Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tier-Aware Resource Allocation in OFDMA Macrocell-Small Cell Networks
Tier-Aware Resource Allocation in OFDMA Macrocell-Small Cell Networks
Tier-Aware Resource Allocation in OFDMA Macrocell-Small Cell Networks
ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
1
Abstract—We present a joint sub-channel and power allo- the existing wireless systems will not be able to accommodate
cation framework for downlink transmission in an orthogo- the expected 1000-fold increase in total mobile broadband data
nal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA)-based cellular [2]. Therefore, 5G cellular technologies are being sought. Of
network composed of a macrocell overlaid by small cells. In
this framework, the resource allocation (RA) problems for both the several enabling technologies for 5G to handle the expected
the macrocell and small cells are formulated as optimization traffic demand, base station (BS) densification is considered as
problems. For the macrocell, we formulate an RA problem that one of the most promising solutions [3].
is aware of the existence of the small cell tier. In this problem, the BS densification involves the deployment of a large number
macrocell performs RA to satisfy the data rate requirements of of low-power BSs. This decreases the load per BS and leads
macro user equipments (MUEs) while maximizing the tolerable
interference from the small cell tier on its allocated sub-channels. to a better link between a user equipment (UE) and its serving
Although the RA problem for the macrocell is shown to be BS owing to the smaller distance between them [4]. This BS
a mixed integer nonlinear problem (MINLP), we prove that densification also creates a multi-tier network of nodes with
the macrocell can solve another alternate optimization problem different transmission powers, coverage areas and loads. Two
that will yield the optimal solution with reduced complexity. issues arise in such a dense multi-tier network. The first issue
For the small cells, following the same idea of tier-awareness,
we formulate an optimization problem that accounts for both is that the resource allocation (RA) in one tier cannot be done
RA and admission control (AC) and aims at maximizing the in isolation of the resource allocation in other tiers. This is
number of admitted users while simultaneously minimizing the true specially when one tier has multiple strategies to perform
consumed bandwidth. Similar to the macrocell optimization RA and satisfy the required QoS requirements. We foresee
problem, the small cell problem is shown to be an MINLP. We that different strategies employed by one tier will affect the
obtain a sub-optimal solution to the MINLP problem relying on
convex relaxation. In addition, we employ the dual decomposition other network tiers differently. Hence, one tier should take
technique to have a distributed solution for the small cell tier. into consideration the consequences of its RA decisions on
Numerical results confirm the performance gains of our proposed the other tiers. In this context, some fundamental questions
RA formulation for the macrocell over the traditional resource are as follows: If one network tier allocates its resources in
allocation based on minimizing the transmission power. Besides, it a way that can sustain the highest interference levels from
is shown that the formulation based on convex relaxation yields a
similar behavior to the MINLP formulation. Also, the distributed other network tiers, how would those interference levels look
solution converges to the same solution obtained by solving like? If that same network tier can achieve its target QoS
the corresponding convex optimization problem in a centralized requirements using different strategies, how does that affect
fashion. the wireless resources (i.e., bandwidth, power, etc.) usage and
Keywords:- Base station densification, small cells, OFDMA, what is the impact on other network tiers? In other words, is
downlink resource allocation, sub-channel and power allocation,
admission control, convex optimization, dual decomposition. there a preferred strategy, to be employed by one network tier,
from the point of view of the other network tiers? The second
issue is that, with BS densification, centralized RA solutions
I. I NTRODUCTION may not be practical. Hence, there is a need for decentralized
solutions for RA in different network tiers.
As more and more customers subscribe to mobile broad-
In this paper, we formulate the RA problem for a two-
band services, there is a tremendous growth in the demand
tier orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA)
for mobile broadband communications, together with the in-
wireless network composed of a macrocell overlaid by small
creased requirements for higher data rates, lower latencies and
cells. The objective of the macrocell is to allocate resources to
enhanced quality-of-service (QoS). Fueled by the popularity
its macro UEs (MUEs) to satisfy their data rate requirements.
of smartphones and tablets with powerful multimedia capabil-
In addition, knowing about the existence of small cells, the
ities, services and applications, it is anticipated that by 2020,
macrocell allocates the radio resources (i.e., sub-channel and
A. Abdelnasser (email: nasra@cc.umanitoba.ca) and E. Hossain (email: power) to its MUEs in a way that can sustain the highest
Ekram.Hossain@umanitoba.ca) are with the Department of Electrical and interference level from the small cells. For this reason, we
Computer Engineering at the University of Manitoba, Canada. D. I. Kim formulate an optimization problem for the macrocell with an
(email: dikim@skku.ac.kr) is with the School of Information and Communi-
cation Engineering at the Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), Korea. objective that is different from those in the traditional RA
This work has been supported in part by an NSERC Strategic Grant (STPGP problems. The macrocell maximizes the sum of the interfer-
430285-12) and in part by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) ence levels it will be capable of tolerating from the small
grant funded by the Korean government (MSIP) (2014R1A5A1011478) and
(2013R1A2A2A01067195). cells tier. Now, since small cells create dead zones around
Part of this paper was presented in IEEE Globecom’14 [1]. them in the downlink, the MUEs should be protected against
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
2
transmissions from the small cells [3], [5]. Hence, knowing authors in [7] studied the RA problem in a multi-tier cellular
about the maximum allowable interference levels for MUEs, network to maximize the sum-throughput subject to simple
the small cells perform RA by solving an optimization problem power budget and sub-channel allocation constraints. However,
whose objective function combines both the admission control no QoS constraints were imposed. In [8], the RA problem in a
(AC) and the consumed bandwidth (i.e., number of allocated femtocell network was modeled, with interference constraints
sub-channels). The objective of the small cell tier is to admit for MUEs, in order to achieve fairness among femtocells.
as many small cell UEs (SUEs) as possible at their target No QoS constraints, however, were imposed for femtocell
data rates and consume the minimum amount of bandwidth. users. In [9], the RA problem in a two-tier macrocell-femtocell
Again, this follows the same notion of tier-awareness by OFDMA network was modeled as a Stackelberg game, where
leaving as much bandwidth as possible for other network tiers the macrocell acts as the leader and the femtocells act as
(e.g., for device-to-device [D2D] communication). For this, an the followers. However, no interference constraints for MUEs
optimization problem is formulated for the small cell tier with were considered. Also, no QoS constraints were imposed for
the aforementioned objective, given the QoS requirements of femtocells. Reference [10] studied the RA problem in a two-
SUEs and the interference constraints for the MUEs. Dual tier network composed of macrocells and femtocells which
decomposition is used to have a decentralized RA and AC aimed at maximizing the sum-throughput of femtocells subject
problem by decomposing the optimization problem into sub- to total sum-rate constraint for the macrocell. Nevertheless,
problems for each small cell to solve. For this, only local no QoS constraints were imposed for femtocells. The authors
channel gain information is used along with some coordination in [11] studied the RA problem with QoS and interference
with the Home eNB Gateway (HeNB-GW) [6]. constraints in a two-tier cellular network and used clustering
The key contributions of this paper can be summarized as as a technique to reduce the overall complexity.
follows: In the above works, either no QoS constraints were imposed
• We develop a complete framework for tier-aware resource or the RA problems with QoS constraints were assumed
allocation in an OFDMA-based two-tier macrocell-small feasible. In other words, admission control [12], which is a
cell network with new objectives, which are different technique to deal with infeasibility when it is not possible
from the traditional sum-power or sum-rate objectives. to support all UEs with their target QoS requirements, was
• For the macrocell tier, we formulate a resource allocation not studied. The authors in [13] proposed a distributed self-
problem that is aware of the existence of the small cell organizing RA scheme for a femtocell only network, with
tier and show that it is a mixed integer nonlinear program the aim of minimizing the total transmit power subject to
(MINLP). QoS constraints. It was shown that minimizing the transmit
• We prove that the macrocell can solve another alternate power (which results in reduced interference) may improve
optimization problem that yields the optimal solution for throughput.
the MINLP with polynomial time complexity. Several works in the literature have considered the ad-
• We compare the proposed method for the macrocell mission control problem. The authors in [14] considered the
RA problem to the traditional “minimize the total sum- problem of joint power control, admission control and base
power” problem and show that the proposed method station assignment in a single channel multicast environment.
outperforms the traditional one in terms of the average However, only a centralized approach was proposed which
number of admitted SUEs. poses a huge computational complexity. The authors in [15]
• For the small cell tier, we formulate a joint resource studied the joint power and admission control problem for a
allocation and admission control problem that aims at wireless network composed of multiple interfering links and
maximizing the number of admitted SUEs and mini- formulated it as a sparse l0 -minimization problem which was
mizing their bandwidth consumption to accommodate approximated later by an l1 -minimization convex problem.
additional tiers, and show that it is an MINLP. However, only single channel systems are assumed. Besides,
• We obtain a sub-optimal solution to the MINLP problem no distributed solutions for admission control were provided.
relying on convex relaxation and propose a solution For cellular cognitive radio networks, [16] studied the prob-
to the convex relaxation that can be implemented in a lem of admission and power control to admit the maximum
distributed fashion using dual decomposition. number of secondary links and maximize their sum-throughput
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II subject to QoS requirements and interference constraints for
reviews the related work. Section III presents the system model primary links. However, power control was done centrally.
and assumptions for this work. In Section IV, the optimization The authors in [17] considered the problem of admission
problems are formulated for both the macrocell tier and the and power control, where the primary users are guaranteed
small cell tier, followed by the use of dual decomposition to a premium service rate and the secondary users are admitted
have a decentralized operation. Numerical results are discussed (as many as possible) so long as the primary users are not
in Section V and finally Section VI concludes the work. affected. In [18], the authors proposed a joint rate and power
allocation scheme with explicit interference protection for
primary users and QoS constraints for secondary users, where
II. R ELATED W ORK admission control was performed centrally. However, [16]-
The RA problem in OFDMA-based multi-tier cellular net- [18] only considered single-channel systems. The authors in
works has been extensively studied in the literature. The [19] studied the problem of joint rate and power allocation
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
3
done centrally. In [21], a joint bandwidth and power allocation Small Cell
framework for wireless multi-user networks with admission Small Cell MUE
MUE
control in presence of relays was proposed for different system
objectives. Unequal chunks of bandwidths were allocated.
However, the resource allocation was performed centrally. Fig. 1. Network topology under consideration. Dashed lines indicate back-
For a two-tier small cell network, [22] proposed a hierar- haul connections.
chical power control method based on regulating the tolerable
interference at the macro base stations caused by the uplink
transmissions by the small cell users. The work in [23]
studied the problem of joint admission and power control of Rm . In addition, denote by F the set of SUEs in the system
for downlink transmissions. Small cells are admitted into with F = |F|. Each SUE f has a data rate requirement of Rf .
the network so long as the QoS of macrocell users is not We refer to the set of SUEs associated to small cell s by Fs .
compromised. Admission and power control were performed We assume that all UEs are already associated with their BSs
in a distributed fashion. However, only a single channel system and that this association remains fixed during
SS the runtime of
was considered. Reference [24] proposed a distributed admis- the resource allocation process. We have s=1 Fs = F and
TS
sion control mechanism for load balancing among sub-carriers s=1 Fs = ?. All MUEs exist outdoor and all SUEs exist
with multiple QoS classes. In addition, small cells mitigate indoor. We have an OFDMA system, where we denote by
co-tier and cross-tier interferences using slot allocation of N the set of available sub-channels with N = |N | and f
different traffic streams among different sub-carriers. However, is the bandwidth of a sub-channel n. Cochannel deployment
no power allocation was performed. is assumed, where the macrocell and all the small cells have
We notice that none of the quoted works considers the access to the same set of sub-channels N [8]-[10]. This is
interaction between the different network tiers and the con- foreseen to increase spectral efficiency. Hence, any UE (be it
sequences of RA decisions of one tier on the other one. In an MUE or an SUE) is allowed to share the same sub-channel.
addition, it is desirable to have an RA and AC scheme that Let ni,j be the sub-channel allocation indicator where, ni,j =
is implementable in a distributed fashion in a dense multi- 1 if sub-channel n is allocated to UE j served by BS i and 0
tier OFDMA network. This paper fills in the gap in the otherwise.
existing RA frameworks for multi-tier cellular networks by, The UEs are capable of using two modes of sub-channel
first, incorporating the idea of tier-awareness into RA schemes allocation, namely, the exclusive mode and the time sharing
and, second, offering distributed solutions for the RA and mode. For the exclusive mode, in a given transmission frame,
AC problems. Table I summarizes the related work and their sub-channel n is used by one UE only. In the time sharing
differences from the work presented in this paper. mode, a sub-channel n is allocated to a certain UE a portion
III. S YSTEM M ODEL , A SSUMPTIONS , AND R ESOURCE of the time. In this way, multiple UEs can time share a sub-
A LLOCATION F RAMEWORK channel n in a given transmission frame [25].
A. System Model and Assumptions Denote by Pi,j n
and gi,j
n
the allocated power to and the
channel gain of the link between BS i and UE j on sub-channel
We consider the downlink of a two-tier cellular network,
n. Channel gains account for path-loss, log-normal shadowing,
where a single macrocell, referred to by the index B and with
and fast fading. The channel gains are assumed to remain static
coverage radius RB , is overlaid with S small cells, as shown
during the resource allocation process. The worst-case received
in Fig. 1. Denote by S the set of small cells, where S = |S|.
SINR B,mn
of an MUE m served by macrocell B on a sub-
A closed-access scheme is assumed for all small cells, where
channel n is defined as:
access to a small cell is restricted only to the registered SUEs.
All small cells are connected to the mobile core network. For n
PB,m n
gB,m
example, femtocells can connect to the core network by using n
B,m = n
(1)
the DSL or CATV modems via an intermediate entity called I m + No
the Femto Gateway (FGW) or HeNB-GW [6] which can take where Im n
is the maximum tolerable interference level at MUE
part in the resource allocation operation for femtocells. m on sub-channel n and No is the noise power. According to
We denote by M the set of MUEs served by the macrocell (1), the following constraint holds for small cell transmission
B with M = |M|. Each MUE m has a data rate requirement powers on sub-channel n:
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
4
TABLE I
S UMMARY OF R ELATED W ORK
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
5
M
[
C3 : Nm ✓ {1, 2, ..., N }
Fig. 2. The RA framework for the macrocell and the small cells. m=1
n
C4 : Im Imax , 8m 2 M, n 2 N
n
C5 : Im 0, 8m 2 M, n 2 N (4)
reflected in the way the radio resources are allocated in the where the objective is to maximize the sum of the tolerable
macrocell. The macrocell allocates resources to its MUEs in interference levels Im n
for all MUEs m on all sub-channels n.
a way that can tolerate the maximum interference possible C1 is the data rate constraint for each MUE m. C2 and C3
from the samll cell tier. Note, however, that the minimum rate indicate that the sets of sub-channels allocated to the MUEs are
constraints of all MUEs must be satisfied in the sense that the disjoint (the OFDMA constraint) and constitute the entire set
rate requirement for none of the MUEs is compromised for of sub-channels N . C4 is a constraint that sets an upper bound
admitting new SUEs. On the other hand, the awareness of the for Imax on Im n
. Recall that if sub-channel n is not allocated
small cell tier about the existence of other tiers is reflected to MUE m, then MUE m will not have any restrictions on the
in the fact that the resource allocation in the small cell tier level of interference on that sub-channel. In other words, the
satisfies the rate requirements of the SUEs using the minimum maximum tolerable interference by MUE m on sub-channel
amount of bandwidth resources. n should ideally be Im n
= 1. However, to have a finite value
for the objective function of (4), instead of 1, we use Imax ,
IV. P ROBLEM F ORMULATIONS FOR R ESOURCE where Imax is an arbitrarily large value. Hence, Im n
= Imax
A LLOCATION indicates that sub-channel n is not used by MUE m as it has
no restrictions on the level of interference on that sub-channel
A. Problem Formulation for Macrocell
and the achievable rate on that sub-channel will be virtually
The macrocell is responsible for providing the basic cover- zero. Finally, C5 indicates that Im n
should be positive.
age for the MUEs [27]. Hence, the target of the macrocell is In general, (4) is an MINLP whose feasible set is non-
to allocate the resources to its MUEs to satisfy their data rate convex due to C1 and the combinatorial nature of sub-
requirements. As will be shown in this section, this task will be channel allocation. Besides, PB,m n
is unknown as the number
accomplished by using different strategies. One strategy would
2 We will show, subsequently, that each MUE will end up being allocated
be for the macrocell to maximize the sum of the interference
one sub-channel only. Hence, the high SINR requirement for guaranteeing
levels it can tolerate from the small cell tier. The other strategy close to the optimal performance under equal power allocation will be
would be for the macrocell to minimize the total transmission achieved through the enforced data rate requirement.
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
6
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
7
sub-channel only (the one with the highest reward) to each Remark 1. The reason for choosing the resource allocation
MUE, while respecting the OFDMA constraint. solution based on the formulation in (7) as the baseline is
the following. With this solution, at optimality, all MUEs have
Note that problem in (6) is the well-known assignment their rate requirements satisfied with equality. This is also the
problem [31]. In this case, the Hungarian algorithm can case for the solution obtained from the formulation in (4).
be used to solve (6) for global optimality with a runtime In other words, with both RA strategies, the MUEs achieve
complexity3 of O(N 3 ) [35]. the same performance. The difference however lies in the way
In this way, the macrocell has allocated sub-channels to its the resources are allocated, which subsequently impacts the
MUEs in a way that satisfies their data rate requirements and performance of the small cell tier.
that can tolerate the maximum possible interference from the
small cell tier. In (7), the same value of Imn
is assumed 8m 2 M, n 2
2) Minimize the total sum-power: An alternate strategy N , i.e., Im = Ith . For a fair comparison between (4) and
n
that can be employed by the macrocell while performing (7), the macrocell adjusts
PM the PNmaximum tolerable interference
RA is to minimize the total sum-power, given the data rate level Ith such that m=1 n=1 PB,m n
= PB,max . This can
requirements of the MUEs. This problem has been studied be accomplished by using the bisection method according to
extensively in the literature [36]. However, the formulation Algorithm 1 as given below, where Ith,H > Ith,L .
developed in [36] does not account for the maximum tolerable
Algorithm 1 Bisection method to find optimal Ith
interference level Imn
. Hence, we include it here with the
required modification to determine the maximum tolerable 1: Macrocell initializes Ith,L , Ith,H , and
PM P
interference level Imn
. Throughout the rest of this work, we 2: while | m=1 n2Nm PB,m
n
PB,max | > do
will refer to this RA method as the Traditional method. We 3: Ith,M = (Ith,L + Ith,H ) /2
have, thus, the following optimization problem: 4: Macrocell
PM P solves the optimization problem in (7)
5: if m=1 n2Nm PB,m n
> PB,max then
6: Ith,H = Ith,M
M X
X N PM P
min n
PB,m 7: else if m=1 n2Nm PB,m n
< PB,max then
{PB,m
n
} m=1 n=1 8: Ith,L = Ith,M
subject to 9: end if
✓ ◆ 10: end while
X n
PB,m n
gB,m
C1 : f log2 1+ n Rm , 8m 2 M
Im + No Assuming that Ith,L is initialized to 0, the bisection method
n2Nm
I
\ usually requires O(ln( th,H )) iterations to converge. Besides,
C2 : Ni Nj = ?, 8i, j 2 M, i 6= j the complexity of each iteration is of O(N M 3 ) [36]. After
Algorithm 1 terminates, Ith,M gives the optimal value of Ith .
M
[ The optimization problem in (7) ends up with the power and
C3 : Nm ✓ {1, 2, ..., N }
sub-channel allocation to the MUEs with a uniform maximum
m=1
n tolerable interference level Ith on all allocated sub-channels.
C4 : PB,m 0, 8m 2 M, n 2 N . (7)
In general, as will be shown in the numerical results, (7) leads
In (7), given the maximum tolerable interference level on to a higher number of allocated sub-channels to the MUEs than
each allocated sub-channel Im n
, the macrocell seeks a power (4) does. It is of interest to study the effect of the two different
and sub-channel allocation solution that minimizes the sum- RA methods on the small cell tier.
power. The problem in (7) can be shown to be strongly NP-
hard [37]. In other words, it cannot be solved by a pseudo- B. Problem Formulation for Small Cells
polynomial time algorithm and finding its global optimal Due to the small distance and the good channel conditions
solution is generally NP-hard. This NP-hardness is attributed between small cells and SUEs, small cells are capable of serv-
to the non-convexity of the optimization problem in (7) due ing registered SUEs with higher data rates than the macrocell.
to the combinatorial nature of sub-channel allocation. Hence, However, this should not be at the cost of QoS degradation
solving this problem by using Lagrange dual decomposition at MUEs as they are served by the macrocell and provided
will, generally, result in a non-zero duality gap between its with basic coverage at possibly lower rates [10]. Hence, given
primal and dual solutions. However, in a multi-carrier OFDMA the maximum tolerable interference levels on each allocated
system, according to [36] and [38], this duality gap virtually sub-channel for the MUEs, each small cell now tries to admit
vanishes as the number of sub-channels goes to infinity. This as many SUEs as possible at their target data rate by using
implies that, in an OFDMA system with a sufficiently large the minimum possible bandwidth. Again, the idea here is to
number of sub-channels N (N should be greater than 8 [36]), leave as much bandwidth as possible for the other network
Lagrange dual decomposition can be used to solve the problem tiers (e.g., for D2D communication).
in (7) efficiently in the dual domain. 1) Centralized operation: To accomplish the aforemen-
3 The complexity of O(N 3 ) is acceptable for practical OFDMA-based
tioned requirements, we define the optimization problem in
resource allocation algorithms to be deployed in an on-line manner [8], [32], (8), where the objective is to maximize the number of admitted
[33], [34]. SUEs while minimizing the number of allocated sub-channels.
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
8
We have the admission control variable ys,f which takes the maximum number of SUEs while consuming the minimum
value of 1 if SUE f is admitted in small cell s and 0 otherwise. number of sub-channels.
Recall from Section III-A that the set Fs denotes the set of ⇣ ⌘
SUEs already associated with small cell s. Yet, SUEs in the Proof. Let n⇤
s,f , P n⇤
s,f , ys,f , 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N
⇤
⇣ ⌘
set Fs can still have their rate requirements satisfied or not. denote an optimal solution of (8). Let ˆ , Pˆn , ys,f
n ˆ , s,f s,f
This will be indicated through the variable ys,f . By controlling 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N be a feasible solution
the weighting factor ✏ 2 [0, 1], admission control can be given PS that
P admits one
more SUE than the optimal solution, i.e., s=1 f 2Fs ys,f ˆ =
higher priority over the number of used sub-channels. Note PS P
y ⇤
+ 1. The objective of the feasible solution
that the formulation (8) is in spirit of the formulation in [17]. s=1 f 2Fs s,f
can be written as:
However, the objective in [17] was to maximize the number
S X
X S X X
X N
of admitted UEs while minimizing the transmission power. In ˆ
n
(1)
subject to S X
X (3)
N
! (1 ✏) ⇤
ys,f
X n n
Ps,f gs,f
C1 : f log2 1 + PM s=1 f 2Fs
n n n
n=1 m=1 B,m PB,m gB,f + No
S X
X S X X
X N
ys,f Rf , 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs ⇤ n⇤
N (1 ✏) ys,f ✏ s,f .
X X
n s=1 f 2Fs s=1 f 2Fs n=1
C2 : Ps,f Ps,max , 8s 2 S
f 2Fs n=1 The
PS first
P inequality
PN holds due to the fact that
0 1 ˆ is upper bounded by SN when
n
XS X s=1 f 2Fs n=1 s,f
C3 : nB,m @ n n A
Ps,f gs,m n n
B,m Im , 8n 2 N all sub-channels in all small cells are allocated. The second
s=1 f 2Fs inequality holds by setting (1 ✏) ✏SN > 0. Hence,
n
C4 : Ps,f ns,f Ps,max 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N we have ✏ < 1+SN 1
. The last inequality holds due to the
PS P PN
X non-negativity of s=1 f 2Fs n=1 n⇤ s,f . In this way, the
n
C5 : s,f 1, 8s 2 S, n 2 N value of the objective function for the feasible solution is
f 2Fs higher
⇣ than the optimal ⌘ one, which contradicts the optimality
n
C6 : Ps,f 0, 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N of s,f , Ps,f , ys,f . Thus, there is no other solution that
n⇤ n⇤ ⇤
C7 : n
s,f 2 {0, 1} , 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N admits a higher number of SUEs under the constraint in
C8 : ys,f 2 {0, 1} , 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N . (8) (8). Given the optimum value for the admission control
variable ys,f
⇤
, (8) reduces to a feasible sub-channel and power
In (8), C1 is a data rate constraint for an SUE f which is allocation problem with respect to the variables ns,f and Ps,f n
active only if SUE f is admitted, i.e., ys,f = 1. C2 is the that aims at minimizing the number of used sub-channels
power budget constraint for each small cell s restricting the subject to the given constraints.
total transmission power of small cell s to be less than or
equal to Ps,max . C3 is a constraint on the maximum cross- The problem in (8) is an MINLP whose feasible set is
tier interference4 introduced to MUE m using sub-channel n. non-convex due to the combinatorial nature of sub-channel
This is imperative as the MUEs have a strictly higher priority allocation and admission control. However, for small-sized
in accessing the underlying frequency bands than the SUEs. problems, we use OPTI [42], which is a MATLAB toolbox
C4 ensures that if sub-channel n is not allocated to SUE f , to construct and solve linear, nonlinear, continuous, and dis-
its corresponding transmit power Ps,f n
= 0. C5 constrains sub- crete optimization problems, to obtain the optimal solution.
channel n to be allocated to at most one SUE f in small cell s. Obtaining the optimal solution, however, for larger problems
C6 ensures that the power Ps,fn
should be positive, and finally, is intractable. Another approach that can render the problem
C7 and C8 indicate that s,f and ys,f are binary variables. One
n
in (8) more tractable is to have a convex reformulation of
benefit of the optimization problem formulation in (8) is that it (8) by relaxing the constraints C7 and C8 and allowing ns,f
is always feasible. To see this, a trivial feasible solution of (8) and ys,f to take any value in the range [0, 1]. Thus, ns,f is
is ns,f = 0, Ps,f
n
= 0 and ys,f = 0, 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N . now a time sharing factor that indicates the portion of time
sub-channel n is allocated to SUE f [43], [44], whereas ys,f
Proposition 1. By choosing ✏ < 1+SN ,
1
(8) admits the
indicates the ratio of the achieved data rate for SUE f . Hence,
4 Note that this constraint is known as the interference temperature constraint
we define the convex optimization problem in (9), where P̃s,fn
in cognitive radio networks and it has also been used extensively in two-tier can be related to Ps,f in (8) as P̃s,f = s,f Ps,f to denote
n n n n
macrocell-small cell networks [11], [26], [39], [40], [41]. the actual transmit power [25]. Now, the problem in (9) is a
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
9
convex optimization problem with a linear objective function can be, for example, the HeNB-GW. However, in a densely
and convex feasible set. This means that its global solution deployed small cell network, centralized solutions might not
can be efficiently obtained, for example, by a general interior- be practical. Hence, it is foreseen that having a decentralized
point method [45]. Such a method usually converges within a solution with some coordination with a central node will be a
few tens of iterations, where the complexity is of O((SF N )3 ) more viable option.
per iteration. 2) Distributed operation: To fulfill the requirement of
having a decentralized solution for (9), we use the dual
S X
X S X X
X N decomposition method [47]. For this purpose, we define the
n
max (1 ✏) ys,f ✏ s,f following partial Lagrangian function of the primal problem
{ n ,P̃ n ,y
s,f s,f s,f } s=1 f 2Fs s=1 f 2Fs n=1 in (9) formed by dualizing the constraint C3:
subject to
0 ⇣ ⌘ 1 ⇣ ⌘
n n n n n
N
X P̃s,f gs,f / s,f
L s,f , P̃s,f , ys,f , ⌘
C1 : n
s,f f log2 @1 + PM A
S X S X X
N
n=1 m=1
n n n
B,m PB,m gB,f + No X X
n
= (1 ✏) ys,f ✏ s,f
ys,f Rf , 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs s=1 f 2Fs s=1 f 2Fs n=1
0 0 11
X N
X N S X
n X X
C2 : P̃s,f Ps,max , 8s 2 S + ⌘n @ n n n @ n n AA
(10)
B,m Im B,m P̃s,f gs,m
f 2Fs n=1 n=1 s=1 f 2Fs
0 1
XS X
where ⌘ is the Lagrange multiplier vector (with elements ⌘ n )
C3 : nB,m @ n n A
P̃s,f gs,m n n
B,m Im , 8n 2 N
associated with the cross-tier interference constraint C3. Then
s=1 f 2Fs
X the Lagrange dual function is represented as
n
C4 : s,f 1, 8s 2 S, n 2 N
⇣ ⌘
f 2Fs n n
g(⌘) = max L s,f , P̃s,f , ys,f , ⌘
n
C5 : P̃s,f 0, 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N { n ,P̃ n ,y
s,f s,f s,f }
C6 : n
s,f 2 (0, 1], 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N subject to
C7 : ys,f 2 [0, 1] , 8s 2 S, f 2 Fs , n 2 N . C1, C2, C4 C7. (11)
(9) From (10), the maximization of L can be decomposed into
It is worth mentioning that the solution of the problem in (9) S independent optimization problems for each small cell s as
gives an upper bound to the optimal solution of the problem in follows:
(8). Yet, it reveals insights into the behavior of the solution of X N
X X
n
the problem in (8). Note that the time sharing in sub-channel gs (⌘) = max (1 ✏) ys,f ✏ s,f
allocation can be implemented in practice [46]. Therefore, we { n ,P̃ n ,y
s,f s,f s,f } f 2Fs f 2Fs n=1
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
10
Proposition 2. For the optimization problem in (9) with a dual iterations. Convergence to the optimal solution is guaranteed
objective g(⌘) defined in (11), the following choice of dn is a since the primal optimization problem in (9) is convex.
sub-gradient for g(⌘):
0 1 Algorithm 3 Distributed joint RA and AC algorithm
X S X
@ n⇤ n A 1: Macrocell initializes ⌘, Lmax , sends sub-channel allo-
dn = nB,m Im n n
B,m P̃s,f gs,m (15)
s=1 f 2Fs
cation information nB,m and ⌘ to HeNB-GW and sets
iteration counter l = 1
where dn is an element of d and n⇤ s,f , P̃s,f , and ys,f
n⇤ ⇤ 2: HeNB-GW broadcasts n B,m and ⌘ values to all small
optimize the maximization problem in the definition of g(⌘). cells
3: repeat
Proof. For any ⇠ 0, 4: All small cells solve (12) in parallel
n⇤ n⇤ ⇤ 5: All MUEs estimate interference levels on allocated sub-
g(⇠) L( s,f , P̃s,f , ys,f , ⇠)
2 channels and report them to the macrocell
N
X 6: Macrocell evaluates the sub-gradient (15) and updates
= g(⌘) + (⇠ n ⌘n ) 4 n n
B,m Im ⌘ using the ellipsoid method
0
n=1
13 7: Macrocell sends updated ⌘ to HeNB-GW
XS X 8: HeNB-GW broadcasts updated ⌘ to all small cells
n
B,m
@ n⇤ n A5
P̃s,f gs,m . 9: Macrocell sets l = l + 1
s=1 f 2Fs 10: until Convergence or l = Lmax
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
11
(dBm)
MUE−3
are used:
20
• Average percentage of admitted SUEs
B,m
PS P
Pn
s=1 f 2Fs ys,f 10
= F ⇥ 100.
• Average
PS P percentage
PN of channel usage = 0
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
s=1 f 2Fs n=1 s,f
SN ⇥ 100. Sub−channel, n
0
MUE−1
B. Numerical Results −20 MUE−2
MUE−3
Im (dBm)
1) Comparison between the proposed and the traditional −40
RA methods for macrocell: In this section, we compare the
n
two RA schemes in the macrocell, namely, the proposed −60
0 40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MUE−1
Sub−channel, n MUE−2
−9 30
(dBm)
x 10 MUE−3
4
MUE−2 20
B,m
gB,m
2
Pn
n
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0
Sub−channel, n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
x 10
−10 Sub−channel, n
1
MUE−3 0
gB,m
0.5 MUE−1
n
−20 MUE−2
MUE−3
Im (dBm)
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 −40
Sub−channel, n
n
−60
Figs. 4-5 compare the two RA results for the given snapshot
Fig. 5. Allocated power PB,m
n and maximum tolerable interference level Im
n
with Rm = 5 bps/Hz. Each figure shows the allocated for MUEs {1, 2, 3} using the proposed scheme.
power PB,mn
by the macrocell and the maximum tolerable
interference level Imn
on allocated sub-channel n to MUE m.
No values for power PB,mn
on the x-axis indicate unallocated
sub-channel with the corresponding value for Im n
set to Imax , macrocell allocates the best sub-channels to the MUEs. From
which means that this sub-channel can be used by the small Figs. 4-5 and Table II, we can notice that the entire power
cell tier unconditionally. For further clarification, Table II budget of macro BS, PB,max , is used in both cases. It is
shows the absolute values of PB,mn
and Im
n
. worth mentioning that when we use the traditional scheme for
It is clear from Fig. 4 that most of the sub-channels are macrocell resource allocation, it does not necessarily mean that
allocated to the MUEs (9 sub-channels out of 10 are allocated it will consume less power than the proposed scheme, since the
to the 3 MUEs), when using the traditional scheme for RA. We maximum tolerable interference level Im n
is adjusted according
notice also that the macrocell favors good sub-channels as they to Algorithm 1 by the macrocell to use the entire power
require less transmit power to achieve the rate requirements budget. It rather means that, given the maximum tolerable
for the MUEs, leading at the end to minimum transmit power interference levels, the resulting sub-channel and power allo-
requirements. cation for the traditional scheme will consume the minimum
Fig. 5, on the other hand, shows that the 3 MUEs require power and any other allocation will consume a higher power.
only 3 sub-channels to achieve their rate requirements, as Now, for the maximum tolerable interference levels Im n
, it is
was proved before, using the proposed scheme. Again, the obvious from Figs. 4-5 and Table II that the proposed scheme
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
12
can sustain higher interference levels from the small cell tier. formulation provides an upper bound for the solution of the
It is of interest to compare the effect of the two different RA MINLP formulation. Also, we notice that the centralized and
schemes for the macrocell on the small cell tier. distributed formulations have the same solution due to the
Fig. 6 compares the average percentage of admitted SUEs convexity of the centralized formulation in (9). The centralized
when the macrocell performs RA according to the tra- formulation with one-by-one removal exhibits a performance
ditional method based on (7) and the proposed method that lies in-between the MINLP one (8) and the centralized
based on (4) with two different wall loss Low scenarios. one (9). This can be attributed to the fact that in the MINLP
We have the following scenario: 2 small cells located at formulation (8), ns,f and ys,f are binary. On the other hand,
( 10, 100), (10, 100) in a square area hotspot of dimen- the centralized formulation in (9) has ns,f and ys,f relaxed.
sions 20⇥20 m2 , 10 sub-channels, Ps,max = 30 mW, Rf = 50 Since the centralized formulation with one-by-one removal has
s,f relaxed but ys,f binary, its performance will lie, generally,
n
bps/Hz, and Rm = 5 bps/Hz. Numerical results are obtained
and averaged for 50 different realizations, where in each in between the other formulations.
realization, the UE positions and the channel gains are varied. It is worth mentioning that the convex formulation exhibits
The small cell problem is solved centrally by using the convex a behavior similar to the MINLP formulation. Hence, solving
formulation in (9). It is clear from the figure that the proposed the convex formulation reveals insights into the behavior of the
RA method for the macrocell outperforms the traditional one. solution of the MINLP formulation. We also notice that as Rm
When the macrocell performs RA according to the proposed increases, the interference constraints for the MUEs become
method, it consumes the minimum bandwidth, and therefore, tighter. Hence, the average number of admitted SUEs de-
frees as many sub-channels as possible for the small cells. creases. Since the objective function in our formulation gives
On the other hand, the traditional method consumes more higher priority to admission control, the value of objective
bandwidth than the proposed one, hence, the small cells have function decreases with increasing Rm .
more interference constraints to abide by. We also notice that
as the wall losses increase, the small cells tend to be more
isolated and the impact of resource allocation in the macrocell 2.4
MINLP
on the small cell performance becomes lower. 2.2 Centralized
Distributed
Centralized One by One
2
100 1.8
Objective function value
90 1.6
80 1.4
Average percentage of admitted SUEs
70 1.2
60 1
50 0.8
40 0.6
30 0.4
1 2 3 4 5
Traditional, Low=1dB R (bps/Hz)
m
20 Proposed, L =1dB
ow
Traditional, Low=10dB
10 Fig. 7. The values of objective function for different formulations vs. Rm .
Proposed, Low=10dB
0
2 3 4 5 6 7
Number of MUEs, M Figs. 8-9 show the average percentage of admitted SUEs and
channel usage in a small cell vs. Rm for the same scenario
Fig. 6. Average percentage of admitted SUEs vs. number of MUEs M when considered in Fig. 7. As was discussed in Fig. 7, as the
the macrocell employs both the proposed and the traditional methods for RA rate requirements for the MUEs increase, they have tighter
with different wall loss scenarios.
interference constraints. Hence, the percentage of admitted
SUEs generally decreases. We notice in Fig. 8 that, initially,
2) Comparison between the different formulations for the the average percentage of admitted SUEs is almost constant.
RA problem for small cells: Fig. 7 compares the objective This is due to the increased number of used sub-channels as
function values for the MINLP formulation in (8), the central- shown in Fig. 9. As the MUEs’ rate requirements increase
ized convex formulation in (9), the centralized convex formula- further, the increase in the number of used sub-channels is not
tion in (9) with one-by-one removal by using Algorithm 2, and enough to accommodate the rate requirements of the SUEs,
the distributed formulation in (10) for a snapshot of the follow- hence, the average percentage of admitted SUEs decreases.
ing scenario: 2 small cells located at ( 10, 100), (10, 100) 3) Convergence behavior: Using the same scenario de-
in a square area hotspot of dimensions 20 ⇥ 20 m2 , 3 scribed for the previous figure, Fig. 10 shows the convergence
sub-channels, 3 MUEs, Ps,max = 30 mW, Low = 1 dB, behavior of Algorithm 3, where the upper bound refers to (14)
and Rf = 5 bps/Hz. As was stated previously, the convex and the lower bound refers to the feasible objective obtained
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
13
TABLE II
A BSOLUTE VALUES OF PB,m
n n FOR THE T RADITIONAL AND P ROPOSED M ACROCELL RA S CHEMES
AND Im
Sub-channel#
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
MUE-1 0 0 0 0 0.0402 0.0153 0 0 0 0
n
PB,m (W) MUE-2 0 0 0 1.1097 0 0 0.6855 0.2333 0.3805 0
MUE-3 7.8381 4.4890 5.2142 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Traditional
MUE-1 Imax Imax Imax Imax 1.0709 1.0709 Imax Imax Imax Imax
scheme n
Im (W) MUE-2 Imax Imax Imax 1.0709 Imax Imax 1.0709 1.0709 1.0709 Imax
⇥10 10 MUE-3 1.0709 1.0709 1.0709 Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax
MUE-1 0 0 0 0 6.6667 0 0 0 0 0
n
PB,m (W) MUE-2 0 6.6667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MUE-3 6.6667 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed
MUE-1 Imax Imax Imax Imax 91.604 Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax
scheme n
Im (W) MUE-2 Imax 5.6298 Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax
⇥10 10 MUE-3 0.1796 Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax Imax
80 80
Centralized Centralized
75 Distributed Distributed
75
70
Average percentage of admitted SUEs
55 65
50
60
45
40
55
35
30 50
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
Rm (bps/Hz) Rm (bps/Hz)
Fig. 8. Average percentage of admitted SUEs vs. Rm . Fig. 9. Average percentage of channel usage vs. Rm .
by the procedure at the end of Section IV-B2. In the figure, of admitted SUEs increases. This rate of increase, however,
the best lower bound is obtained by keeping track of the best is not fixed as the system is limited by the interference
primal feasible objective resulting through iterations. It is clear constraints for MUEs.
that Algorithm 3 converges to the optimal solution of the
problem in (9) within a few iterations.
C. Summary of Major Observations
4) Average percentage of admitted SUEs vs. Rf : In this
scenario, we have the following setup: 5 small cells located at The major observations from the numerical analysis can be
( 20, 100), ( 20, 140), (20, 140), (20, 100), (0, 120) summarized as follows:
in a square area hotspot of dimensions 40 ⇥ 40 m2 , 5 sub- • In a multi-tier network, it is critical to consider the impact
channels, 5 MUEs, Ps,max = 30 mW, Low = 1 dB and of RA decisions in one tier on the other one. For the
Rm = 4 bps/Hz. Numerical results are obtained and averaged macrocell network, as different RA schemes are used to
for 50 different realizations, where in each realization, the achieve the same rate requirements for the MUEs, they
UE positions and channel gains are varied. Fig. 11 shows the affect the performance of the small cell tier differently.
average percentage of admitted SUEs vs. Rf . We notice that, • The proposed problem formulation for resource allocation
generally, as the rate requirement increases, more SUEs are in in the macrocell leads to a minimal use of the system
outage. We also notice that the distributed scheme converges bandwidth which allows to admit a higher number of
approximately to the same solution as the centralized solution. SUEs when compared to the traditional scheme that
5) Average percentage of admitted SUEs vs. Ps,max : We minimizes the sum-power.
have the same setup as the one for the previous figure except • For a given macrocell RA policy, increasing the rate
for Rf = 10 bps/Hz. Fig. 12 shows the average percentage of requirements for the MUEs degrades the performance of
admitted SUEs vs. Ps,max . We notice that as the maximum small cell tier in terms of the average number of admitted
transmit power of the small cells increases, the average number SUEs.
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
14
3 74
Upper Bound
Best Lower Bound 73
2
72
70
Centralized
0 69
Distributed
68
−1
67
66
−2
65
−3 64
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 10 12 14 16 18 20
Iterations Ps, max (dBm)
Fig. 10. Convergence of Algorithm 3. Fig. 12. Average percentage of admitted SUEs vs. Ps,max .
90
have been formulated for the macrocell tier and the small
Centralized cell tier. The macrocell tier aims at allocating resources to
Distributed
85
its MUEs in a way that can tolerate the maximum possible
interference from the small cell tier. This problem has been
Average percentage of admitted SUEs
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
15
[5] D. Lopez-Perez, A. Valcarce, G. de la Roche, and J. Zhang, “OFDMA [26] X. Kang, R. Zhang, and M. Motani, “Price-based resource allocation for
femtocells: A roadmap on interference avoidance,” IEEE Commun. spectrum-sharing femtocell networks: A stackelberg game approach,”
Magazine, vol. 47, pp. 41–48, September 2009. IEEE J. on Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 30, pp. 538–549, April 2012.
[6] 3GPP, “LTE; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) [27] D. Astely, E. Dahlman, G. Fodor, S. Parkvall, and J. Sachs, “LTE release
and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network (E-UTRAN); 12 and beyond [accepted from open call],” IEEE Commun. Magazine,
Overall description; (Release 11),” TS 36.300, 3rd Generation Partner- vol. 51, pp. 154–160, July 2013.
ship Project (3GPP), Sep 2013. [28] D. Tse and P. Viswanath, Fundamentals of Wireless Communication.
[7] K. Son, S. Lee, Y. Yi, and S. Chong, “REFIM: A practical interference Cambridge University Press, 2005.
management in heterogeneous wireless access networks,” IEEE J. on [29] F. Cao and Z. Fan, “Power loading and resource allocation for femto-
Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 29, pp. 1260–1272, June 2011. cells,” in Proc. 2011 73rd IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC
[8] V. Nguyen Ha and L. Bao Le, “Fair resource allocation for OFDMA Spring), pp. 1–5, May 2011.
femtocell networks with macrocell protection,” IEEE Trans. on Vehicular [30] H. Zhang and H. Dai, “Cochannel interference mitigation and coop-
Technology, vol. 63, pp. 1388–1401, March 2014. erative processing in downlink multicell multiuser MIMO networks,”
[9] S. Guruacharya, D. Niyato, D. I. Kim, and E. Hossain, “Hierarchical EURASIP J. on Wireless Commun. and Networking, vol. 2, pp. 222–
competition for downlink power allocation in OFDMA femtocell net- 235, 2004.
works,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 12, pp. 1543–1553, [31] W. L. Winston, Operations Research: Applications and Algorithms.
April 2013. Cengage Learning, 2003.
[10] D. T. Ngo, S. Khakurel, and T. Le-Ngoc, “Joint subchannel assignment [32] H. Yin and H. Liu, “An efficient multiuser loading algorithm for
and power allocation for OFDMA femtocell networks,” IEEE Trans. on OFDM-based broadband wireless systems,” in Proc. 2000 IEEE Global
Wireless Commun., vol. 13, pp. 342–355, January 2014. TeleCommun. Conference (GLOBECOM), vol. 1, pp. 103–107 vol.1,
[11] A. Abdelnasser, E. Hossain, and D. I. Kim, “Clustering and resource 2000.
allocation for dense femtocells in a two-tier cellular OFDMA network,” [33] J.-H. Noh and S.-J. Oh, “Distributed SC-FDMA resource allocation
IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 13, pp. 1628–1641, March 2014. algorithm based on the hungarian method,” in Proc. 2009 70th IEEE
[12] M. Andersin, Z. Rosberg, and J. Zander, “Gradual removals in cellular Vehicular Technology Conference Fall (VTC 2009-Fall),, pp. 1–5, Sept
pcs with constrained power control and noise,” in Proc. 1995 IEEE 2009.
6th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio [34] Y. Tachwali, B. Lo, I. Akyildiz, and R. Agusti, “Multiuser resource
Commun., 1995. PIMRC’95. Wireless: Merging onto the Information allocation optimization using bandwidth-power product in cognitive
Superhighway., vol. 1, pp. 56–60 vol.1, 1995. radio networks,” IEEE J. on Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 31, pp. 451–
[13] D. Lopez-Perez, X. Chu, A. Vasilakos, and H. Claussen, “Power 463, March 2013.
minimization based resource allocation for interference mitigation in [35] C. H. Papadimitriou and K. Steiglitz, Combinatorial Optimization :
OFDMA femtocell networks,” IEEE J. on Sel. Areas in Commun., Algorithms and Complexity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.,
vol. 32, pp. 333–344, February 2014. July 1998.
[14] E. Karipidis, N. Sidiropoulos, and L. Tassiulas, “Joint QoS multicast [36] K. Seong, M. Mohseni, and J. Cioffi, “Optimal resource allocation
power / admission control and base station assignment: A geometric for OFDMA downlink systems,” in Proc. 2006 IEEE International
programming approach,” in Proc. 2008 IEEE 5th Sensor Array and Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 1394–1398, 2006.
Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop, (SAM), pp. 155–159, 2008. [37] Y.-F. Liu and Y.-H. Dai, “On the complexity of joint subcarrier and
[15] Y.-F. Liu, Y.-H. Dai, and Z.-Q. Luo, “Joint power and admission control power allocation for multi-user OFDMA systems,” IEEE Trans. on
via linear programming deflation,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, Signal Processing, vol. 62, pp. 583–596, Feb 2014.
vol. 61, pp. 1327–1338, March 2013. [38] W. Yu and R. Lui, “Dual methods for nonconvex spectrum optimization
[16] J. Tadrous, A. Sultan, and M. Nafie, “Admission and power control for of multicarrier systems,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 54, no. 7,
spectrum sharing cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless pp. 1310–1322, 2006.
Commun., vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 1945–1955, 2011. [39] S. Shen and T. Lok, “Dynamic power allocation for downlink inter-
[17] I. Mitliagkas, N. Sidiropoulos, and A. Swami, “Joint power and ad- ference management in a two-tier OFDMA network,” IEEE Trans. on
mission control for ad-hoc and cognitive underlay networks: Convex Vehicular Technology, vol. 62, pp. 4120–4125, Oct 2013.
approximation and distributed implementation,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless [40] H. Zhang, X. Chu, M. Wenmin, W. Zheng, and X. Wen, “Resource
Commun., vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 4110–4121, 2011. allocation with interference mitigation in OFDMA femtocells for co-
[18] L. B. Le and E. Hossain, “Resource allocation for spectrum underlay channel deployment,” EURASIP J. on Wireless Commun. and Network-
in cognitive radio networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 7, ing, vol. 289, pp. 1–15, 2012.
no. 12, pp. 5306–5315, 2008. [41] H. Zhang, C. Jiang, N. Beaulieu, X. Chu, X. Wen, and M. Tao,
[19] W. J. Shin, K. Y. Park, D. I. Kim, and J. W. Kwon, “Large-scale joint “Resource allocation in spectrum-sharing OFDMA femtocells with
rate and power allocation algorithm combined with admission control in heterogeneous services,” IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 62, pp. 2366–
cognitive radio networks,” J. of Commun. and Networks, vol. 11, no. 2, 2377, July 2014.
pp. 157–165, 2009. [42] J. Currie and D. I. Wilson, “OPTI: Lowering the Barrier Between Open
[20] K. Phan, T. Le-Ngoc, S. Vorobyov, and C. Tellambura, “Power allo- Source Optimizers and the Industrial MATLAB User,” in Foundations
cation in wireless multi-user relay networks,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless of Computer-Aided Process Operations (N. Sahinidis and J. Pinto, eds.),
Commun., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2535–2545, 2009. (Savannah, Georgia, USA), 8–11 January 2012.
[21] X. Gong, S. Vorobyov, and C. Tellambura, “Joint bandwidth and power [43] Z. Shen, J. Andrews, and B. Evans, “Adaptive resource allocation in
allocation with admission control in wireless multi-user networks with multiuser OFDM systems with proportional rate constraints,” IEEE
and without relaying,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 4, Trans. on Wireless Commun., vol. 4, pp. 2726–2737, Nov 2005.
pp. 1801–1813, 2011. [44] M. Tao, Y.-C. Liang, and F. Zhang, “Resource allocation for delay
[22] M. S. Jin, S. A. Chae, and D. I. Kim, “Per cluster based opportunistic differentiated traffic in multiuser OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. on
power control for heterogeneous networks,” in Proc. 2011 73rd IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 7, pp. 2190–2201, June 2008.
Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), 2011, pp. 1–5, May [45] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. New York, NY,
2011. USA: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
[23] S. E. Nai, T. Quek, M. Debbah, and A. Huang, “Slow admission and [46] X. Zhang, L. Chen, J. Huang, M. Chen, and Y. Zhao, “Distributed
power control for small cell networks via distributed optimization,” and optimal reduced primal-dual algorithm for uplink OFDM resource
in Proc. 2013 IEEE Wireless Commun. and Networking Conference allocation,” in Proc. 2009 48th IEEE Conference on Decision and Con-
(WCNC), pp. 2261–2265, 2013. trol, 2009 held jointly with the 2009 28th Chinese Control Conference.
[24] S. Namal, K. Ghaboosi, M. Bennis, A. MacKenzie, and M. Latva-aho, CDC/CCC, pp. 4814–4819, Dec 2009.
“Joint admission control and interference avoidance in self-organized [47] S. Boyd, L. Xiao, A. Mutapcic, and J. Mattingley, “Notes on decompo-
femtocells,” in Proc. 2012 Conference Record of the 44th Asilomar sition methods,” Notes for EE364B, Stanford University, 2007.
Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR), pp. 1067– [48] S. Boyd and C. Barratt, “Ellipsoid method,” Notes for EE364B, Stanford
1071, 2010. University, 2008, 2008.
[25] C. Y. Wong, R. Cheng, K. Lataief, and R. Murch, “Multiuser ofdm with [49] N. Komodakis, N. Paragios, and G. Tziritas, “MRF energy minimization
adaptive subcarrier, bit, and power allocation,” IEEE J. on Sel. Areas in and beyond via dual decomposition,” IEEE Trans. on Pattern Analysis
Commun., vol. 17, pp. 1747–1758, Oct 1999. and Machine Intelligence, vol. 33, pp. 531–552, March 2011.
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This articleDownloaded form http://iranpaper.ir
has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI
10.1109/TCOMM.2015.2397888, IEEE Transactions on Communications
16
[50] 3GPP, “Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects (Re-
lease 9),” TR 36.814, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), Mar
2010.
0090-6778 (c) 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.