Report of Group G

IK 2511 Project in Wireless Networks
ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF OPEN-ACCESS

MACRO-FEMTO NETWORKS

Group members: Advisors:
Leon Edgar Filemon Sibel Tombaz
Nader Al-Ghazu Niklas Johansson
Yang Yanpeng
Zheng Zhihao

January 20, 2012
ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF OPEN-ACCESS MACRO-FEMTO NETWORKS

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to begin this report by acknowledging all the people who contributed to this
project
First we are heartily thankful to our supervisor, Sibel Tombaz, whose support, guidance and
encouragement from the initial to the final enabled us to understand and implement the
project. We are indebted to Niklas from Ericsson for giving us some practical advice on the
task.
Furthermore we need to express our deep appreciation to Jens Zander and other teachers who
organized a good project course and taught us project management.
Also thanks to all the tutors and our friends who helped us.
Finally thanks to our parents for their continuous support and encouragement.

iii

ABSTRACT

Recently, the rising energy costs and global focus on climate changes created high interest in
energy efficiency of telecommunication systems. Wireless technology trends to the usage of
joint macro-femto networks. Macro cells provide outdoor coverage while femtocells support
indoor (and neardoor) coverage. The goal of this report is to study the effect of deploying
femtocells with open and closed access in terms of throughput and energy efficiency. The
simulation uses realistic LTE parameters to see the downlink performance in several
scenarios where different power consumption and spectrum utilization models are used. We
also investigate how the locations of the users can affect the system performance. Our
research indicates that open-access with load dependent power consumption model and
splitting spectrum utilization is most energy efficient. Furthermore, it is shown that a larger
proportion of neardoor users or indoor users lead to a higher energy efficiency gain and there
may be a tradeoff between power consumption and system coverage.
Keywords Femtocells, open/closed-access, energy efficiency, power consumption,
spectrum allocation.


iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1
II. Problem Definition ............................................................................................................. 2
A) Closed-access and Open-access ....................................................................................... 2
B) Spectrum utilization strategies ......................................................................................... 2
C) Power consumption reduction strategies .......................................................................... 2
III. System Model and Assumptions ...................................................................................... 2
A) Network deployment ........................................................................................................ 2
B) Propagation model ............................................................................................................ 3
C) Power Consumption Model .............................................................................................. 4
D) Energy Efficiency ............................................................................................................. 4
IV. Simulation and Results ..................................................................................................... 5
A) Simulation Procedure ....................................................................................................... 5
B) Simulation Parameters ...................................................................................................... 6
C) Simulation Results ............................................................................................................ 6
Scenario I: Splitting Spectrum in Single-Cell ................................................................... 6
Scenario II: Splitting Spectrum in Multi-Cell ................................................................... 8
Scenario III: Sharing spectrum in Multi-Cell .................................................................... 9
V. Performance Analysis....................................................................................................... 10
A) Traffic Load Dependent and Independent Comparison ................................................. 10
B) Macro-Only, Macro-Femto Closed and Open Comparison ........................................... 11
C) Splitting Spectrum versus Spectrum sharing .................................................................. 12
D) Different user allocations ............................................................................................... 12
VI. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 13
References .............................................................................................................................. 14


1
I. INTRODUCTION
The dependency on wireless communication for voice calls and data traffic has rapidly
increased in the recent years. Mobile operators are building wireless networks for the recently
developed standards, such as LTE and WiMax. One main concern about this new generation
of mobile networks is power consumption and the energy efficiency [1]. The deployment of
more macro base stations (MBS) will dramatically increase power consumption, which will
increase the operators cost and the carbon emissions. Nowadays heterogeneous networks are
used which provide coverage by means of layers: one layer of high power macro base stations
and another layer of smaller micro base stations in dense population areas [2].
Recent studies show that in the future 60-90% of the network traffic will be originated
indoors [3, 9], which creates a need for new wireless networks architectures. Lately, high
interest has been shown in the deployment of macro-femto wireless networks (two-tier
network). Femtocells are low power nodes with small coverage, connected with an internet
backhaul which provide a good signal quality for indoor users. A large number of femtocells
can be deployed in houses and offices while umbrella MBS with high transmit power could
provide outdoor coverage. Femtocells deployment will cause co-tier interference with other
nearby femtocells and cross-tier interference with close MBSs. This may cause a reduction in
the performance of the wireless network. Meanwhile, the spectrum in heterogeneous networks
can be either shared between the two tires of the network, or can be split into different sub-
spectrums and allocated to every network tier.
Many studies on the energy efficiency of deploying femtocells have been done, some research
papers investigate the throughput of the system against the number of femtocells deployed as
in [3]. Others compare the energy efficiency with the fraction of deployed femtocells as in
[2,4,7]. In [5] the effect of interference on system performance was studied. In [8,9] the
spectrum allocation was investigated. In all these papers, they considered either an open-
access or a closed-access system, but no direct comparison was done.
In this research project the open-access and closed-access systems are compared in terms of
throughput and energy efficiency for different femtocells deployment densities. Two
spectrum utilization plans are considered: splitting spectrum and sharing spectrum. Energy
efficiency in load dependent and load independent power consumption models are compared.
All simulations are done in Matlab based on a LTE environment. All results are demonstrated
to show the downlink data-rate performance and energy efficiency.
The rest of the report is organized as follows. In section II, we briefly describe and explain
our research topic. The system model, mathematical formulas and assumptions are
demonstrated in section III. Section IV shows the simulation environment with parameters
and the results acquired. In section V we analyze and discuss the results, and section VI is the
conclusion.

2
II. PROBLEM DEFINITION
A) Closed-access and Open-access
In a femtocell deployed system, two kinds of work modes are usually defined: Closed-access
and Open-access:
1) Closed-access refers that the femto base station (FBS) belongs to a Closed Subscriber
Group (CSG), which means only members of the CSG are allowed to access FBS.
2) Open-access refers that the FBS belongs to Open Subscriber Group (OSG), which
means the FBSs are open to public access.
As mentioned earlier, other relative papers hardly compare the performance between the two
modes. The members of the CSG may not prefer to share their FBS. But open-access
femtocells may be more green considering the benefit of the whole society. The operator
could use some methods to persuade the members to make the FBS public. So in this project,
both modes were simulated in a LTE based system. And the gap between open-access and
closed-access systems was measured in terms of throughput and energy efficiency.
B) Spectrum utilization strategies
Consider a macro-femto cellular network with fixed bandwidth, existing spectrum utilization
strategies can be divided into two different ways. Co-channel deployment between macro and
femto networks is one method. This will make each macro or FBS occupy a wide bandwidth
but coming with serious interference between macrocells and femtocels. In the other method
the whole spectrum is split into two sub-channels. This avoids interference but the spectrum
each BS uses will be narrower. Both strategies will be simulated to figure out which one is
more suitable for a macro-femto based network.
C) Power consumption reduction strategies
In a heterogeneous cellular network, when part of the indoor (and neardoor) traffic is served
by FBSs, the transmit power of the MBS could be reduced without impairing system
performance. The reduction of transmit power should be dependent of the load of the FBSs i.e.
the percentage of the buildings with FBSs. In this project, we consider the scenario where the
power diminution is proportional to the number of users served by FBSs, and contrast it with
scenario without energy saving.
III. SYSTEM MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS
A) Network deployment
In this report, we consider every scenario in a single hexagonal cell network with MBS in the
center of the cell, transmitting through omnidirectional antennas firstly and then extend it to a
19-sites multi-cell network as shown in Figure 1. Each cell has a radius R, inter site distance
3 D R = and area
2
3 3
2
c
A R = .


3

Figure 1. Multi-cell network with 19 cells.

Figure 1 shows the network we deploy in our simulation. All the phones connect to the MBS
when there is no FBS in the house. If there is FBS in a house, it is set in the center. Blue
phones denote indoor users which connect to the FBS when there is one in the house. Black
phones represent neardoor users which always connect to the MBS in closed-access but if
there is FBS in the house in the open case, they are forced to connect to the FBS. Red phones
model the outdoor users that always connect to the MBS.
Depending on their types, we define locations of different users: indoor users are uniformly
distributed inside a building; neardoor users are uniformly distributed outside the house but
within 10 meters from the center of the house; outdoor users are uniformly distributed in the
rest of the area. The femtocell penetration rate (Rp) models the probability with which each
building has its FBS. We assume a full traffic load in all our scenarios which means there is
no traffic model.
B) Propagation model
The path loss between a user and MBS can be calculated as [10]:
10
10
15.3 37.6log
15.3 37.6log
macro
ow
R outdoor user
PL
R L indoor user
+
=
+ +

(1)
where R is the distance between the user and the MBS in meters and
ow
L is the penetration
loss of an outdoor wall. When the user connects to a FBS, the path loss can be calculated as:
10 2
10 10 2
38.46 20log 0.7
max(15.3 37.6log ,38.46 20log ) 0.7
D
femto
ow D
R d indoor user
PL
R R L d outdoor user
+ +
=
+ + + +
(2)
where
2
0.7
D
d is the penetration loss due to internal walls and
2D
d is the distance inside the
house. For the reason of simplification, this report does not consider the effect of fast fading.

4
C) Power Consumption Model
The relationship between transmit power and average consumed power for MBS is given by
macro t
P aP b = + (3)
where
macro
P and
t
P represent the consumed and transmit power per site respectively. The
term a denotes the impacts which are related to the radiated power caused by PA amplifier
and feeder losses as well as site cooling. The parameter b represents fixed power which is
independent of transmit power due to signal processing, battery backup and site cooling. The
parameters we use here are a=22, b=350.
In the case where power consumption is dependent of traffic load,
t
P will scale with the
percentage of users who are served by the MBS. Then transmit power can be expressed by:
(1 / )
(1 ( ) / )
t indoor FBS total
d
t indoor neardoor FBS total
P N N N closed access
P
P N N N N open access

=
(4)
where
d
P and
t
P denote the transmit power in load dependent and independent cases
respectively. N
indoor
and N
neardoor
represent the number of indoor or neardoor users who
belongs to one house. N
total
means the total users in the cell. For FBSs, since the power
consumed is low, we assign the value of 9w for each of them.
D) Energy Efficiency
As an assumption, the interference from FBSs is ignored when calculating SINR, because the
transmit power of FBS is low and it needs to suffer a penetration loss due to the wall. In the
case of splitting spectrum, the SINR of macro user n can be shown as:

,
k
n
i
i M i k
P
SINR
P N
c =
=
+
(5)
where M denotes the set of MBSs,
i
P represents the receive power from the i-th MBS, N
denotes the thermal noise over the user bandwidth. Correspondingly, the SINR of femto user
n can be expressed as:
k
n
P
SINR
N
= (6)
where
k
P denotes the receive power from the FBS which it connects. In the case of co-channel
mode, the SINR of the macro users stays the same while that of the femto user n should
change as:
k
n
i
i M
P
SINR
P N
c
=
+
(7)

5
where
k
P and
i
P denote the receive power from the FBS and the i-th MBS respectively, M
denotes the set of MBSs. Given the SINR of the n-th subscriber, the throughput can be
calculated by Shannon Capacity limitation theory as:
2
log (1 )
n n n
R W SINR = + (8)
where R is the throughput in Mbps, W is the bandwidth of the n-th user. The bandwidth is
equally divided by the users who share it whether in macrocell or femtocell. For the energy
efficiency factor, we use
R
EE
P
= (9)
which models how many bps we could achieve when consuming 1 watt power, i.e. bps/watt
in the entire system. Then energy efficiency gain is defined to be
open close
gain
close
EE EE
EE
EE
=

(10)
IV. SIMULATION AND RESULTS
In this section, we give a brief simulation procedure description to reveal how the simulation
test bed is established. Then some selected system parameters are demonstrated in part B. The
results including system throughput, power consumption and energy efficiency of the two-tier
network in different scenarios are given for further analysis.
A) Simulation Procedure
Figure 2 illustrates the flow chart of our simulation. In the simulation, Monte Carlo method
is adopted to obtain a reasonable result. Some assumptions are considered to simplify the
simulation, e.g. all houses are one-floor and maximum one FBS is allowed in each of them.
Femtocells are placed at a safe distance from the MBS to make sure the indoor users can
obtain a better signal from FBS instead of MBS. The simulation starts by creating a network
deployment map including the locations of MBSs and houses. Then it randomly generates the
positions of indoor users, neardoor users and outdoor users before creating a shadow fading
map. Later, within every iteration, the following process is carried out: a certain number of
houses with femtocells are chosen randomly according to different femto penetration rates;
users are moved around; Calculate the distance matrix between the users with their served
base stations; Create shadow fading matrix for all the connected paths and add it to the path
loss matrix obtained through propagation models; Calculate SINR for each users and then
throughput, power consumption and energy efficiency. After certain iterations (generally we
use 300 times), all the comparison metrics are averaged and plotted.


6
Start
Read
Simulation
Parameters
Generate:
Macro BS Locations
Houses Locations
Users Locations
Generate:
Shadow Fading Map
Move Users
Assign Femto Bs to Houses
Calculate:
Distances Matrix
Calculate:
Path loss
Shadow Fading
Calculate:
SINR
Calculate:
Throughput
Energy Efficiency
Power Consumption
Plot Figures
Monte Carlo
Average
END
Iteration

Figure 2. Simulation Flow Chart
B) Simulation Parameters
The selection of the simulation parameters are mostly based on 3GPP TR 36.814 [11]. The
total bandwidth is 10 MHz and they are split into two 5 MHz bands for splitting spectrum
deployment scheme. In this report most results demonstrated are using the parameters in
Table 1, unless otherwise noted.
Parameter Value
Carrier frequency 2.0 GHz
Total Bandwidth 10.0 MHz
Inter-site distance 500 m
Safe radius without houses 40.9 m
MBS transmit power 46 dBm (traffic load independent case)
FBS transmit power 20 dBm
MBS/FBS antenna gain 14/5 dBi
Number of houses per cell 20
Total users 150
Number of indoor users per house 4
Number of outdoor users per cell 30
Number of neardoor users per house 2
Femtocell penetration rate (Rp) 0~1 (varied)
MBS Shadow fading (standard deviation) 8 dB
FBS Shadow fading (standard deviation) 4 dB
Shadow fading correlation distance 20 m
Exterior wall penetration loss 15 dB
Minimum received power per user -70 dBm
Thermal noise -174 dBm/Hz
House size 10 x 10 m
2

Femtocell radius 10 m
Table 1. Simulation system parameters

C) Simulation Results
Scenario I: Splitting Spectrum in Single-Cell
i) Aggregate System Throughput
Based on the simulation model, the aggregate system throughput of all the users is shown in
Figure 3. The throughput is linearly increasing with the enhancement of femtocell penetration
rate except the starting point where no FBS is installed and all the 10MHz bandwidth is
distributed to the MBS. It increases from 300 Mbps in the macro-only case to about 3000

7
Mbps when all the houses are equipped with femtocells in closed case. In addition, a higher
throughput is achieved in the closed case than the open case. The gap between the two cases
increases to a maximum of 200 Mbps when the penetration rate reaches one. The throughput
from load dependent and load independent power models show almost no difference because
the main part of throughput comes from FBS connections.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Femtocell Penetration Rate
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t
[
M
b
p
s
]

Closed Case
Open Case
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t
[
M
b
p
s
]

Closed Case
Open Case

Figure 3. Aggregate throughput comparison between closed and open case.
Load dependent (left), and load independent (right).

ii) Power consumption
Figure 4 shows the difference of power consumption between load dependent and
independent cases. For the former case, both open and closed access modes consume less
power when more houses are equipped with femtocells. Meanwhile, the open case is
decreasing much more than closed case. While in the traffic load independent case, all the
transmit power of MBS and FBS are fixed, so the power consumption boosts when more
femto access points are used.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
P
o
w
e
r

C
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n

[
W
a
t
t
]

load indepdent
load dep. in closed case
load dep. in open case

Figure 4. Power consumption comparison between load dependent (closed and open case) and load independent.

iii) Energy Efficiency
The energy efficiency is increasing with the growth of femtocell penetration rate in both
scenarios (Figure 5). The open case is more energy efficient than close case with load

8
dependent power control algorithm implemented. That is because the power consumption
gain achieved by the open system is larger than the throughput difference.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
M
b
p
s

/

W
a
t
t
]

Open Case
Closed Case
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
M
b
p
s

/

W
a
t
t
]

Closed Case
Ppen Case
0.43 0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 0.5 0.51 0.52
1.25
1.3
1.35
1.4
1.45
1.5
1.55
1.6
E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
M
b
p
s

/

W
a
t
t
]

Open Case
Closed Case

Figure 5. Energy efficiency comparison between closed and open case.
Load dependent (left), and load independent (right).

The right plot in Figure 5 shows the traffic load independent energy efficiency comparison.
The close case is slightly higher than open case. This is triggered by the throughput
comparison since the power consumption is the same for both cases.
In most of the figures, the value corresponding to the penetration rate shows the mean value
after a Monte-Carlo average. To see whether the fluctuation of the values could affect the
conclusion, a confidence interval (CI) is made for each value. According to the bottom one in
figure 5, the fluctuant range of the value is very small comparing with the value itself. The
CIs are made in all the figures and they turns out small all the time, so in the rest figures only
mean values are considered.
Scenario II: Splitting Spectrum in Multi-Cell
A multi-cell environment with two tiers of interference (19 cells) is simulated in this section.
The difference from the single cell scenario comes mainly from the interference part. Because
the whole bandwidth is reused in every macrocell, the macro users will experience extra
interference from its neighbor MBSs. As a result, the aggregate throughput is slightly reduced
due to decreased SINR at the receivers (shown in Figure 6 left). The power consumption
remains the same in load dependent scenario. Figure 6 right reveals the energy efficiency
developing trends are the same with single cell case. The only difference comes from
throughput.

9
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

[
M
b
p
s
]

Closed Case
Open Case
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
M
b
p
s

/

W
a
t
t
]

closed case
open case

Figure 6. A comparison of Throughput (left) and Energy efficiency (right) between closed and open case
in multi-cell system with split spectrum (load dependent case)
Scenario III: Sharing spectrum in Multi-Cell
In this Scenario, a sharing spectrum is considered, which means the whole bandwidth 10
MHz is reused by all macro and femto BSs. The simulation result is shown in Figure 7.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

[
M
b
p
s
]

Closed Case
Open Case
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
M
b
p
s

/

W
a
t
t
]

Closed Case
Open Case

Figure 7. A comparison of Throughput (left) and Energy efficiency (right) between closed and open case
in multi-cell system with sharing spectrum (load dependent case)

The left plot indicates a larger gap between the throughput in open and closed cases. The
maximum difference is 400 Mbps which is almost twice the difference in the splitting
spectrum case. This is because the neardoor users are forced to connect to FBSs in open-
access case, so the throughput decreases due to the large interference coming from MBSs. A
comparison of the resulting energy efficiency is shown in Figure 7 right. The open-access is
no longer better than closed-access until a large portion of FBS is deployed. In other words,
the open-access system is not as energy efficient as in the splitting spectrum scenario.

10
V. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
A) Traffic Load Dependent and Independent Comparison

Figure 8. Power consumption difference with different femtocell penetration rate under load independent and
dependent cases.

The histogram (Figure 8) shows that a vast amount of power can be saved if load dependent
algorithm is used. The maximum power consumption saved from load dependent (open case)
compared to load independent case is 13.3 kw. While inside the load dependent scenario,
closed case consumes more than open case with a maximum gap of 4.2 kw and the gap is
increasing as penetration rate rises. That is because fewer users are connected to MBS,
leading to less MBS transmit power needed. But at the same time, we may get an outage area
at the edge of cell.

FBS Penetration Rate 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Closed
Ratio of users served by FBS 0.00% 10.67% 21.33% 32.00% 42.67% 53.33%
MBS transmit power(dBm) 46 45.5 44.95 44.33 43.58 42.69
Cost in Outage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.33%0.01% 0.00%
Open
Ratio of users served by FBS 0.00% 16% 32% 48% 64% 80%
MBS transmit power(dBm) 46 45.24 44.33 43.16 41.56 39.01
Cost in Outage 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.74%0.17% 2.52%0.32% 0.00%
Table 2. MBS transmit power and outage with different femtocell penetration rates.

Table 2 shows the relationship among the number of femtocell users, MBS transmit power
and outage probability. According to the Power Consumption Model, the more users
connected to FBS, the less transmit power is needed for MBS. But in the other side, we may
lose some coverage when too low transmit power is used. It is shown in the table that when
42% of users are served by FBSs, some indoor users without FBS at the cell edges may
experience a bad signal quality (received power less than -70dBm). When the ratio arrives to

11
64%, the outage ratio rises to around 2.5%. For the case that all the houses are equipped with
FBS, 39.01 dBm is enough for the macro base station to cover the whole cell area and provide
a good received power for outdoor users. (Notice that when outage is mentioned in last
paragraph, it refers to the indoor users without FBS. Because the transmit power of macro
base stations is large enough to ensure a good signal quality for outdoor users.)
B) Macro-Only, Macro-Femto Closed and Open Comparison

Houses 20 Outdoor 30
Rp 0.6/ 1 Indoor 4
Users 150 Neardoor 2
Table 3. User allocation

Macro-only Close Open
Rp=0.6
TP (Mbps) 15.611 1727.2 1624.2
EE(bps/w) 670.2492 95564 105390
Rp=1
TP (Mbps) 15.611 2833.5 2627.5
EE(bps/w) 670.2492 194130 258660
Table 4. Throughput and energy efficiency comparison between three scenarios

Table 4 shows the results of throughput and energy efficiency comparison between macro-
only, closed-access and open-access with user allocation in Table 3. The throughput has a
huge improvement when FBSs are deployed compared with macro-only case whether in
closed or open-access. This is mainly because the users served by FBS enjoy a large
bandwidth and do not suffer interference from the MBS when FBSs exist.
TP (Mbps)
Indoor Near door Outdoor Sum
Femto Avg Macro Avg Femto Avg Macro Avg Macro Avg
Close 1714.7 428.68 3.63 0.11 4.24 0.11 4.59 0.15 1727.2
Open 1166.6 291.65 4.75 0.15 444.61 222.31 2.33 0.15 6 0.2 1624.2
Gap -548.1 1.12 444.61 -1.92 1.41 -102.88
Table 5. Throughput analysis for indoor, neardoor and outdoor users under open and closed cases.

The reason why throughput in closed-access is higher than in open-access could be found in
Table 5. For the indoor users served by FBS, their throughput will decrease in open-access
because some neardoor users will share the spectrum with them. Other indoor users who
connect to the MBS get a little more bandwidth also due to those neardoor users going for
FBSs. For the neardoor users who connect to FBSs in open-access case, their throughput rises
a lot as a result of sharing a wideband with indoor users only. Other neardoor users just get a
small increase owing to the former ones going for FBSs. The outdoor users throughput also
improves slightly because of the same reason. The most difference comes from the change of
the indoor and neardoor users throughput in the two scenarios. The data in Table 5 proves
that the decreasing part from indoor users is larger than the increasing part from neardoor
users, from which we conclude that closed-access is better than open-access in terms of
throughput. While open-access performs better at the aspect of energy efficiency because it
consumes less energy than in the closed case.

12
C) Splitting Spectrum versus Spectrum sharing
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
A
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t

[
M
b
p
s
]

Splitting Spectrum
Spectrum Sharing
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
E
n
e
r
g
y

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
M
b
p
s

/

W
a
t
t
]

Splitting Spectrum
Sharing Spectrum

Figure 9. Aggregate throughput and energy efficiency comparison within two spectrum utilization scheme
with different femtocell penetration rate.

Figure 9 shows the throughput and energy efficiency comparisons when different spectrum
utilization schemes are applied in the open-access mode. The general trend is increasing and
the splitting spectrum case gives a better system throughput (energy efficiency). The gap
between them is increasing as penetration rate is growing. The reason for this is obvious: in
the co-channel scheme, the advantage is that users can enjoy a larger bandwidth (double), but
they also experience severe interference between femtocells and macrocells. Because of the
high transmit power from MBS, femtocell users especially those who are outside houses can
only get a low SINR which leads to bad performance in throughput. From the result, we can
see the throughput improvement from spectrum increase is much less than the throughput loss
caused by bad received SINR.
D) Different user allocations
The main difference in throughput comes from neardoor users. So in this section, we want to
first illustrate the effect of different number of neardoor users on aggregate throughput and
energy efficiency. In Table 1, indoor users per house are set to 4, the total number of users is
still 150, and the femtocell penetration rate is 0.6. With a different number of neardoor users
per house, we can see different throughput and energy efficiency gains.
Open Closed
Neardoor TP [Mbps] EC [Watt] EE [Mbps/W] TP [Mbps] EC [Watt] EE [Mbps/W] EE_Gain
1 1646.7 983.5 1.67 1719 1053.6 1.63 0.03
2 1619.6 913.4 1.77 1738.3 1053.6 1.65 0.07
3 1553 843.4 1.84 1709.1 1053.6 1.62 0.14
Table 6. System performance in open and closed cases with different number of neardoor users.

From previous analysis, neardoor users experience a worse SINR value when they are forced
to connect to femtocells. The decrease in throughput from indoor users is much larger than
the throughput increase of neardoor users although they can share a better spectrum. As a
result, the more neardoor users, the worse throughput is obtained under our fixed simulation
environment. This can be proved through the second column in Table 6. An obvious
advantage of introducing neardoor users is saving huge power consumption under open-
access and traffic load dependent mode (as shown in the third column). In the closed case,

13
both the throughput and power consumption remain almost the same. At last, energy
efficiency gain reveals our system is more green with more users are near the houses.
Open Closed
Indoor/Ratio TP [Mbps] EC [Watt] EE [Mbps/W] TP [Mbps] EC [Watt] EE [Mbps/W] EE_Gain
3/40% 1587.6 983.5 1.61 1722.2 1123.6 1.53 0.05
4/53.3% 1607.6 913.4 1.76 1727.9 1053.6 1.64 0.07
5/66.7% 1662.3 843.4 1.97 1764.7 983.5 1.79 0.10
Table 7. System performance in open and close cases with different number of indoor users.

Recently, more and more data traffic is generated from indoor users, so we want to examine
the system performance under different indoor user ratios. In Table 7, the number of indoor
users per house is changed with a fixed neardoor user which is 2. The total number of users is
150, and the femtocell penetration rate is still 0.6. It is clear that, a higher throughput is
obtained in both open and closed cases, because indoor users can share a larger bandwidth
compared with outdoor users. Plus, the power consumption decreases. Hence, higher energy
efficiency is obtained if a larger indoor user ratio is set, which is good for urban areas. As is
shown in this table, 10% gain can be achieved when 67% of users are inside houses. If more
houses are installed with femtocell, this figure will improve more.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this report, we have analyzed different performance in a Marco-Femto network between
open and closed-access in terms of throughput and energy efficiency in several scenarios. We
introduce load independent and load dependent modes at the aspect of power consumption
and prove that the latter one could save energy dramatically. Meanwhile we find that there is
a tradeoff between transmitter power and network coverage even though the outage
probability is very small (up to 2.5%). Spectrum utilization schemes are taken into account as
well. Dividing the bandwidth between macro and femto users shows better results than
sharing the whole bandwidth because the interference is quite small when splitting the
spectrum. Generally a femto based network performs much better than a Marco-only network
in all aspects. Furthermore, our research indicates that in the considered simulation setup,
open-access with load dependent power consumption model and splitting spectrum utilization
is most energy efficient. Closed-access performs better in throughput but need to consume
more power. Different user allocations have impact on the results. It is proved that a larger
proportion of neardoor users or indoor users lead to a higher energy efficiency gain.

14
REFERENCES

[1] J. Hoydis, M. Kobayashi, and M. Debbah, Green Small-Cell Networks, IEEE
Vehicular Technology Magazine, vol. 6, pp. 37-43, Mar. 2011.

[2] L. M. delApio, E. Mino, L. Cucala, O. Moreno, and B. Ignacio, Energy Efficiency and
Performance in mobile networks deployments with femtocells, presented at the 22nd
IEEE Personal Indoor Mobile Radio Communication, 2011, pp. 107 - 111.

[3] M. Wang, X. Zhu, Z. Zeng, S. Wan, and W. Li, System Performance Analysis of
OFDMA-based Femtocell Networks.

[4] H. Claussen, L. T. W. Ho, and F. Pivit, Effects of Joint Macrocell and Residential
PicocellDeployment on the Network Energy Efficiency, presented at the 19th IEEE
Personal Indoor Mobile Radio Communication (PIMRC), Cannes, 2008, pp. 1-6.

[5] F. Cao and Z. Fan, The tradeoff between energy efficiency and system performance of
femtocell deployment, in Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), 2010 7th
International Symposium on, pp. 315319.

[6] D. Chee, M. suk Kang, H. Lee, and B. C. Jung, A study on the green cellular network
with femtocells, in Ubiquitous and Future Networks (ICUFN), 2011 Third
International Conference on, 2011, pp. 235240.

[7] K. Dufkov, M. Popovic, R. Khalili, J. Y. Le Boudec, M. Bjelica, and L. Kencl,
Energy Consumption Comparison Between Macro-Micro and Public Femto
Deployment in a Plausible LTE Network.

[8] W. Cheng, H. Zhang, L. Zhao, and Y. Li, Energy Efficient Spectrum Allocation for
Green Radio in Two-tier Cellular Networks, in Proceedings of the IEEE Global
Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM 2010), 2010, pp. 15.

[9] A. D. Domenico, E. C. Strinati, and A. Duda, Ghost Femtocells: an Energy-Efficient
Radio Resource Management Scheme for Two-Tier Cellular Networks, European
Wireless 2011, 2011.

[10] Femto Forum white paper, Interference Management in OFDMA Femtocells,
www.femtoforum.org/.

[11] 3GPP TSG RAN1, TR 36.814 v9.0.0, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-
UTRA); Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects, March 2010.

Report of Group G

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report of Group G

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IK 2511 Project in Wireless Networks

ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF OPEN-ACCESS

You might also like