; (b) mean DL interference level perceived by CEUs. .................................................. 102
different types of UTs as a function of offered traffic per user under LOS condition, having the same
environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the corresponding mean DL CINR
values perceived by CCUs; and (c) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CEUs. .......... 104
Figure 6.7: Mean DL MAC throughput under LOS condition as a function of offered traffic per user in the
same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean CCU
DL throughput; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU DL throughput. ...................................................... 106
Figure 6.8: Cell capacity and the corresponding mean user throughput of all studied schemes in LOS DL,
having the same environment as in Figure 6.4. ........................................................................................... 108
Figure 6.9: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per user
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall DL cell coverage
percentage; (b) the corresponding mean CCUs coverage percentage; as well as (c) the corresponding mean
CEUs coverage percentage in DL traffic. ................................................................................................... 109
Figure 6.10: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes as a function of offered
traffic per user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4. It can be seen that the
simulation results generated by OpenWNS match the analytical results from the Matlab simulator quite well,
refer to Figure 5.21a. .................................................................................................................................. 111
Figure 6.11: Mean UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS versus offered traffic per user
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean CCU UL carrier signal
strength perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS.
.................................................................................................................................................................... 112
Figure 6.12: Mean UL interference level perceived at the central BS versus offered traffic per user under
LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean CCU UL interference level
perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL interference level perceived at the central BS. .................. 113
Figure 6.13: Mean UL CINR values perceived at the central BS as a function of offered traffic per user
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall UL CINR values
perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CCU UL CINR perceived at the central BS; as well as (c) Mean CEU
UL CINR perceived at the central BS. ........................................................................................................ 114
Figure 6.14: Mean UL MAC throughput under LOS condition as a function of offered traffic per user in the
same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean CCU
UL throughput; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU UL throughput. ...................................................... 115
Figure 6.15: Cell capacity and the corresponding mean user throughput of all studied schemes in LOS UL,
having the same environment as in Figure 6.4. ........................................................................................... 116
Figure 6.16: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per user
under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4: (a) mean overall UL cell coverage
210
List of Figures
percentage; (b) the corresponding mean CCUs coverage percentage; and (c) the corresponding mean CEUs
coverage percentage in UL traffic. .............................................................................................................. 117
Figure 6.17: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes as a function of offered
traffic per user under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.4. ................................ 118
different types of UTs as a function of offered traffic per user under NLOS condition. 25 UTs are uniformly
distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 220 m. The range ratio r/R of 0.6 for partitioning CCUs and
CEUs is assumed. The weakest users are those UTs located between 176 m and 220 m away from the BS
(i.e., R'/R [0.8, 1]). And for both SFR and EFFR schemes, the power ratio of high power level to low
power level is set as 3. (a) mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the corresponding mean DL CINR values
perceived by weakest users; (c) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs; as well as (d)
the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CEUs. .................................................................. 119
Figure 6.19: Mean DL MAC throughput under NLOS condition as a function of offered traffic per user in
the same environment as in Figure 6.18: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding weakest
user DL throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU DL throughput; as well as (d) the corresponding
mean CEU DL throughput. ......................................................................................................................... 121
Figure 6.20: Cell capacity and the corresponding mean user throughput of all studied schemes in NLOS DL,
having the same environment as in Figure 6.18. ......................................................................................... 122
Figure 6.21: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per user
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18: (a) mean overall DL cell coverage
percentage; (b) the corresponding weakest users coverage percentage; (c) the corresponding mean CCUs
coverage percentage; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in DL traffic. ..... 123
Figure 6.22: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes as a function of offered
traffic per user under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18. ........................... 124
Figure 6.23: Mean UL MAC throughput under NLOS condition as a function of offered traffic per user in
the same environment as in Figure 6.18: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding weakest
user UL throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU UL throughput; as well as (d) the corresponding
mean CEU UL throughput. ......................................................................................................................... 126
Figure 6.24: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per user
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18: (a) mean overall UL cell coverage
percentage; (b) the corresponding weakest users coverage percentage. ...................................................... 127
Figure 6.25: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes as a function of offered
traffic per user under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.18. ........................... 127
different types of UTs depending on range ratio r/R under LOS condition, which is defined as the zone
radius for the CCUs r to the cell radius R. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of
1000 m. Offered traffic per user of 500 kbps is assumed. And for both SFR and EFFR schemes, the power
ratio of high power level to low power level is set as 3. (a) Mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the
corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs; and (c) the corresponding mean DL CINR values
perceived by CEUs. .................................................................................................................................... 130
Figure 6.27: Mean DL MAC throughput under LOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the same
environment as in Figure 6.26: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean CCU DL
throughput; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU DL throughput. ............................................................ 132
Figure 6.28: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R under
LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.26: (a) mean overall DL cell coverage
CEUs coverage percentage in DL traffic. ................................................................................................... 134
Figure 6.29: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range ratio
r/R under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.26. ................................................ 135
List of Figures
211
Figure 6.30: Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of UTs versus power ratio under
LOS condition, which is defined as high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR
schemes. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 1000 m. Offered traffic per user
of 500 kbps and the range ratio r/R of 0.4 for partitioning CCUs and CEUs are assumed. (a) Mean DL
carrier signal strength perceived by CCUs; (b) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by CEUs. ....... 139
Figure 6.31: Mean DL interference level perceived by different types of UTs versus power ratio of high
power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition, having the
same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean DL interference level perceived by CCUs; (b) mean DL
interference level perceived by CEUs. ........................................................................................................ 139
different types of UTs depending on power ratio of high power level to low power level used for the SFR
and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean
overall DL CINR values; (b) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs; and (c) the
corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CEUs. ........................................................................ 141
Figure 6.33: Mean DL MAC throughput under LOS condition depending on power ratio of high power
level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes in the same environment as in Figure 6.30:
(a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean CCU DL throughput; and (c) the
corresponding mean CEU DL throughput................................................................................................... 142
Figure 6.34: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus power ratio of high
same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean overall DL cell coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding
mean CCUs coverage percentage; as well as (c) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in DL
traffic. ......................................................................................................................................................... 143
Figure 6.35: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on power ratio
of high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition,
Figure A.1: The OpenWNS Modules and their corresponding OSI Layers. .............................................. 154
Figure A.2: WiMAC Functional Unit Network representing the MAC layer at the BS [6]........................ 158
Figure B.1: Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of UTs versus offered traffic per
user under NLOS condition. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 220 m. The
range ratio r/R of 0.6 for partitioning CCUs and CEUs is assumed. The weakest users are those UTs located
between 176 m and 220 m away from the BS (i.e., R'/R [0.8, 1]). And for both SFR and EFFR schemes,
the power ratio of high power level to low power level is set as 3. (a) Mean DL carrier signal strength
perceived by CCUs; (b) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by CEUs; (c) Mean DL carrier signal
strength perceived by weakest users. .......................................................................................................... 162
Figure B.2: Mean DL interference level perceived by different types of UTs versus offered traffic per user
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) mean DL interference level
perceived by CCUs; (b) mean DL interference level perceived by CEUs; and (c) mean DL interference level
perceived by weakest users. ........................................................................................................................ 163
Figure B.3: Mean UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS versus offered traffic per user under
NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) mean CCU UL carrier signal strength
perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS; and (c)
mean weakest user UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS. ................................................ 164
Figure B.4: Mean UL interference level perceived at the central BS versus offered traffic per user under
NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) mean CCU UL interference level
perceived at the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL interference level perceived at the central BS; and (c) mean
weakest user UL interference level perceived at the central BS. ................................................................. 165
Figure B.5: Mean UL CINR values perceived at the central BS as a function of offered traffic per user
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) mean overall UL CINR values
212
List of Figures
perceived at the central BS; (b) mean weakest user UL CINR perceived at the central BS; (c) mean CCU UL
CINR perceived at the central BS; as well as (d) mean CEU UL CINR perceived at the central BS. ......... 166
Figure B.6: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus offered traffic per user
under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure B.1: (a) the corresponding mean CCUs
coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in UL traffic. ..................... 167
Figure C.1: Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by different types of UTs versus range ratio r/R
under LOS condition, which is defined as the zone radius for the CCUs r to the cell radius R. 25 UTs are
uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 1000 m. Offered traffic per user of 500 kbps is
assumed. And for both SFR and EFFR schemes, the power ratio of high power level to low power level is
set as 3. (a) Mean DL carrier signal strength perceived by CCUs; (b) Mean DL carrier signal strength
perceived by CEUs. .................................................................................................................................... 169
Figure C.2: Mean DL interference level perceived by different types of UTs versus range ratio r/R under
LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean DL interference level perceived by
CCUs; (b) mean DL interference level perceived by CEUs. ....................................................................... 170
Figure C.3: Mean UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS versus range ratio r/R under LOS
condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) Mean CCU UL carrier signal strength
perceived at the central BS; (b) Mean CEU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS. .......... 171
Figure C.4: Mean UL interference level perceived at the central BS versus range ratio r/R under LOS
condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean CCU UL interference level perceived at
the central BS; (b) mean CEU UL interference level perceived at the central BS. ...................................... 171
Figure C.5: Mean UL CINR values perceived at the central BS depending on range ratio r/R under LOS
condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean overall UL CINR values perceived at the
central BS; (b) the corresponding mean CCU UL CINR values perceived at the central BS; and (c) the
corresponding mean CEU DL CINR values perceived at the central BS. ................................................... 172
Figure C.6: Mean UL MAC throughput under LOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the same
environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean CCU UL
throughput; and (c) the corresponding mean CEU UL throughput. ............................................................ 173
Figure C.7: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R under
LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1: (a) mean overall UL cell coverage
CEUs coverage percentage in UL traffic. ................................................................................................... 174
Figure C.8: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range ratio
r/R under LOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.1. ................................................. 175
Figure C.9: Mean overall DL CINR values and the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by
different types of UTs depending on range ratio r/R under NLOS condition. 25 users are uniformly
distributed in each cell with a cell radius of 220 m. The weakest users are those users located between 176 m
and 220 m away from the BS (i.e., R'/R = [0.8 1]). Offered traffic per user of 500 kbps is assumed. And for
both SFR and EFFR schemes, the power ratio of high power level to low power level is set as 3. (a) Mean
overall DL CINR values; (b) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by weakest users; (c) the
corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs; as well as (d) the corresponding mean DL CINR
values perceived by CEUs. ......................................................................................................................... 177
Figure C.10: Mean DL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the same
environment as in Figure C.9: (a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding weakest user DL
throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU DL throughput; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEU
DL throughput. ........................................................................................................................................... 178
Figure C.11: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R under
NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.9: (a) mean overall DL cell coverage
coverage percentage; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in DL traffic. ..... 180
List of Figures
213
Figure C.12: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range ratio
r/R under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.9. .............................................. 181
Figure C.13: Mean UL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the same
environment as in Figure C.9: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding weakest user UL
throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU UL throughput; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEU
UL throughput. ........................................................................................................................................... 183
Figure C.14: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R under
NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.9: (a) mean overall UL cell coverage
coverage percentage; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in UL traffic. ..... 184
Figure C.15: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range ratio
r/R under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure C.9. .............................................. 185
Figure D.1: Mean UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS versus power ratio of high power
level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition, having the same
environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) Mean CCU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS; (b)
Mean CEU UL carrier signal strength perceived at the central BS. ............................................................ 188
Figure D.2: Mean UL interference level perceived at the central BS versus power ratio of high power level
to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition, having the same
environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean CCU UL interference level perceived at the central BS; (b) mean
CEU UL interference level perceived at the central BS. ............................................................................. 188
Figure D.3: Mean UL CINR values perceived at the central BS depending on power ratio of high power
level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition, having the same
environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean overall UL CINR values perceived at the central BS; (b) the
corresponding mean CCU UL CINR values perceived at the central BS; and (c) the corresponding mean
CEU DL CINR values perceived at the central BS. .................................................................................... 189
Figure D.4: Mean UL MAC throughput under LOS condition depending on power ratio of high power level
to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes in the same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a)
mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding mean CCU UL throughput; and (c) the
corresponding mean CEU UL throughput................................................................................................... 190
Figure D.5: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus power ratio of high
same environment as in Figure 6.30: (a) mean overall UL cell coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding
mean CCUs coverage percentage; as well as (c) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in UL
traffic. ......................................................................................................................................................... 191
Figure D.6: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on power ratio
of high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under LOS condition,
Figure D.7: Mean overall DL CINR values and the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by
different types of UTs depending on power ratio of high power level to low power level used for the SFR
and the EFFR schemes under NLOS condition. 25 UTs are uniformly distributed in each cell with a cell
radius of 220 m. Offered traffic per user of 500 kbps is assumed. The range ratio r/R of 0.6 for partitioning
CCUs and CEUs is assumed, and the weakest users are those UTs located between 176 m and 220 m away
from the BS (i.e., R'/R [0.8, 1]). (a) Mean overall DL CINR values; (b) the corresponding mean DL
CINR values perceived by weakest users; (c) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CCUs;
as well as (d) the corresponding mean DL CINR values perceived by CEUs. ............................................ 194
Figure D.8: Mean DL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on power ratio of high power
level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes in the same environment as in Figure D.7:
(a) mean overall DL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding weakest user DL throughput; (c) the
corresponding mean CCU DL throughput; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEU DL throughput. ... 195
214
List of Figures
Figure D.9: Mean DL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus power ratio of high
power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under NLOS condition, having the
same environment as in Figure D.7: (a) mean overall DL cell coverage percentage; (b) the corresponding
weakest users coverage percentage; (c) the corresponding mean CCUs coverage percentage; as well as (d)
the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in DL traffic. ............................................................. 196
Figure D.10: Average DL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on power ratio
of high power level to low power level used for the SFR and the EFFR schemes under NLOS condition,
having the same environment as in Figure D.7. .......................................................................................... 197
Figure D.11: Mean UL MAC throughput under NLOS condition depending on range ratio r/R in the same
environment as in Figure D.7: (a) mean overall UL cell throughput; (b) the corresponding weakest user UL
throughput; (c) the corresponding mean CCU UL throughput; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEU
UL throughput. ........................................................................................................................................... 199
Figure D.12: Mean UL coverage percentage of five frequency reuse schemes versus range ratio r/R under
NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure D.7: (a) mean overall UL cell coverage
coverage percentage; as well as (d) the corresponding mean CEUs coverage percentage in UL traffic. ..... 200
Figure D.13: Average UL cell spectral efficiency of five frequency reuse schemes depending on range ratio
r/R under NLOS condition, having the same environment as in Figure D.7. .............................................. 201
LIST OF TABLES
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Comparison between exclusive and inclusive FFR schemes. ........................................................ 28
Table 5.1: Relations between Dj, R and cell type for different tiers. ............................................................. 55
Table 5.2: Transmission power applied in studied schemes. ......................................................................... 66
Table 5.3: Assumptions for evaluation ......................................................................................................... 67
Table 5.4: Maximum cell radius under LOS, NLOS and combined LOS-NLOS propagations (PBS_max = 2 W,
PUT_max = 200 mW) ........................................................................................................................................ 72
Table 5.5: Optimal range definition for different type of users for RUP schemes under LOS, NLOS and
combined LOS-NLOS propagations (PBS_max = 2 W, PUT_max = 200 mW, RLOS = 2800 m, RNLOS = 298 m, RLOSNLOS = 3920 m) ............................................................................................................................................... 72
Table 5.6: Maximal reach and coverage percentage of each studied schemes under LOS, NLOS and
combined LOS-NLOS propagations (PBS_max = 2 W, PUT_max = 200 mW, RLOS = 2800 m, RNLOS = 298 m, RLOSNLOS = 3920 m) ............................................................................................................................................... 74
Table 5.7: PHY modes and corresponding subchannel throughput ............................................................... 77
Table 5.8: Mean cell capacity under LOS, NLOS and combined LOS-NLOS propagations (RLOS = 2800 m,
RNLOS = 298 m, RLOS-NLOS = 3920 m) ............................................................................................................... 83
Table 5.9: Area spectral efficiency under LOS, NLOS and combined LOS-NLOS propagations (RLOS = 2800
m, RNLOS = 298 m, RLOS-NLOS = 3920 m) .......................................................................................................... 84
Table 6.1: Switching thresholds and PHY data rates per subchannel for Modulation and Coding Schemes
(PHY modes) ................................................................................................................................................ 93
Table 6.2: Available bandwidth for the cells using the EFFR scheme with different M to N combination
compared to the SFR, IFR and two static Reuse schemes. ............................................................................ 95
Table 6.3: Simulation parameters and values assumed ................................................................................. 99
Table 6.4: The number of different types of UTs with diverse range ratio definitions when 25 UTs are
uniformly distributed in each cell. .............................................................................................................. 129
Table 6.5: Transmission power applied for CCUs on each subchannel in the RUP schemes for both DL and
UL with varying power ratios. .................................................................................................................... 137
Table 6.6: Transmission power applied for CEUs on each subchannel in the RUP schemes for both DL and
UL with varying power ratios. .................................................................................................................... 138
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bibliography
[1]
IEEE 802.16m. Evaluation Methodology (EMD), IEEE 802.16m-09-0004r5. 2009.
[2]
IEEE 802.16m. System Requirements Document (SDD), IEEE 802.16m-09-0002r10. January 2010.
[3]
IEEE P802.16/D4. Advanced Air Interface. February 2010.
[4]
3GPP TS 25.814. Physical layer aspects for evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (UTRA)
(Release 7). 3rd Generation Partnership Project, June 2006.
[5]
3GPP TS 36.213 V8.2.0. Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Physical layer
procedures (Release 8). 3rd Generation Partnership Project, March 2008.
[6]
C. Hoymann. IEEE 802.16 Metropolitan Area Network with SDMA Enhancement. PhD thesis,
Department of Communication Networks (ComNets), Faculty 6, RWTH Aachen University, July 2008.
[7]
M. Necker. A Novel Algorithm for Distributed Dynamic Interference Coordination in Cellular

OFDMA Networks. PhD thesis, Institute of Communication Networks and Computer Engineering,
Faculty 5, University of Stuttgart, February 2009.
[8]
B. Walke. Mobile Radio Networks: Networking, Protocols and Traffic Performance. John Wiley &
Sons, December 2001.
[9]
H. L. Bertoni. Radio Propagation for Modern Wireless Systems. Prentice Hall PTR, 2000.
[10] M. Einhaus. Dynamic Resource Allocation in OFDMA Systems. PhD thesis, Department of
Communication Networks (ComNets), Faculty 6, RWTH Aachen University, February 2009.
[11] P. Hoeher, S. Badri-Hoeher, W. Xu, and C. Krakowski. Single-antenna cochannel interference
cancellation for TDMA cellular radio systems. IEEE Wireless Communications, 12(2):3037, April
2005.
[12] J. Andrews, W. Choi, and R. Heath. Overcoming Interference in Spatial Multiplexing MIMO Cellular
Networks. IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine, 14(6): 95-104, December 2007.
[13] G. Boudreau, J. Panicker, N. Guo, R. Chang, N. Wang, and S. Vrzic. Interference Coordination and
Cancellation for 4G Networks. IEEE Communications Magazine, 47(4):74-81, April 2009.
[14] 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Ad Hoc on LTE, R1-050608. Inter-cell interference mitigation based on IDMA.
Technical document, RITT, Sophia Antipolis, France, June 2005.
[15] 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #46, R1-062303. Frequency hopping in uplink localized transmission. LG
Electronics, August 28th September 1st, 2006.
[16] 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #46, R1-062497. Link Performance of Frequency Hopping in LTE Uplink
Localized Transmission. Huawei, October 9th 13th, 2006.
[17] N. Himayat, S. Talwar, A. Rao, and R. Soni. Interference Management for 4G Cellular Standards.
IEEE Communications Magazine , 48(8): 86-92, August 2010.
[18] M. Sternad, T. Ottosson, A. Ahln, and A. Svensson. Attaining both Coverage and High Spectral
Efficiency with Adaptive OFDM Downlinks. In Proc IEEE 58th Vehicular Technology Conference
2003 (VTC 2003- Fall), volume 4, pages 2486-2490, October 2003.
[19] E. Oh, M. Cho, S. Han, C. Woo, and D. Hong. Performance Analysis of Reuse-Partitioning-Based
Subchannelized OFDMA Uplink Systems in Multicell Environments. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, 57(4):26172621, July 2008.
218
Bibliography
[20] D. Liang, S. Zhu, W. Liu, and W. Wang. A Frequency Reuse Partitioning Scheme with Successive
Interference Cancellation for OFDMA uplink Transmission. In Proc. of the 20th IEEE International
Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC 2009), pages 13621366,
Tokyo, Japan, September 2009.
[21] C. He, F. Liu, H. Yang, C. Chen, H. Sun, W. May, and J. Zhang. Co-channel Interference Mitigation in
MIMO-OFDM System. In Proc. of the International Conference on Wireless Communication,
Networking and Mobile Computing 2007 (WiCom 2007), pages 204208, Shanghai, China, September
2007.
[22] M. Assaad. Optimal Fractional Frequency Reuse (FFR) in Multicellular OFDMA System. In Proc
IEEE 68th Vehicular Technology Conference 2008 (VTC 2008- Fall), September 2008.
[23] I. Katzela, and M. Naghshineh. Channel Assignment Schemes for Cellular Mobile Telecommunication
Systems: A Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Personal Communications, 3(3):1031, June 1996.
[24] 3GPP TS 36.211 V1.2.0. Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network, Physical channels and
modulation (release 8). June 2007.
[25] 3GPP TSG RAN WG1#42 R1-050507. Soft frequency reuse scheme for UTRAN LTE. Technical
document, Huawei, Athens, Greece, May 2005.
[26] M. Bohge, J. Gross, and A. Wolisz. Optimal Power Masking in Soft Frequency Reuse based OFDMA
Networks. In Proc. Of the 15th European Wireless Conference 2009 (EW 2009), pages 162-166,
Aalborg, Denmark, May 2009.
[27] Y. Xiang, J. Luo, and C. Hartmann. Inter-cell Interference Mitigation through Flexible Resource Reuse
in OFDMA based Communication Networks. In Proc. of the 13th European Wireless Conference 2007
(EW 2007), pages 1-7, Paris, France, April 2007.
[28] IEEE 802.16m-08/702r3. Adaptive Frequency Reuse in IEEE 802.16m. IEEE 802.16 Broadband
Wireless Access Working Group, Technical Report, July 2008.
[29] L. Jorgueski, and R. Prasad. Downlink Resource Allocation in Beyond 3G OFDMA Cellular Systems.
In Proc. of the 18th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio
Communications (PIMRC 2007), pages 15, Athens, Greece, September 2007.
[30] K. T. Kim, and S. K. Oh. An Incremental Frequency Reuse Scheme for an OFDMA Cellular System
and Its Performance. In Proc. of the 67th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Spring 08),
pages 15041508, Singapore, May 2008.
[31] S. K. Oh, and K. T. Kim. Coordinated Inter-Cell Resource Allocation Approach for Better Frequency
Reuse in OFDMA Cellular Systems. In Proc. of the 2nd international conference on Ubiquitous
information management and communication (ICUIMC 2008), pages 169174, Suwon, Korea, January
2008.
[32] K. T. Kim, and S. K. Oh. A Universal Frequency Reuse System in a Mobile Cellular Environment. In
Proc. 65th IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Spring 07), pages 28552859, Dublin,
Ireland, April 2007.
[33] 3GPP TSG RAN WG1#49bis R1-072974. Downlink Interference Coordination. Technical document,
Nokia & Nokia Siemens Networks, Orlando, FL, USA, June 2007.
[34] A. Simonsson. Frequency Reuse and Intercell Interference Co-ordination in E-UTRA. In Proc. 65th
IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Spring 2007), pages 30913095, Dublin, Ireland, April
2007.
[35] IST-WINNER II, IST-4-027756, D5.4. Final Report on Link Level and System Level Channel Models.
Deliverable. September 2006.
[36] M. Schinnenburg, F. Debus, A. Otyakmaz, L. Berlemann, and R. Pabst. A Framework for
Reconfigurable Functions of a Multi-Mode Protocol Layer. In Proc. of SDR Forum 2005, pages 1-6,
Los Angeles, U.S., November 2005. URL http://www.comnets.rwth-aachen.de.
Bibliography
219
[37] Open Wireless Network Simulator (OpenWNS), Web Page, http://www.openwns.org (Retrieved
2009-10-15).
[38] D. Bltmann, M. Mhleisen, K. Klagges, and M. Schinnenburg. OpenWNS open Wireless Network
Simulator. In Proc. of the 15th European Wireless Conference 2009 (EW 2009), pages 205-210,
Aalborg, Denmark, May 2009.
[39] Z. Xie, and B. Walke. Enhanced Fractional Frequency Reuse to Increase Capacity of OFDMA
Systems. In Proc. of the 3rd International on New Technologies, Mobility and Securitye 2009 (NTMS
2009), pages 1-5, Cairo, Egypt, December 2010.
[40] Z. Xie, and B. Walke. Resource Allocation and Reuse for Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation in
OFDMA based Communication Networks. In Proc. of the 5th Annual International Wireless Internet
Conference 2010 (WICON 2010), pages 1-6, Singapore, March 2010.
[41] IEEE 802.16m-08/003r7. IEEE 802.16m system description document [draft]. IEEE 802.16
Broadband Wireless Access Working Group, Technical Report, July 2009.
[42] IEEE 802.16-2004. IEEE Standard for Local and metropolitan area networks, Part 16: Air Interface
for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems, October 2004.
[43] J. Habetha, and J. Wiegert. Network Capacity Optimization, Part I: Cellular Radio Networks. In Proc.
of the 10th Symposium on Signal Theory, pages 125 132, Aachen, Germany, September 2001.
[44] WiMAX system evaluation methodology. Version 1.0, WiMAX Forum, January 2007.
[45] C. U. Castellanos, D.L. Villa, C. Rosa, K. I. Pedersen, F. D. Calabrese, P.-H. Michaelsen, and J.
Michel. Performance of Uplink Fractional Power Control in UTRAN LTE. In Proc. of the 67th IEEE
Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC-Spring 2008), pages 25172521, Singapore, May 2008.
[46] C. Hoymann. Analysis and performance evaluation of the OFDM-based metropolitan area network
IEEE 802.16. International Journal of Computer and Telecommunications Networking, 49(3): 341-363,
October, 2005.
[47] Z. Xie, and B. Walke. Performance Analysis of Reuse Partitioning Techniques in OFDMA based
Cellular Radio Networks. In Proc. of the 17th International Conference on Telecommunication 2010
(ICT 2010), pages 272-279, Doha, Quatar, April 2010.
[48] Z. Xie, and B. Walke. Frequency Reuse Techniques for Attaining both Coverage and High Spectral
Efficiency in OFDMA Cellular Systems. In Proc. of IEEE Wireless Communications & Networking
Conference 2010 (WCNC 2010), pages 1-6, Sydney, Australia, April 2010.
[49] 3GPP TR 36.814 V2.0.1. Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Further
advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects. 3rd Generation Partnership Project, March 2010.
CURRICULUM VITAE
Curriculum Vitae
Name:
Zheng Xie
Date of birth: January 10, 1976

Place of birth: Shanghai, V.R. China
Nationality:
German
09/1991 07/1994
No.1 High School Affiliated to East China Normal

University, Shanghai
09/1994 04/1997
Studies in Environmental Engineering at Tongji University

in Shanghai
08/1997 09/1998
National Studienkolleg for foreign students at RWTH

Aachen University
10/1998 09/2005
Studies in Computer Science at RWTH Aachen University
01/2006 02/2011
Member of research and teaching staff, Chair of

Communication Networks (ComNets), RWTH Aachen
University

PHD Thesis On HPA OFDM and PAPR

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

PHD Thesis On HPA OFDM and PAPR

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Resource Allocation and Reuse for InterCell Interference Mitigation in OFDMAbased Communication Networks

Von der Fakultt fr Elektrotechnik und Informationstechnik der

Universittsprofessor Dr. Ing. Bernhard Walke

Tag der mndlichen Prfung: 22. Dezember 2011

1.1 Motivation and Objectives ............................................................................1

4.1 EFFR ............................................................................................................. 37

Summary .................................................................................................... 147

7.3 Outlook ....................................................................................................... 150

Motivation and Objectives ............................................................................1

Motivation and Objectives

Contribution of the Thesis

With a deepgoing study of several well-know frequency reuse schemes (static

1.2 Contribution of the Thesis

allocation and an interference-aware mechanism is proposed for a better

The performances of various proportion combinations of different frequency

The implementations of the mainly concerned frequency reuse schemes,

This thesis presents the system performance of each investigated scheme

Overview of Cellular Networks

Overview of Cellular Networks

The Wireless Channel ....................................................................................8

Before discussing specific methods to increase spectral efficiency in wireless networks,

2. Overview of Cellular Networks

The Wireless Channel

In most cases, radio channels are noisy and prone to distortions;

Moreover, signals propagating on a radio channel are often attenuated quickly,

2.1 The Wireless Channel

, where is a constant of proportionality and is the propagation coefficient, which

2. Overview of Cellular Networks

The Cellular Concept

In order to offer sophisticated mobile communications over a large area, wireless

2.2 The Cellular Concept

2. Overview of Cellular Networks

As mentioned above, frequency reuse is a key characteristic in cellular networks. The

2.2 The Cellular Concept

(a) FRF of 1 cellular system

(b) FRF of 3 cellular system

(c) FRF of 7 cellular system

2. Overview of Cellular Networks

Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) has gained increasing

2. Overview of Cellular Networks

corresponds to a combination of Frequency and Time Division Multiplexing (FDM

Either consecutive or non-consecutive subcarriers/time positions are supported

A report of a channel quality indicator enables frequency selective scheduling.

Resource Allocation and Interference Mitigation

2.4 Resource Allocation and Interference Mitigation

and complementary stages concerning the scales of assignable resources, namely:

2. Overview of Cellular Networks

Local OFDMA scheduling

2.4 Resource Allocation and Interference Mitigation

Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation

To seek for improving cell-edge performance while retaining system spectrum

In contrast to ICI cancelation, which tries to eliminate interfering signals in the

3.1 Inter-Cell Interference Mitigation

ICI coordination techniques, also known as ICI avoidance, in OFDMA networks in

3.1.3.1 ICI Coordination techniques in 3GPP-LTE

3.2 Frequency Reuse Techniques for ICI Mitigation in Cellular OFDMA

3.1.3.2 ICI Coordination techniques in IEEE 802.16m

Frequency Reuse Techniques for ICI Mitigation in

As mentioned in the preceding subsection, ICI cancelation approaches suffer from

Static Fractional Frequency Reuse

Figure 3.1: Concentric zones in each cell in a system.

One type of ICI coordination techniques, known as Fractional Frequency Reuse

3.2 Frequency Reuse Techniques for ICI Mitigation in Cellular OFDMA