 Research
 Open Access
SIR distribution analysis in cellular networks considering the joint impact of pathloss, shadowing and fast fading
 Dorra Ben Cheikh^{1, 2},
 JeanMarc Kelif^{1},
 Marceau Coupechoux^{2}Email author and
 Philippe Godlewski^{2}
https://doi.org/10.1186/168714992011137
© Ben Cheikh et al; licensee Springer. 2011
 Received: 31 March 2011
 Accepted: 25 October 2011
 Published: 25 October 2011
Abstract
In this paper, we propose an analysis of the joint impact of pathloss, shadowing and fast fading on cellular networks. Two analytical methods are developed to express the outage probability. The first one based on the FentonWilkinson approach, approximates a sum of lognormal random variables by a lognormal random variable and approximates fast fading coefficients in interference terms by their average value. We denote it FWBM for FentonWilkinson based method. The second one is based on the central limit theorem for causal functions. It allows to approximate a sum of positive random variables by a Gamma distribution. We denote it CLCFM for central limit theorem for causal functions method. Each method allows to establish a simple and easily computable outage probability formula, which jointly takes into account pathloss, shadowing and fast fading. We compute the outage probability, for mobile stations located at any distance from their serving BS, by using a fluid model network that considers the cellular network as a continuum of BS. We validate our approach by comparing all results to extensive Monte Carlo simulations performed in a traditional hexagonal network and we provide the limits of the two methods in terms of system parameters. The proposed framework is a powerful tool to study performances of cellular networks, e.g., OFDMA systems (WiMAX, LTE).
Keywords
 Central Limit Theorem
 Mobile Station
 Cellular Network
 Outage Probability
 Fluid Model
1 Introduction
In this paper, we are interested in characterizing the signal to interference ratio (SIR) distribution on the downlink of a cellular network. The SIR outage probability and the SIR cumulative distribution function (CDF) are important metrics for the performance evaluation of wireless communication systems. In this paper, we define the outage probability as the probability that the SIR at the input of the receiver chain is falling below a given threshold value. This performance parameter is crucial for both coverage and capacity studies. In terms of coverage, mobile stations should be able to decode common control channels (like pilots or broadcast channels) and thus to attain a certain SIR threshold on these channels with high probability. In this case, we are interested in the low SIR region of the SIR distribution in order to evaluate the cell coverage. In terms of capacity and for systems implementing link adaptation on shared downlink channels (such as HSPA or LTE), the whole SIR distribution is needed for performance evaluation. The ergodic capacity at a certain distance from the base station is indeed evaluated as an expectation of the Shannon classical formula over the channel variations. The cell capacity is obtained by integration over the cell area.
The issue of expressing outage probability in cellular networks has been extensively addressed in the literature. For this study, a difficult task is to take into account the joint impact of pathloss, shadowing and fast fading. There are two classical assumptions: (1) considering only the shadowing effect, (2) considering both shadowing and fast fading effects. In the former case, authors mainly face the problem of expressing the distribution of the sum of lognormally random variables; several classical methods can be applied to solve this issue (see e.g. [1, 2]). In the latter case, formulas usually consist in many infinite integrals, which are uneasy to handle in a practical way (see e.g. [3]). In both cases, outage probability is always an explicit function of all distances from the user to interferers.
As the need for easytouse formulas for outage probability is clear, approximations need to be done. Working on the uplink [4], derived the distribution function of a ratio of pathlosses with shadowing, which is essential for the evaluation of external interference. For that, authors approximate the hexagonal cell with a disk of same area. Authors of [5] assume perfect power control on the uplink, while neglecting fast fading. On the downlink, Chan and Hanly [6] precisely approximate the distribution of the othercell interference. They, however, provide formulas that are difficult to handle in practice and do not consider fast fading. Immovilli and Merani [7] take into account both channel effects and make several assumptions in order to obtain simplified formulas. In particular, they approximate interference by its mean value. Outage probability is however an explicit function of all distances from receiver to every interferer. Zorzi [8], proposes a formula essentially valid for packet radio networks rather than for cellular systems. Authors of [9] provide some interesting characterizations and upper bounds of the outage probability but neglects the slowly varying pathgains. In [10], authors consider both shadowing and fast fading but assume a single interferer.
In this paper, we propose two methods to analyze the outage probability of mobile stations located at any distance r from their serving base station (BS). The first method, based on the FentonWilkinson approach [11], approximates a sum of lognormal random variables as a lognormal random variable and approximates fast fading coefficients in interference terms by their average value. We denote it FWBM (for FentonWilkinson Based Method). The second one is based on the central limit theorem for causal functions [12]. It allows to approximate a sum of positive random variables by a gamma distribution. We denote it CLCFM (for central limit theorem for causal functions method). Each method allows to establish a simple and easily computable outage probability formula, which jointly takes into account pathloss, shadowing and fast fading. We compare our proposed formulas with results obtained with extensive Monte Carlo simulations in a classical hexagonal network. At last, we rely on fluid model proposed in [13, 14] in order to express the outage probability as a simple analytical expression depending only on the distance to the serving BS. Such an expression allows further integrations much more easily than with existing formulas. Note that part of the presented results are included in [15].
The paper is organized as follows. FWBM is explained in sect. 3. We derive the outage probability while considering first only pathloss and shadowing and then pathloss, shadowing and fast fading jointly. Sect. 4 develops the CLCF method. Outage probability is calculated while considering first only pathloss and fast fading and then pathloss, shadowing and fast fading jointly. The computation is based on the fluid model (sect. 5). In sect. 6, we validate our approach and compare analytical expressions with results obtained through Monte Carlo simulations.
2 Interference model
We first define the interference model assumed in this paper. We consider a hexagonal cellular network with frequency reuse one and we focus on the downlink. We are interested in evaluating the SIR at a mobile station u, served by base station BS_{0} and interfered by N interfering base stations. We assume that mobile stations are attached to their closest BS.
2.0.1 Propagation Model
The term ${P}_{j}K{r}_{j,u}^{\eta}$, where K is a constant, represents the mean value of the received power at distance r_{j,u}from the transmitter (BS_{ j } ). X_{j,u}is a random variable (RV) representing the Rayleigh fading effects, whose pdf is p_{ X } (x) = e^{x}. The term ${Y}_{j,u}=1{0}^{{\xi}_{j,u}\u221510}$ is a lognormal RV characterizing shadowing. ξ_{j,u}is a Normal distributed RV, with zero mean and standard deviation, σ, which is typically between 0 and 8 dB. Parameter η, which is typically between 2.7 and 3.5, is the pathloss exponent.
2.0.2 SIR Calculation
2.0.3 Outage Probability
3 FentonWilkinson based method
In this section, we propose a first method based on the FentonWilkinson approximation. We first analyze the pathloss and shadowing impact. We then extend the result to the joint influence of pathloss, shadowing and fast fading based on the previous obtained result.
3.1 Pathloss and shadowing impact
Where $a=\frac{ln10}{10}$, $m=\frac{1}{a}ln\left(K{P}_{j}{r}_{j}^{\eta}\right)$ is the (logarithmic) received mean power expressed in decibels (dB), which is related to the pathloss and σ is the (logarithmic) standard deviation of the mean received signal due to the shadowing.
From Eqs. (4) and (9), we notice that f (r, η) represents the factor F without shadowing.
where Q is the complementary error function:$Q\left(u\right)=\frac{1}{2}er\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}fc\left(\frac{u}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$.
3.2 Pathloss, shadowing and fast fading impact
The interference power received by a mobile u due to fast fading effects varies with time. As a consequence, the fast fading can increase or decrease the power received by u. We consider that the increase of interfering power due to fast fading coming from some base stations are compensated by the decrease of interfering powers coming from other base stations. As a consequence, for the interfering power, only the slow fading effect has a significant impact on the SIR. We thus assume that ∀j ≠ 0, X_{ j } ≈ E[X_{ j } ] = 1 (this assumption will be validated by simulations in the next section), and we can write $\mathbb{P}\left({r}^{\eta}{X}_{0}{Y}_{0}>\delta \left(\sum _{j=1}^{N}{r}_{j}^{\eta}{X}_{j}{Y}_{j}\right)\right)\approx \mathbb{P}\left({r}^{\eta}{X}_{0}{Y}_{0}>\delta \left({\sum}_{j=1}^{N}{r}_{j}^{\eta}{Y}_{j}\right)\right)$.
4 Central limit theorem for causal functions method
In this section, we adopt a different path for deriving the SIR CDF. We first express the outage probability by considering the pathloss and fast fading. Afterwards, we use this result in order to introduce the shadowing impact.
4.1 Pathloss and fast fading impact
4.2 Pathloss, shadowing and fast fading impact
5 Analytical fluid model
With the two proposed methods, we obtain expressions of the SIR CDF at a given distance r from the serving basestation. We see however that expressions depend also on the distances r_{ i } between the considered mobile terminal and all interfering BS. With FWBM, parameters m_{ f } and s_{ f } in (11) depend on the r_{ i } (see Eqs. (5) and (6)). With CLCFM, parameters ν_{ s } and λ_{ s } in (17) depend also on the r_{ i } (see Eqs. (15) and (16)). The presence of all distances r_{ i } make proposed formulas sometimes uneasy to use for dimensioning purposes. In this section, we thus express the parameters m_{ f } , s_{ f } , ν_{ s } and λ_{ s } as functions dependent only on the distance r using the fluid model.
where R_{ c } is the half interBS distance.
6 Performance evaluation
In this section, we compare the figures obtained with analytical expressions (11) and (17) to those obtained by Monte Carlo simulations. It is clear that several approximations have been done in order to obtain easytouse closedform formulas: (1) the FentonWilkinson method is known to be accurate for low standard deviations; (2) the Central Limit Theorem for Causal Functions is an approximation; (3) the fluid model also. It is thus important to know to what extent approximations are acceptable.
6.1 Monte Carlo simulator
The simulation consists in computing at each snapshot the SIR for a uniformly random location in the central cell. This computation can be done independently of the BS output power because noise is supposed to be negligible both in simulations and analytical study. At each snapshot, shadowing (lognormal distribution with standard deviation σ) and fast fading (exponential distribution of mean 1) RV are independently drawn between the MS and the serving BS and between MS and interfering BS. We do not consider correlation between shadowing coefficient. SIR samples at a given distance from the central BS are recorded in order to compute the outage probability. Five thousand (5,000) snapshots are considered.
6.2 Results
In this section, we compare obtained formulas with results obtained by Monte Carlo simulations in a hexagonal network. We study the robustness of our approaches while varying three important parameters: σ, the standard deviation of the shadowing, η, the pathloss exponent, and r, the distance to the serving BS.
Moreover, we compare the results for the following approaches:

SIM: results obtained from Monte Carlo simulations;

FWBM: the FentonWilkinson Based Method in conjunction with the fluid model;

CLCFM: the Central Limit Theorem for Causal Functions Method in conjunction with the fluid model;
CDF difference in dB between Monte Carlo simulations (SIM) on the one hand and CLCFM and FWBM on the other hand at 5, 50 and 90% (σ = 3, 4, 6 dB, * means greater than 3 dB).
σ(dB)  η  r[km]  CLCF (dB)  FW (dB) 

3.0  2.7  0.2  0.8, 0.6, 0.3  0.8, 0.5, 0.2 
3.0  2.7  0.5  0.2, 0.1, 0.1  0.2, 0.0, 0.3 
3.0  2.7  0.9  0.1, 0.1, 0.4  0.2, 0.2, 0.9 
3.0  3.0  0.2  2.0, 1.2, 1.3  2.0, 1.1, 1.0 
3.0  3.0  0.5  0.2, 0.6, 0.6  0.2, 0.5, 0.1 
3.0  3.0  0.9  0.7, 0.6, 1.1  0.7, 0.2, 0.2 
3.0  3.3  0.2  2.1, 1.9, 1.5  2.1, 1.7, 1.1 
3.0  3.3  0.5  0.3, 0.8, 1.3  0.2, 0.6, 0.6 
3.0  3.3  0.9  1.2, 0.8, 1.6  1.2, 0.3, 0.2 
3.0  3.5  0.2  2.1, 1.6, 1.6  2.1, 1.3, 1.0 
3.0  3.5  0.5  0.9, 1.4, 2.0  0.9, 1.1, 1.1 
3.0  3.5  0.9  0.7, 0.6, 1.6  0.7, 0.0, 0.1 
4.0  2.7  0.2  0.2, 0.5, 0.4  0.1, 0.4, 0.1 
4.0  2.7  0.5  1.0, 0.3, 0.1  1.1, 0.5, 0.5 
4.0  2.7  0.9  0.5, 0.1, 0.0  0.4, 0.2, 0.7 
4.0  3.0  0.2  1.4, 1.3, 0.6  1.4, 1.1, 0.1 
4.0  3.0  0.5  0.2, 0.6, 1.3  0.3, 0.3, 0.6 
4.0  3.0  0.9  0.2, 0.3, 1.3  0.3, 0.2, 0.0 
4.0  3.3  0.2  1.0, 1.6, 1.9  1.0, 1.3, 1.2 
4.0  3.3  0.5  1.3, 1.6, 1.8  1.2, 1.2, 0.7 
4.0  3.3  0.9  0.8, 1.0, 2.6  0.7, 0.2, 0.4 
4.0  3.5  0.2  1.5, 1.8, 2.5  1.5, 1.4, 1.6 
4.0  3.5  0.5  2.2, 1.7, 2.6  2.1, 1.2, 1.3 
4.0  3.5  0.9  0.4, 1.8, 3.0  0.3, 0.8, 0.4 
6.0  2.7  0.2  0.9, 0.8, 1.0  0.8, 0.4, 0.3 
6.0  2.7  0.5  0.9, 0.7, 0.5  1.0, 0.1, 0.7 
6.0  2.7  0.9  0.1, 0.6, 2.2  0.1, 0.4, 0.5 
6.0  3.0  0.2  2.7, 1.6, 2.4  2.6, 0.9, 0.9 
6.0  3.0  0.5  1.7, 1.5, 2.7  1.5, 0.5, 0.3 
6.0  3.0  0.9  1.0, 1.9, *  0.7, 0.0, 0.0 
6.0  3.3  0.2  1.3, 2.8, *  1.1, 1.8, 1.5 
6.0  3.3  0.5  0.6, 2.3, *  0.3, 0.8, 1.3 
6.0  3.3  0.9  0.5, *, *  0.1, 0.8, 0.7 
6.0  3.5  0.2  1.8, *, *  1.6, 2.0, 1.9 
6.0  3.5  0.5  2.6, *, *  2.3, 1.9, 1.7 
6.0  3.5  0.9  1.7, *, *  1.1, 0.7, 0.7 
CDF difference in dB between Monte Carlo Simulations (SIM) on the one hand and CLCFM and FWBM on the other hand at 5, 50 and 90% (σ = 7 and 8 dB, * means greater than 3 dB).
d[Km]  η  σ[dB]  CLCF [dB]  FW [dB] 

7.0  2.7  0.2  0.2, 0.9, 2.0  0.3, 0.1, 0.2 
7.0  2.7  0.5  0.1, 1.1, 2.8  0.4, 0.1, 0.1 
7.0  2.7  0.9  0.1, 2.4, *  0.6, 0.0, 0.1 
7.0  3.0  0.2  1.5, 2.6, *  1.2, 1.1, 1.0 
7.0  3.0  0.5  0.8, 3.0, *  1.2, 0.8, 1.2 
7.0  3.0  0.9  2.4, *, *  1.7, 1.0, 1.4 
7.0  3.3  0.2  0.2, *, *  0.6, 1.3, 2.8 
7.0  3.3  0.5  2.3, *, *  1.7, 1.6, 2.4 
7.0  3.3  0.9  2.6, *, *  1.6, 1.5, 2.0 
7.0  3.5  0.2  2.9, *, *  2.4, 1.8, 2.2 
7.0  3.5  0.5  1.3, *, *  0.6, 1.5, 2.4 
7.0  3.5  0.9  1.7, *, *  0.5, 2.2, 2.7 
8.0  2.7  0.2  0.4, 2.9, *  0.9, 0.8, 0.6 
8.0  2.7  0.5  2.6, *, *  1.9, 0.4, 0.3 
8.0  2.7  0.9  1.0, *, *  0.0, 0.4, 1.3 
8.0  3.0  0.2  1.3, *, *  0.6, 1.1, 1.7 
8.0  3.0  0.5  2.7, *, *  1.6, 1.1, 2.2 
8.0  3.0  0.9  *, *, *  2.0, 1.7, 2.3 
8.0  3.3  0.2  2.7, *, *  1.7, 2.6, 3.0 
8.0  3.3  0.5  2.1, *, *  0.7, 1.9, * 
8.0  3.3  0.9  2.9, *, *  0.5, 2.4, * 
8.0  3.5  0.2  *, *, *  2.1, 3.0, * 
8.0  3.5  0.5  2.7, *, *  1.0, 2.2, * 
8.0  3.5  0.9  *, *, *  1.2, 2.2, * 

CLCFM provides accurate results for σ ≤ 6 dB and η ≤ 3.0. For all σ ≤ 8 dB, results are still accurate in the low SIR region; this is an interesting result for coverage issues where outage computations are involved.

FWBM provides accurate results for σ ≤ 8 dB and η ≤ 3.0, η can be greater if σ is strictly less than 8 dB. At σ = 8 dB and for η ≤ 3.5, results are still accurate in the low SIR region.
Theses results show that proposed methods, especially FWBM, can provide accurate results for typical values of parameters r, σ and η usually considered in cellular networks.
7 Conclusion
In this paper, we establish simple formulas of the outage probability in cellular networks, while considering pathloss, shadowing and fast fading. Using FWBM approach, we take into account pathloss and shadowing to first express the inverse of the SIR of a mobile located at a given distance of its serving BS as a lognormal random variable. We then consider both pathloss, shadowing and fast fading and give an analytical expression of the outage probability at a given distance of the serving BS. Using CLCFM approach, we take into account pathloss and fast fading to express the SIR of a mobile located at a given distance of its serving BS. We then consider pathloss, fast fading and shadowing and give an analytical expression of the outage probability at a given distance of the serving BS. The fluid model allows us to obtain formulas that only depend on the distance to the serving BS. The analytical model that we propose is validated by comparisons with Monte Carlo simulations. The formulas derived in this paper allow to obtain performances results instantaneously.
The proposed framework is a powerful tool to study performances of cellular networks and to design fine algorithms taking into account the distance to the serving BS, shadowing and fast fading. It can particularly easily be used to study frequency reuse schemes in OFDMA systems.
Appendix 1
In this section, we derive the logarithmic mean and standard deviation of F (see equation (4)) using the FentonWilkinson method. Several classical techniques exist in the literature in order to approximate a sum of lognormal RV, e.g., SchwartzYeh [18] and Farley [19]. The former needs complex recursive calculations, the latter assumes identical mean and standard deviation. On the contrary, the FentonWilkinson method provides a closedform formula for non identical distributed lognormal RV.
Taking now into account the denominator, the logarithmic mean value of F is simply am_{ f } = am  (η ln(r)) and the logarithmic standard deviation of F is ${a}^{2}{s}_{f}^{2}={a}^{2}{\sigma}_{s}^{2}+{a}^{2}{\sigma}^{2}$. The ratio of two lognormal RV is indeed a lognormal RV with mean, the difference of the means, and variance, the sum of the variances. With the definitions of f, G and H, we obtain Eqs. (5) and (6). Note that m_{ f } and s_{ f } are expressed in dB.
Appendix 2
In this section, we shortly recall the fluid model approach, that will allow us to simplify Eq. 18. The fluid model approach consists of replacing a given fixed finite number of interfering BS by an equivalent continuum of transmitters which are uniformly distributed with density ρ_{ BS } .
Declarations
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Pratesi M, Santucci F, Graziosi F, Ruggieri M: Outage analysis in mobile radio systems with generically correlated lognormal interferers. Commun. IEEE Trans 2000, 48(3):381385. 10.1109/26.837041View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Stuber GL: Principles of Mobile Communications. 2nd edition. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London; 2001.Google Scholar
 Linnartz JPMG: Exact analysis of the outage probability in multipleuser mobile radio. Commun. IEEE Trans 1992, 40(1):2023. 10.1109/26.126703View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Evans JS, Everitt D: Effective bandwidthbased admission control for multiservice cdma cellular networks. Vehi. Technol., IEEE Trans 1999, 48(1):3646. 10.1109/25.740058View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Veeravalli VV, Sendonaris A: The coveragecapacity tradeoff in cellular cdma systems. Vehi. Technol., IEEE Trans 1999, 48(5):14431450. 10.1109/25.790518View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chan CC, Hanly SV: Calculating the outage probability in a cdma network with spatial poisson traffic. Vehi. Technol., IEEE Trans 2001, 50(1):183204. 10.1109/25.917918View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Immovilli G, Merani ML: Simplified evaluation of outage probability for cellular mobile radio systems. Electronics Letters 1991, 27(15):13651367. 10.1049/el:19910859View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Zorzi M, Pupolin S: Outage probability in multiple access packet radio networks in the presence of fading. Vehi. Technol., IEEE Trans 1994, 43(3):604610. 10.1109/25.312811View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Papandriopoulos J, Evans J, Dey S: Outagebased optimal power control for generalized multiuser fading channels. Commun., IEEE Trans 2006, 54(4):693703.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Williamson AG, Parsons JD: Outage probability in a mobile radio system subject to fading and shadowing. Electronics Lett 1985, 21(14):622623. 10.1049/el:19850440View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Fenton L: The sum of lognormal probability distributions in scatter transmission systems. Commun. Sys., IRE Trans 1960, 8(1):5767.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Papoulis A: The Fourier Integral and Its Applications. McGrawHill, New York; 1962.Google Scholar
 Kelif JM: Admission control on fluid cdma networks, in Modeling and Optimization in Mobile. Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks, 2006 4th International Symposium on 2006, 17.Google Scholar
 Kelif JM, Alman E: Downlink fluid model of cdma networks. Vehicular Technology Conference, 2005. VTC 2005Spring. 2005 IEEE 61st 2005, 4: 22642268.Google Scholar
 Kelif JM: Marceau Coupechoux, Joint impact of pathloss shadowing and fast fading  an outage formula for wireless networks. 2010.Google Scholar
 Simon MK, Alouini MS: Digital Communication Over Fading Channels. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey; 2005.Google Scholar
 Kelif JM, Coupechoux M, Godlewski P: Spatial outage probability for cellular networks. Global Telecommunications Conference, 2007. GLOBECOM '07. IEEE 2007, 44454450.Google Scholar
 Schwartz S, Yeh YS: On the distribution function and moments of power sums with lognormal components. Bell Syst. Tech. J 1982, 61: 14411462.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
 Beaulieu NC, AbuDayya AA, McLane PJ: Comparison of methods of computing lognormal sum distributions and outages for digital wireless applications. International Conference on Communications, ICC 1994.Google Scholar
Copyright
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.