Fair and QoSoriented resource management in heterogeneous networks
 Mustafa Cenk Ertürk^{1, 2}Email author,
 Ismail Güvenç^{3},
 Sayandev Mukherjee^{2} and
 Hüseyin Arslan^{2}
https://doi.org/10.1186/168714992013121
© Ertürk et al.; licensee Springer. 2013
Received: 18 July 2012
Accepted: 2 April 2013
Published: 4 May 2013
Abstract
In this paper, a heterogeneous network composed of femtocells deployed within a macrocell network is considered, and a qualityofservice (QoS)oriented fairness metric which captures important characteristics of tiered network architectures is proposed. Using homogeneous Poisson processes, the sum capacities in such networks are expressed in closed form for cochannel, dedicated channel, and hybrid resource allocation methods. Then a resource splitting strategy that simultaneously considers capacity maximization, fairness constraints, and QoS constraints is proposed. Detailed computer simulations utilizing 3GPP simulation assumptions show that a hybrid allocation strategy with a welldesigned resource split ratio enjoys the best celledge user performance, with minimal degradation in the sum throughput of macrocell users when compared with that of cochannel operation.
Keywords
1 Introduction
The demand for wireless broadband data has been growing dramatically over the recent years, which introduces an important challenge for nextgeneration radio access networks. Recent predictions show that due to the increasing range of throughputdemanding applications on mobile devices, a global data growth as large as 33 times is forecasted by some analysts over the next 5 years, a large portion (70% to 90%) of which will be mostly initiated from lowmobility users [1]. Moreover, the data consumed by applications of mobile devices such as smartphone and Google glasses will provide extreme burdens to cellular network providers since users will demand high data rates for their devices at anytime and anywhere. Although overlay of WiFi networks in unlicensed spectrum complements cellular networks at residences, in office buildings, or at public hotspots in some use cases, it cannot provide a reliable and qualityofservice (QoS)oriented access for users [2]. On the other hand, since the traditional macrocellular networks are not built for these use cases, it will be extremely challenging to meet such demand for high data rates in the upcoming years.
In order to address these challenges, there has been an increasing interest to deploy lowpower nodes within the coverage areas of macrocellular networks, such as picocells, femtocells, relay nodes, and distributed antenna systems. These networks, which are commonly referred as heterogeneous networks [3], can efficiently reuse the wireless resources (power, spectrum, hardware, available nodes and networks, etc.) due to lowpower operation and, at the same time, maintain good link qualities with the end users due to the relatively shorter communication distances^{a}.
The split spectrum approach shown in Figure 1b, on the other hand, partitions the allocated spectrum between multiple tiers. Each tier can use its own segment of resource and therefore there is no crosstier interference [4]. However, the amount of bandwidth available to each tier is reduced. Hybrid methods as shown in Figure 1c use a mixture of cochannel and dedicated channel methods and aim to reuse the spectrum resources whenever feasible. For example, in [5] the macrocell users are dedicated to a component carrier (CC), referred as the ‘escape carrier’, which is not used by the femtocell network. Any macrocell mobile station (mMS) which is close to a femtocell is scheduled within this escape carrier, if the interference observed from the femtocell network is above threshold. Hence, user outages are prevented by scheduling victim users in dedicated resources, while the spectrum is still reused in cochannel CCs. The resources within a certain CC may also be partitioned into smaller chunks for similar interference mitigation purposes [6].
Performance of dedicated channel and cochannel femtocell/macrocell networks have been investigated and compared through computer simulations in [7, 8]. Both papers show that cochannel deployment increases the total system throughput at the expense of some degradation in the throughput of macrocell users that are close to the femtocells. However, impact of different spectrum splitting ratios (SSRs) on the overall network has not been studied in these works. Capacity cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of indoor and outdoor users for different SSRs have been compared through computer simulations in [9], which shows that for certain scenarios, the performance close to the cochannel deployment can be obtained by appropriately setting the SSR value in a dedicated channel setting. Bharucha et al. investigate the impact of dynamic resource partitioning for downlink femtotomacrocell interference avoidance for cochannel femtocell deployments in [6]. The simulation results show that cochannel deployment with dynamic resource partitioning can benefit from the frequency reuse property to achieve high throughputs, and femtocells can switch to orthogonal resource utilization when a closeby macrocell user is detected. However, so called X2 interface between the macrocell base station (mBS) and the femtocell base station (fBS) is assumed to be available in order to exchange the interference coordination information. In [10], an autonomous power control algorithm is introduced to enhance interference management in heterogeneous networks, and user equipments or UEs are proposed to be employed in the interference cancellation of broadcast interfering signals. As opposed to CSG access method, a shared access method which allows femtocells to allocate an adjustable number of time slots between home and cellular users is proposed in [11]. A survey on interference and resource management in femtocell networks can be found in [12].
One of the key aspects of spectrum allocation in heterogeneous networks is to define a metric to measure and evaluate the degree of fairness and QoS in the overall system [13]. The fundamental work in the area was done by Jain and Hawe [14], which analyzes all the properties of the fairness metric. Bandwidth assignment and schedulingrelated optimization problems using fairness criteria were investigated in [15]. Utilitybased fairness indices [16] have been widely recognized due to their flexibility for various application types. All of the above metrics are designed by considering a onetiercoordinated deployed network. However, when the structure of the network is tiered, we propose that the metric should also include the heterogeneity of the network.
The goal of this paper is to provide a fairness metric for heterogeneous network architectures and to optimize the SSR (ρ) in dedicated channel and hybrid channel approaches, as in Figure 1b,c, considering the fairness and QoS constraints. First, the sum capacities of different tiers in a heterogeneous network are expressed in closed form for all approaches, and the capacitymaximizing spectrum splitting is investigated. To fairly allocate the resources to different tiers, a modified QoSoriented fairness metric is introduced. This metric captures important characteristics of tiered network architectures such as the number of networks in each tier, the number of users in each network, and the QoS requirements of different tiers. Then a spectrum splitting strategy that simultaneously considers capacity maximization, fairness constraints, and QoS constraints is proposed. For different SSR values, sum capacities of macrocells and femtocells are obtained through analytical derivations and computer simulations and compared through various scenarios.
We can summarize the contribution of this paper as follows. (1) A modified fairness metric is introduced which can be used for resource management in tiered network structures such as heterogeneous networks. This metric is investigated in an example scenario, its properties are presented, and it is compared with the Jain’s fairness metric used for homogeneous networks. (2) The sum capacity of hybrid channel approach resource management is analytically derived as well as the traditional methods such as cochannel and dedicated channel as a toolbox for comparisons. Simulation results are obtained to confirm analytical findings. (3) For the hybrid channel approach, a method for scheduling of users in macrocell is proposed utilizing maxmin fair scheduling approach.
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, the system model to provide total capacity of a macrocellfemtocell network is provided, and QoSoriented fairness metric for tiered network structures is proposed. In Section 3, capacities of cochannel, dedicated channel, and hybrid channel approaches are derived using homogeneous Poisson processes (HPPs) and a maxmin fair scheduler is introduced for hybrid channel approach. Numerical results for various scenarios are presented in Section 4, followed by concluding remarks in Section 5.
2 Fairness metric and system model for heterogeneous networks
while considering fairness metric and QoS parameter. Note that N_{N,i}, N_{U,i,j}, and C_{i,j,k} are number of cells in i th tier, number of users in the i th tier and j th cell, and rate of the k th user in the i th tier and j th cell, respectively.
3 Capacity of macrocell and femtocell
where B_{2,j,k}, P_{2,j,k}, and I_{2,j,k} denote bandwidth, received power, and interference power observed by the k th user with the j th femtocell, respectively; N_{0} is the spectral density of noise; and C_{2,j,k} is the capacity of femtocell user k with the j th femtocell.
where B_{1,j,k}, P_{1,j,k}, I_{1,j,k}, and C_{1,j,k} denote bandwidth, received power, interference power, and capacity for the k th macrocell user in the j th macrocell, respectively. Both macrocell users (mMS) and femtocell users (fMS) are assumed to be distributed within each circular macrocell and femtocell area.
3.1 QoS orientation and fairness metric for tiered networks
In this section, we first define a fairness index and propose that a fair spectrum allocation can be achieved by considering the heterogeneous architecture of tiered networks. Then a QoS parameter is also added in the fairness metric to provide QoS orientation for the spectrum allocation.
3.1.1 Fairness index
where N denotes the total number of users, and x_{ i } denotes the received allocation for the i th user. Some of the important properties of Equation 4 are as follows: (1) population size independence, (2) scale and metric independence, (3) boundedness (f(x)∈[1/N,1],∀x), (4) direct relationship, and (5) continuity (nondiscrete).
The difference of (5) from the JFI is that it is a global fairness index for a tiered network and it provides a single fairness index by weighting the tiers and cells according to their number of users^{c}.
Bounds for fairness indices
FI  Lower bound  Upper bound 

f_{JFI}(C)  1/N_{tot}  No explicit solution^{a} 
f_{TFI}(C)  1/N_{tot}  1 
f_{WJFI}(C)  $\frac{\sum _{i=1}^{T}\sum _{j=1}^{{N}_{\mathrm{N},i}}1/{N}_{\mathrm{U},i,j}}{\sum _{i=1}^{T}{N}_{\mathrm{N},i}}$  1 
f_{QTFI}(C)  1/N_{tot}  1 
However, WJFI does not consider the number of users in each cell and weighs the fairness with the total number of cells in the system ($\sum _{i=1}^{T}{N}_{\mathrm{N},i}$). For instance, if one cell (i.e., macrocell or each one of the femtocells) has twice the number of users compared to another cell, (8) does not consider this and provides equal weights for each cell. While this metric has an upper bound of 1, it does not have a lower bound of 1/N_{tot}. Table 1 shows that the lower bound of the equation is increasing with the decrease in the number of users in each cell, which is a very common case for a femtocell scenario.
3.1.2 QoSoriented TFI
Note that (10) converges to (5) while β_{ i }→1 (i = 2,…,T). Moreover, if macrocell is the only tier in the system (i.e., T = 1, N_{N,1} = 1), then (5) converges to the Jain’s fairness index given in (7). This proves that the provided equations are the modified versions of the JFI in order to satisfy the boundedness property within [1/N_{Tot},1]. Table 1 summarizes the lower and upper bounds of the abovementioned fairness indices.
It is important to note that the proposed fairness indices (f_{TFI}(C), f_{QTFI}(C)) are bounded and independent of the number of cells in the tiered network structure. JFI upper bound is not independent from the allocated resources; therefore, a closedform expression could not be achieved. On the other hand, the lower bound of the WJFI depends on the number of cells and the number of users within the cells in each tier. Therefore, proposed fairness indices would provide a controlled metric for resource allocation problems in heterogeneous networks.
4 Resource partitioning in macrocellfemtocell networks
In this study, the goal of resource partitioning is to split the total bandwidth B among tiers such that (1) The capacity of the overall system is maximized, (2) a level of global fairness is ensured between users in different tiers, and (3) QoS requirements of users in different tiers in terms of relative data rates are satisfied.
As shown in Figure 1b, the portion of the accessed bandwidth for macrocelltier is ρ where $\rho =\frac{{B}_{\mathrm{M}}}{B}$. Therefore, B_{F} = (1−ρ)B where ${B}_{\mathrm{M}}=\sum _{k=1}^{{N}_{\mathrm{U},1,1}}{B}_{1,1,k}$ and ${B}_{\mathrm{F}}=\sum _{k=1}^{{N}_{\mathrm{U},2,j}}{B}_{2,j,k},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\forall j$. In addition, in the hybrid approach, Figure 1c, the portion of the accessed bandwidth for macrocelltier is the total bandwidth B_{M} = B, and B_{F} = (1−ρ)B where ${B}_{\mathrm{M}}=\sum _{k=1}^{{N}_{\mathrm{U},1,1}}{B}_{1,1,k}$ and ${B}_{\mathrm{F}}=\sum _{k=1}^{{N}_{\mathrm{U},2,j}}{B}_{2,j,k},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\forall j$. In both approaches, our goal when splitting the spectrum is to maximize ${C}_{\text{Tot}}\left(\rho \right)=\sum _{i=1}^{T}\sum _{j=1}^{{N}_{\mathrm{N},i}}\sum _{k=1}^{{N}_{\mathrm{U},i,j}}{C}_{i,j,k}\left(\rho \right)$ while considering fairness metric and QoS parameter.
4.1 Macrocell and femtocell deployment using HPP
In this section, we focus on a general analytical formulation of the macrocellfemtocell capacities by employing statistical models for mBS and fBS locations^{d}. We focus on an arbitrary mobile station (MS) in this region and calculate the downlink capacity for macrocell and femtocell users for dedicated channel, cochannel, and hybrid channel scenarios. These results, which are functions only of the macrocell and femtocell relative densities, transmit powers, the parameters of the wireless channel, and the SSR, and provide valuable insights for the architecture planning process for joint femtomacro deployments under different fairness and QoS criteria.
 1.The number of mBS $N\left(\mathbb{B}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\right)$ in any finite region $\mathbb{B}$ is Poisson ($\lambda \times \text{area}\left(\mathbb{B}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\right)$): for n = 0,1,⋯,$\begin{array}{l}\mathbb{P}\left\{N\right(\mathbb{B}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}})=n\}={\mathrm{e}}^{\lambda \times \text{area}\left(\mathbb{B}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\right)}\frac{{[\lambda \times \text{area}(\mathbb{B}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\left)\right]}^{n}}{n!}\end{array}$
with mean $\mathbb{E}N\left(\mathbb{B}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\right)=\lambda \times \text{area}\left(\mathbb{B}\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\right)$.
 2.are independent.$\forall \mathbb{B},{\mathbb{B}}^{\prime}:\mathbb{B}\cap {\mathbb{B}}^{\prime}=\varnothing \Rightarrow N\left(\mathbb{B}\right),N\left({\mathbb{B}}^{\prime}\right)$
 3., given $N\left(\mathbb{B}\right)=n$, these n mBS are i.i.d and uniformly distributed over $\mathbb{B}$.$\forall \mathbb{B}$
Note that λ is in units of points per square meter. We model the locations of fBS by points of an independent HPP with intensity λ^{′} and all the fBSs that are operating in CSG mode.
 1.
Path loss exponent is δ.
 2.
We assume no shadowing in our analysis, purely for reasons of analytical tractability as discussed in [17].
 3.
Fading in all macrocellular downlinks are independent identically distributed (i.i.d.) Rayleigh with mean 1^{e}.
 4.
All mBS (respectively fBS) transmit with the same reference symbol power P _{RS} (respectively ${P}_{\text{RS}}^{\prime}$).
 5.MS at distance r from mBS has a reference symbol received power (RSRP in longterm evolution (LTE) terminology)$\begin{array}{l}\text{RSRP}\left(r\right)=\frac{H}{{r}^{\delta}},\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}H\sim \text{exp}\left(P\right),\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}P\equiv K{P}_{\text{RS}},\end{array}$(11)
where the exponential distribution of H arises from the Rayleigh fading assumption, and K is a quantity that takes into account the relative heights of the transmitter and receiver on the link, etc., and is considered the same for all links from any MS location to any mBS. We are interested in MS locations whose distance from the nearest mBS exceeds some r_{min}.
 6.Similarly, a MS at distance r ^{′} from a fBS has RSRP given by$\begin{array}{l}{\text{RSRP}}^{\prime}\left({r}^{\prime}\right)=\frac{{H}^{\prime}}{{r}^{\mathrm{\prime \delta}}},\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{H}^{\prime}\sim \text{exp}\left({P}^{\prime}\right),\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{P}^{\prime}\equiv {K}^{\prime}{P}_{\text{RS}}^{\prime}.\end{array}$(12)
Proof
where the total bandwidth is assumed to be distributed in a roundrobin fashion in each mBS and fBS with an assumption that all of the users are continuously backlogged. Note that ν = [ν_{1},…,ν_{ M }], μ = [μ_{1},…,μ_{ M }], m = [m_{1},…,m_{ M }], and Θ = [Θ_{1},…,Θ_{ M }] are vectors of 1×M, with m_{ k } and Θ_{ k } as in (14). For a given area with radius R, the number of macrocells and femtocells can be calculated as N_{N,1} = λ Π R^{2} and N_{N,2} = λ^{′}Π R^{2}, respectively. □
4.2 Cochannel macrocell/femtocell networks
where M = 2; HPP1 is mBS locations; HPP2 is fBS locations (ν_{1},ν_{2}) = (λ,λ^{′}), (μ_{1},μ_{2}) = (P,P^{′}), $({m}_{1},{m}_{2})=(\mathrm{\lambda \Pi}{r}_{\text{min,m}}^{2},{\lambda}^{\prime}\Pi {r}_{\text{min,f}}^{2})$, ${\Theta}_{2}=\frac{{\lambda}^{\prime}}{\lambda}{\left(\frac{{P}^{\prime}}{P}\right)}^{2/\delta}$, and (d_{max,1},d_{min,1}) = (r_{max,m},r_{min,m}).
4.3 Dedicated channel macrocell/femtocell networks
where M = 1; HPP1 is mBS locations, ν_{1} = λ, μ_{1} = P, ${m}_{1}=\mathrm{\lambda \Pi}{r}_{\text{min,m}}^{2}$, and (d_{max,1},d_{min,1}) = (r_{max,m},r_{min,m}).
Note that the objective function in (29) is a linear combination of (26) and (28). Since each femtocell reuses the spectrum more frequently, the capacity equation given in (26) includes a larger multiplying term N_{N,2}>N_{N,1}. Therefore, if the SINR levels of users in each tier are similar, objective function (29) will be maximized at ρ = 0. This issue is also investigated by calculating pertier area spectral efficiencies (ASEs) in [19] and it is shown that capacity is maximized at extreme points without a fairness or QoS parameter. Such a partitioning is obviously unfair since it results in a greedy allocation to one of the tiers which will be discussed in more detail in Section 4.2.
4.4 Hybrid approach for resource allocation
where M = 2; HPP1 is fBS locations; HPP2 is mBS locations (ν_{1},ν_{2}) = (λ^{′},λ), (μ_{1},μ_{2}) = (P^{′},P), $({m}_{1},{m}_{2})=({\lambda}^{\prime}\Pi {r}_{\text{min,f}}^{2},\mathrm{\lambda \Pi}{r}_{\text{min,m}}^{2})$, ${\Theta}_{2}=\frac{\lambda}{{\lambda}^{\prime}}{\left(\frac{P}{{P}^{\prime}}\right)}^{2/\delta}$, and (d_{max,1},d_{min,1}) = (r_{max,f},r_{min,f}). Note that r_{min,m} and r_{min,f} are the minimum distances between a MSmBS and MSfBS, respectively, and note that r_{max,m} and r_{max,f} are the maximum distances between a MSmBS, and MSfBS, respectively.
On the other hand, to calculate the macrocell capacity, the following steps should be followed:

Consider a macrocell MS at distance r_{1} from its nearest mBS. Let γ_{ c } be the minimum rate for scheduling a mMS to dedicated channel portion of hybrid channel. Then the instantaneous rate of this MS from the MBS can be given as$\begin{array}{l}{C}_{\text{macro}}\left({r}_{1}\right)=(1\rho ){C}_{\text{co}}\left({r}_{1}\right)1\left\{{C}_{\text{co}}\right({r}_{1})>{\gamma}_{c}\}\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\end{array}$(31)$\begin{array}{l}\phantom{\rule{6.2em}{0ex}}+\rho {C}_{\text{ded}}\left({r}_{1}\right)1\left\{{C}_{\text{co}}\right({r}_{1})\le {\gamma}_{c}\}.\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\end{array}$(32)
Note that C_{co}(r_{1}), C_{ded}(r_{1}) are instantaneous (includes effects of fading) rates derived in (17) for cochannel and dedicated channel scenarios^{g}, respectively.

Therefore, the mean rate for that MS can be given as$\begin{array}{l}{\stackrel{\u0304}{C}}_{\text{macro}}\left({r}_{1}\right)=(1\rho )\mathbb{E}\left[{C}_{\text{co}}\left({r}_{1}\right)1\left\{{C}_{\text{co}}\right({r}_{1})>{\gamma}_{c}\}\right]\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\end{array}$(33)$\begin{array}{l}\phantom{\rule{6.2em}{0ex}}+\rho \mathbb{E}\left[{C}_{\text{ded}}\left({r}_{1}\right)1\left\{{C}_{\text{co}}\right({r}_{1})\le {\gamma}_{c}\}\right].\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}\end{array}$(34)

Finally, the aggregate rate for an mBS can be written as$\begin{array}{l}{C}_{\text{Mac}}\left(\rho \right)=\frac{B{N}_{\mathrm{N},1}}{\Pi {\lambda}_{\text{MS},1}({d}_{\text{max},1}^{2}{d}_{\text{min},1}^{2})}\\ \phantom{\rule{5.5em}{0ex}}\times \underset{{d}_{\text{min},1}}{\overset{{d}_{\text{max},1}}{\int}}2\Pi {\lambda}_{\text{MS},1}{r}_{1}{\stackrel{\u0304}{C}}_{\text{macro}}\left({r}_{1}\right)\mathrm{d}{r}_{1}\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}.\end{array}$(35)
By using simple maxmin capacity scheduling, the minimum capacity of mMS are maximized by assigning them to dedicated channel portion while also maximizing the overall capacity of the macrocellfemtocell network. The fairness and QoS orientation constraints in the network can also be introduced by usage of fairness metric given in (10).
5 Numerical results
Numerical parameters for analytical/simulation results
Parameter  Description/value  

Analytical results and basic simulator  3GPP compatible simulator[21]  
Macrocellular  Hexagonal layout with BS in the middle of the cell  Hexagonal layout with cellcenter BSs 
Number of mBS  Infinite for analytical, 19 cell with wrap around for simulations  19 cell with wrap around 
IntermBS distance  500 m for simulations; 500 m in average for analytical. Therefore, the density of the macrocells (λ_{mBS}) is $\frac{1}{500\sqrt{3}/2}=4.62\times 1{0}^{6}.$ Similarly, the density of femtocells is λ_{fBS} = λ_{mBS} × 12 = 5.54 × 10^{−5}  500 m 
Number of fBS  12 per each macrocell  12 per each macrocell 
fBs distribution  12 fBSs that are randomly and uniformly distributed within each sector in CSG mode  4 fBSs that are randomly and uniformly distributed within each sector in CSG mode 
mBSmMS minimum distance  35 m  35 m [21] 
fBSfMS minimum distance  5 m  5 m [21] 
Bandwidth  10 MHz  10 MHz 
DL transmit power mBS  60 dBm  46 dBm, with Tx power at mBS and 14 dBi antenna gain [21]. Three sectors with 3D antenna pattern. Antenna height, 32 m 
DL transmit power fBS  20 dBm  20 dBm with antenna gain of 5 dBi 
Thermal noise density  −174 dBm/Hz  −174 dBm/Hz 
Path loss model (macrocell)  128.1+40 log_{10}(R), R in km  128.1+37.6log_{10}(R), R in km [21] 
Path loss model (femtocell)  127+40 log_{10}(R), R in km  127+36.7log_{10}(R), R in km [21] 
Wall loss attenuation  20 dB  20 dB 
5.1 Comparison of different fairness metrics
The effect of the number of cells and the number of users in each cell with the bounds in Table 1 is investigated in a twotier network case study (T = 2), where tier1 has one cell (N_{N,1} = 1) and tier2 has two cells (N_{N,2} = 2). We consider two different scenarios to provide a better understanding for the metrics and their related bounds. In the first scenario, we assume that there are N_{U,1,1} = 4 users in tier1, cell1, and N_{U,2,1} = 3; N_{U,2,2} = 1 users for tier2 and cells 1 and 2. Therefore, there are a total of eight users in the network for the first scenario. In the second scenario, we do not change the total number of users; however, we consider N_{U,1,1} = 6 users in tier1, cell1, and N_{U,2,1} = 1 and N_{U,2,2} = 1 users for tier2 and cells 1 and 2.
The allocated resources for each user is assumed to be partitioned in a roundrobin fashion within each cell in all tiers, and the capacity of each cell is normally distributed with mean μ and variance ${\sigma}^{2}\left({C}_{i,j}\sim \mathcal{N}(\mu ,{\sigma}^{2})\right)$. Figure 2 shows that proposed fairness index (TFI) is between [1/N_{Tot},1] with controlled boundings, converging to WJFI at 1 for small standard deviation values. On the other hand, TFI converges to JFI at 0.125 for increasing standard deviation. Moreover, upper bound of JFI is decreased and lower bound of WJFI is increased in scenario 2 compared to scenario 1. The noneven distribution of the users in cells increases the lower bound of the WJFI. For instance in scenario 2, the cells 1 and 2 in tier 2 have only one user. Calculating the lower bound of WJFI according to Table 1 for scenario 1 and scenario 2 provides 0.527 and 0.722, respectively, which could also be tracked from Figure 2. Although an upper bound independent from allocated resource could not be achieved for JFI, Figure 2 shows that while the number of users in a cell (for instance, the number of users in tier 1 cell 1 is very high compared to tier 2 cells) increases, the upper bound decreases.
5.2 Numerical results for analytical derivations
In this section, we present the numerical results for equations derived through Equations 21 to 39. A computer simulation is demonstrated to provide a comparison between analytical derivations and simulation results. The simulation scenario includes analytical derivation assumptions and uses the parameters listed in Table 1.
5.3 Detailed investigation of computer simulations and maxmin scheduling under fairness and QoS constraints
Previous section shows that although computer simulations and analytical results are aligned, the sum capacity is maximized at extreme points for both macrocell and femtocell networks. Therefore, in this section, we introduce the fairness criterion into the optimization while also considering a more applicable scenario where parameters are selected from [21]. This study also considers the case where a portion of macrocell MSs is inside the CSG femtocell area which we called indoor ratio (IR). One hundred users are randomly and uniformly distributed within each sector, and there are two users associated with each closedaccess femtocell [21]. This yields 100−4 × 2 = 92 macrocell users within each sector.
In Figure 7, hybrid channel 5percentile capacities are always better than both cochannel and dedicated channel. The 5percentile capacities are maximized around ρ ≃ 0.5. We also investigate the femtocell sum capacities for various values and see that the similar behavior in Figure 4 is experienced therefore the figure is not given for the sake of brevity. IR does not affect the femtocell capacities, and hybrid approach femtocell sum capacities decrease with increasing ρ. Figures 6 and 7 shows that for hybrid approach, selecting ρ = [0.2,0.5] provides a good compromise between sum capacity and 5percentile capacity of macrocell. On the other hand, smaller ρ values maximize the femtocell capacity in hybrid approach (see Figure 4).
To conclude, partitioning of available resources with the hybrid approach yields the best tradeoff from capacity maximization, fairness, and QoS perspectives. The macrocell sum capacity maximization is done at ρ ≃ 0.2, macrocell 5percentile capacity maximization is done around ρ ≃ 0.5, and fairness maximization is done around ρ ≃ 0.8. Therefore, a network provider can able to operate the network depending on these three parameters according to the requirements.
6 Conclusions
In this paper, using HPPs, we study the sum capacities of cochannel, dedicated channel, and hybrid spectrum allocation methods for twotier macrocellfemtocell networks For dedicated channel and hybrid approaches, optimum partitioning of the available spectrum resources between the macrocell and femtocell networks is derived analytically and analyzed for various scenarios. The results show that without using fairness criteria, the capacity maximizing allocation is done by allocating the whole spectrum to femtocells due to their spectrum reuse capability. Since this approach leads to a very unfair spectrum allocation, we propose a QoSoriented fairness metric. By using this metric as a constraint for the spectrum allocation, we present a capacity maximizing spectrum allocation method which guarantees a specific level of fairness and QoS. From a network provider’s point of view, partitioning of available resources with the hybrid approach yields the best tradeoff from capacity maximization, fairness, and QoS perspectives. The findings in this paper may also be easily extended to timedomain resource coordination among macrocells and femtocells as specified in 3GPP Release10 [22], where the duty cycle of blank subframes [23] may be optimized while jointly considering capacity maximization, fairness, and QoS constraints.
Endnotes
^{a} While the present paper will be mostly focusing on femtocell networks coexisting with a macrocell network, the proposed framework can be easily extended when other heterogeneous network entities are present in the system.
^{b} Throughout the chapter, the terms shared spectrum and split spectrum will be used interchangeably with cochannel and dedicated channel, respectively.
^{c} Note that the number of users in each cell is assumed to be known.
^{d} It is important to note that this study considers a uniform distribution of BSs and MSs. Clusterization and hotspot deployment scenarios may yield different results [24]. This issue is not considered and left as future work.
^{e} The analysis in this study can be applied to general models; however, the expressions are more complex, therefore we restrict ourselves for this case for the sake of brevity.
^{f} Although (13) provides the SIR distribution, we can assume that the network is interference limited (SINR ≃ SIR)
^{g} As it is described in Section 3.3 and 3.4 for cochannel scenario M = 2, HPP1 is mBS locations, HPP2 is fBS locations, (ν_{1},ν_{2}) = (λ,λ^{′}), (μ_{1},μ_{2}) = (P,P^{′}), $({m}_{1},{m}_{2})=(\mathrm{\lambda \Pi}{r}_{\text{min,m}}^{2},{\lambda}^{\prime}\Pi {r}_{\text{min,f}}^{2})$, ${\Theta}_{2}\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}=\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}\frac{{\lambda}^{\prime}}{\lambda}{\left(\frac{{P}^{\prime}}{P}\right)}^{2/\delta}$, and (d_{max,1}, d_{min,1}) = (r_{max,m},r_{min,m}); for dedicated channel scenario M = 1, HPP1 is mBS locations, ν_{1} = λ, μ_{1} = P, ${m}_{1}=\mathrm{\lambda \Pi}{r}_{\text{min,m}}^{2}$, and (d_{max,1},d_{min,1}) = (r_{max,m},r_{min,m}).
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Hazar Aki from University of South Florida for fruitful discussions and to Fujio Watanabe from DOCOMO Innovations Inc. for his support.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
 Real Wireless Ltd: Strategies for mobile network capacity expansion. White Paper (West Sussex UK, 2010)Google Scholar
 Qualcomm Inc: A comparison of LTE advanced HetNets and WiFi. White Paper. 2011.http://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/qualcommresearchcomparisonlteadvancedhetnetsandwifiGoogle Scholar
 Madan R, Borran J, Sampath A, Bhushan N, Khandekar A, Ji T: Cell association and interference coordination in heterogeneous LTEA cellular networks. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun. (JSAC) 2010, 28(9):14791489.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Chandrasekhar V, Andrews JG, Gatherer A: Femtocell networks: a survey. IEEE Commun. Mag 2008, 46(9):5967.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Nokia Siemens Networks: Macro+HeNB performance with escape carrier. 3GPP Standard Contribution (R1101453), (Nokia, Beijing, 2010)Google Scholar
 Bharucha Z, Saul A, Auer G, Haas H: Dynamic resource partitioning for downlink femtotomacrocell interference avoidance. EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw 2010, 2010(4):112.Google Scholar
 Mahmoud HA, Guvenc I: A comparative study of different deployment modes for femtocell networks. In IEEE 20th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 2009. Tokyo; 13–16 September 2009:15.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 LopezPerez D, Valcarce A, Ladanyi A, de la Roche G, Zhang J: Intracell handover for interference and handover mitigation in OFDMA twotier macrocellfemtocell networks. EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw 2010, 2010(4):115.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Demirdogen I, Guvenc I, Arslan H: A simulation study of performance tradeoffs in open access femtocell networks. In IEEE 21st International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications Workshops (PIMRC Workshops). Istanbul, Turkey; 26–30 September 2010:15.Google Scholar
 Barbieri A, Damnjanovic A, Ji T, Montojo J, Wei Y, Malladi D, Song O, Horn G: LTE femtocells: system design and performance analysis. IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun 2012, 30(3):586594.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Jo HS, Xia P, Andrews J: Open, closed and shared access femtocells in the downlink. EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Netw 2012, 2012(4):112.Google Scholar
 Saquib N, Hossain E, Le LB, Kim DI: Interference management in OFDMA femtocell networks: issues and approaches. IEEE Wireless Commun 2012, 19(3):8695.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Erturk M, Aki H, Arslan H, Guvenc I Guvenc: Fair and QoSoriented spectrum splitting in macrocellfemtocell networks. In IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM 2010). Miami; 6–10 December 2010:16.Google Scholar
 Jain DCR, Hawe W: A quantitative measure of fairness and discrimination for resource allocation in shared computer system. DEC Technical Report 301, Digital Equipment Corporation, Hudson (1984)Google Scholar
 Kumar A, Kleinberg J: Fairness measures for resource allocation. In Proclamation of 41st Annual Symposium on Foundation of Computer Science. (Redondo Beach; 12–14 November 2000:7585.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Gao X, Nandagopal T, Bharghavan V: Achieving application level fairness through utilitybased wireless fair scheduling. In Proceedings in IEEE Global Telecommunication Conference (GLOBECOM), Volume 6. (San Antonio; 25–29 November 2001:32573261.Google Scholar
 Andrews J, Baccelli F, Ganti R: A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks. IEEE Trans. Commun 2011, 59(11):31223134.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Mukherjee S: UE coverage in LTE macro network with mixed CSG and open access femto overlay. In Proclamation of IEEE International Conference on Communication Workshops (ICC). (Kyoto; 5–9 June 2011:16.Google Scholar
 Chandrasekhar V, Andrews J: Spectrum allocation in tiered cellular networks. IEEE Trans. Commun 2009, 57(10):30593068.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Guvenc I: Capacity and fairness analysis of heterogeneous networks with range expansion and interference coordination. IEEE Commun. Lett 2011, 15(10):10841087.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 3GPP Organizational Partners: 3rd Generation Partnership Project; technical specification group radio access network; evolved universal terrestrial radio access (EUTRA); further advancements for EUTRA physical layer aspects (release 9). 3GPP TR 36.814 Release 9 V9.0.0 (201003). 2010.http://www.quintillion.co.jp/3GPP/Specs/36814900.pdfGoogle Scholar
 Sesia S, Issam T, Matthew B: LTE the UMTS long term evolution: from theory to practice. Chichester: Wiley; 2011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
 Samsung Electronics: CSI measurement issue for macrofemto scenarios. 3GPP Standard Contribution (R1106051). (Jacksonville, FL, 2010). http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg_ran/wg1_rl1/TSGR1_63/Docs/
 Coletti C, Hu L, Huan N, Kovacs I, Vejlgaard B, Irmer R, Scully N: Heterogeneous deployment to meet traffic demand in a realistic LTE urban scenario. In Proceedings of IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC). (Pacifico Yokohama, Yokohama; 6–9 May 2012:15.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.