Analysis of Throughput and Fairness of WCDMA Networks with Downlink Scheduling

Hua Fu
1
and Dong In Kim
2
1
Dept. of Electrical and Computer Eng., National University of Singapore
E-mail: elefh@nus.edu.sg
2
School of Engineering Science, Simon Fraser University
E-mail: dikim@sfu.ca
Abstract In this paper we develop a theoretical framework
which enables us to analyze the throughput and fairness perfor-
mance of various downlink scheduling schemes in WCDMA net-
works. For theoretical analysis, the following scheduling schemes
are considered: (i) the Round Robin scheme, (ii) the maximum
carrier-to-interference ratio (C/I) scheme and (iii) the propor-
tional fair scheme. By deriving a close approximation to the prob-
ability density function of C/I, new, exact throughput and fair-
ness expressions are formulated for the above scheduling schemes,
by which a rigorous quantitative comparison among them can be
performed. The results verify that throughput and fairness perfor-
mance of each scheduling scheme depends largely on mobile users
location in the active cell. In general, the Round Robin scheme has
the worst throughput performance among them, while the propor-
tional fair scheme provides a better trade-off between throughput
and fairness.
I. INTRODUCTION
Recently the wideband code division multiple access
(WCDMA) has been chosen as the basic radio-access tech-
nology for the universal mobile telecommunication systems
(UMTS) [1]. These systems will provide high-speed packet
data services with different quality-of-service (QoS) support
[2], [3] and extend the services provided by the current cellular
networks, such as those based on the European GSM standard
and CDMA-based IS-95 networks. In order to support this high
trafc load a key component of a WCDMA downlink packet
network is the scheduling algorithm that decides which packets
should be transmitted and when. Several scheduling schemes
have been proposed [4][8] to achieve the trade-off between
throughput and fairness which are two key measures of the QoS
in the data network system. These scheduling schemes include
the Round Robin scheme, the maximum carrier-to-interference
ratio (C/I) scheme, and the proportional fair scheme.
Although studies in [4][8] demonstrated feasibility of the
aforementioned scheduling schemes, they were mainly based
on computer simulations and experimental implementations.
They did not provide a theoretical analysis which is needed
before their results can be generalized. Moreover, even when
the problem of throughput and fairness analysis in downlink
WCDMA systems is best approached experimentally, appre-
ciation of the theoretical analysis will provide insights which
are vital to guiding the simulations and experiments to be per-
formed. The aim of this contribution is to develop a theoretical
framework, leading to such preliminary performance analysis.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section II,
the system model and assumptions are introduced. By using

This work was supported in part by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council (NSERC) of Canada.
the well-known results in [9] and [10], we demonstrate that the
probability density function (PDF) of the C/I can be well ap-
proximated by a lognormally distributed function. The obtained
PDF of C/I is then applied for analyzing the throughput and
fairness of various scheduling schemes in Section III. Section
IV presents numerical results to highlight the dependence of the
throughput and fairness performance on the system parameters.
II. SYSTEM MODEL AND ASSUMPTIONS
The network system model is similar to that in [11] and [12],
which consists of 19 regular hexagonal cells including the ac-
tive cell. No base station sectorization scheme or soft hand-
off is assumed. Both base stations and mobile users use omni-
directional antennas. We assume that there are M mobile users
in each cell. The transmitted powers are assumed to be equal
for all base stations. The channel model includes path loss, log-
normal shadowing and multipath short-term Rayleigh fading.
Following [11, eqn.(19)], [12, eqn.(6.79)] and assuming that
the packets are carried out in time-multiplexing mode and trans-
mitted at the full power available to the mobile user in an one-
by-one transmission fashion [7, Figure 1], the instantaneous
transmission rate R
i
for user i (i = 1, 2, , M) in the active
cell can be expressed as
R
i
=
W

i
P
0i
(1 )(1 )P
0i
+

18
j=1
P
ji
=
W

(1 )(1 ) +

18
j=1
Pji
P0i
(1)
where W is the system bandwidth,
i
= (E
b
/I
0
)
i
is the ra-
tio of bit energy-to-interference-plus-noise density for the ith
user, is the fraction of the total base station power devoted
to mobile users (1 is devoted to the pilot signal and other
common channels) and represents the orthogonality factor to
account for the self-interference
1
( = 1 represents perfect or-
thogonality). Note that since the backgroud noise is generally
well belowthe total signal power received fromany base station
[11], [12], we have dropped the noise terms in (1). The quantity
P
ji
(j = 0, 1, , 18) is the total power received by user i from
the jth base station (j = 0 represents the active cell base sta-
tion). Since we assume equal transmitted power from all base
stations, the powers P
ji
are proportional to the path power at-
tenuation due to path loss, lognormal shadowing and multipath
1
It is caused by the multipath-delayed signals even with synchronous down-
link transmission.
218
2006 IEEE Ninth International Symposium on Spread Spectrum Techniques and Applications
0-7803-9780-0/06/$20.00 2006 IEEE
Rayleigh fading. Thus, the term
Pji
P0i
in (1) can be expressed as
P
ji
P
0i
=
d
4
ji
10
(ji/10)

ji
d
4
0i
10
(0i/10)

0i
. (2)
Here, d
ji
is the distance between base station j and mobile user
i. The inverse fourth-law propagation is assumed. For each
i = 1, 2, , M and j = 0, 1, , 18, {
ji
} is a set of inde-
pendent, zero-mean Gaussian random variables with variance

2
, so that
_
10
(ji/10)
_
is set of lognormally distributed ran-
dom variables. The set {
ji
} due to Rayleigh fading is a set of
independent, exponentially distributed random variables with
variance
2
. For each i and j , d
ji
,
ji
, and
ji
are mutually
independent. For j = p and i = q, {
ji
,
ji
} are independent
of {
pq
,
pq
}. The channels are identical since the variances

2
and
2
are independent of i and j. Note that in practice,
the lognormal shadow fading gains for two different base sta-
tions from a mobile user usually have some degree of correla-
tion [12]. However, the case of lognormal shadow fading with
inter-channel correlation is more complicated in the throughput
analysis and will only be dealt with in future research.
To further simplify (1), we dene the C/I of the ith user as

i
=
P
0i
P
i
=
P
0i

18
j=1
P
ji
=
10
(0i/10)

0i

18
j=1
_
dji
d0i
_
4
10
(ji/10)

ji
(3)
where P
i
=

18
j=1
P
ji
represents the total interference. Us-
ing the above denition, the instantaneous transmission rate R
i
given in (1) can be rewritten as
R
i
=
W

(1 )(1 ) +
1
i

i
. (4)
Here, for the purpose of analysis simplicity, we assume the or-
thogonality factor is near 1 (almost perfectly orthogonal).
Before we proceed to analyze throughput and fairness perfor-
mance, the denitions of throughput and fairness are in order.
Following [3] and [4], the throughput is dened as the aver-
age data rate which is equal to the number of information bits
divided by the total transmission time. For example, suppose
user i can receive packet frames at the instantaneous data rate
R
i
bits/s, where i = 1, 2, , M, and the corresponding prob-
ability of system access for user i being served by the base sta-
tion 0 is Q
i
. In time multiplexing mode, the throughput will be
given by [3], [4]
=
M

i=1
R
i
Q
i
bits/s. (5)
Note that in (5), R
i
and Q
i
are deterministic variables. If they
are randomvariables, we should use E[R
i
Q
i
] to replace R
i
Q
i
,
where E[x] denotes the ensemble average of randomvariable x.
The denition of the fairness metric follows [13], [14], and
is given by
F =
(

M
i=1
Q
i
)
2
M(

M
i=1
Q
2
i
)
(6)
The value of this fairness metric ranges from 1/M to 1. The
value of 1 corresponds to a totally fair allocation and a totally
unfair allocation has a fairness of 1/M. Note that the fairness
denition given in (6) is slightly different from that given in
[13] and [14, (33)], where a totally fair allocation would give
the same average transmission rates rather than access prob-
abilities to all mobile users. To account for the average data
rate achieved by each user the fairness metric can be dened
as F =
[

M
i=1
E(RiPi)]
2
M{

M
i=1
[E(RiPi)]
2
}
. However, since denition (6) can
provide a unied metric which can judge the fairness of both
WCDMA high-speed downlink packet access system [4] and
cdma2000-based high data rate system [8], we use denition
(6) as the fairness metric in this paper.
III. THROUGHPUT AND FAIRNESS ANALYSIS
The key to throughput and fairness analysis is to nd a way
to evaluate C/I
i
given in (3), for which we can compute in
(5) and F in (6). Therefore, we rst derive the PDF of
i
.
We recall from(3) that the distribution of
i
depends on three
statistically independent sets of random variables. Due to its
complexity the exact PDF of
i
is usually hard to analyze. Al-
though the Monte Carlo simulation can serve a useful engineer-
ing tool for obtaining the histogram of
i
[11, Fig. 4], [12, Fig-
ure 6.9], it is more desirable to have a mathematical expression,
such as a reasonable approximation, from which the PDF of
i
can easily, accurately be estimated, and from which the behav-
ior of the throughput as a function of various system parameters
can easily be deduced.
First, denote the random variables X
ji
= 10
(ji/10)

ji
as
the product of Rayleigh fading and lognormal shadowing fad-
ing, and denote X
i
=

18
j=1
(d
ji
/d
0i
)
4
X
ji
. The C/I in (3)
can then be written as

i
= X
0i
/X
i
(7)
The exact PDF of X
ji
exists in the integral expression which
has no closed-formsolution [15, eqn.(2.219] and, thus, presents
computational difculties. It would be very useful to have an
approximation, and some researchers used a purely lognormal
distribution to approximate X
ji
and showed that the approx-
imation is accurate at higher values of ( > 6 dB) [9],
[15]. This follows from the fact that the composite variability
of X
ji
due to Rayleigh fading and lognormal shadow fading,
at these values, is mainly dominated by the lognormal compo-
nent 10
(ji/10)
. Since the experimental data has suggested the
choice of = 8 dB for standard deviation of
ji
[12], the ap-
proximation is justied in our case. This approximation is very
convenient since such a distribution can be completely specied
in terms of the mean and standard deviation. Following [9], the
PDF of X
ji
is given by
f(X
ji
) =
10/ ln10
_
2
2
X
ji
exp
_

(10 log
10
X
ji
)
2
2
2
_
(8)
where = 10 log
10
(2
2
) 2.5 dB and =

2
+ 5.57
2
dB.
Next, we note that the relative distance (d
ji
/d
0i
) depends
only on the users position within the active cell. Since the mo-
bile users periodically report their locations to the base station
for the hard handoff, we can view the users position as known
to the base station. Actually, the user location can be detected
219
by the network or mobile user. Release-99 of UMTS has speci-
ed three kinds of mobile positioning methods [1]. Condition-
ing on the ith user position, X
i
in (7) will be a linear combi-
nation of X
ji
. It is well known that the distribution of a sum
of independent lognormal randomvariables has no closed-form
solution but can be well approximated by another lognormal
random variable [10]. Using the Fenton-Wilkinson approach
and noting that each component (d
ji
/d
0i
)
4
X
ji
is lognormally
distributed with logarithmic mean 40 log
10
(d
ji
/d
0i
) dBand
standard deviation dB, the PDF of X
i
can be obtained as [15]
f(X
i
) =
10/ ln10
b
i
X
i

2
exp
_

(10 log
10
X
i

i
)
2
2b
2
i
_
(9)
where
i
= 10 log
10
_
1.1247
2

10

2
/10

18
j=1
_
dji
d0i
_
4
_

b
2
i
2
and b
2
i
= 10 log
10
_
1 +
(10

2
/10
1)

18
j=1
(dji/d0i)
8
[

18
j=1
(dji/d0i)
4
]
2
_
.
Finally, the distribution of
i
in (7), which is the ratio of two
independent lognormal random variables, can be evaluated as
f(
i
) =
10/ ln10
_
2
2
i
1

i
exp
_

(10 log
10

i

i
)
2
2
2
i
_
(10)
where
i
=
i
and
2
i
=
2
+ b
2
i
. The corresponding
cumulative distribution function (CDF) is given by
(
i
) = 1
1
2
erfc
_
10 log
10

i

i

2
_
(11)
where erfc(x) denotes the complementary error function. The
PDF of
i
is plotted in Fig. 1 along with the simulation result
when the mobile user lies on the vertex of the active cell. The
gure shows that the PDF of
i
can reasonably be approximated
by a lognormal distribution given by (9).
A. Throughput and fairness of Round Robin scheme
In the Round Robin scheme, the packet frame is equally di-
vided into M non-overlapping slots. Then the M slots are as-
signed one at a time successively to each mobile user. Clearly,
this scheme provides a simple and fair sharing of transmission
time, but sacrices loss in the throughput because the data rate
is much lower for users having very poor channel conditions.
Since the relative frequency for ith user to transmit is 1/M, the
throughput is given by

1
= E
_
M

i=1
1
M
R
i
_
=
1
M
M

i=1
_

0
R
i
f(
i
) d
i
. (12)
Substituting (4) and (10) into (12), we obtain, after manipula-
tion and simplication

1
=
1
M
M

i=1
W

i
exp
_
ln 10
10

i
+
1
2
_
ln 10
10
_
2

2
i
_
. (13)
Using (6) and noting that the probability of system access for
each of users in the active cell is 1/M, the fairness F
1
of Round
Robin scheme can be obtained as
F
1
=
(

M
i=1
1/M)
2
M(

M
i=1
1/M
2
)
= 1. (14)
Equation (14) states that the Round Robin scheme is a totally
fair allocation scheme.
B. Throughput and fairness of maximum C/I scheme
In the maximum C/I scheme, a packet is transmitted to
the mobile user that experiences the largest C/I at any given
slot. That is, the base station measures
i
for each user, but
only selects the user m that is currently having the largest C/I

m
= max
i
{
i
}. We can see that the maximum C/I scheme
provides maximum throughput at the expense of fairness, be-
cause all transmission time can be allocated to a single user
with good channel conditions.
To derive the throughput, rst, conditioning on
i
, the rel-
ative frequency for ith user to transmit is the probability that
each of
l
(l = 1, 2, , M and l = i) is simultaneously below

i
. But since {
l
} is a set of independent randomvariables, this
probability will be the product of the independent probabilities
that each
l,l=i
<
i
. Using (11), we have
P[max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] =
M

l=1,l=i
_
1
1
2
erfc
_
10 log
10

i

l

2
__
.
(15)
Then, by denition given in (5), the throughput for the maxi-
mum C/I scheme can be evaluated as

2
= E
_
M

i=1
R
i
P[max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
]
_
=
M

i=1
_

0
R
i
P[max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
]f(
i
) d
i
. (16)
Using (4), (10) and (15) in (16), one nally has

2
=
M

i=1
W

i
10/ ln10
_
2
2
i
_

0
exp
_

(10 log
10

i

i
)
2
2
2
i
_

l=1,l=i
_
1
1
2
erfc
_
10 log
10

i

l

2
__

d
i
(17)
Since the releative frequency for ith user to transmit is given
by
_

0
P [max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] f(
i
) d
i
, the fairness F
2
of the
maximumC/I scheme can be obtained as
F
2
=
_

M
i=1
_

0
P [max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] f(
i
) d
i
_
2
M
_

M
i=1
__

0
P [max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] f(
i
) d
i
_
2
_.
(18)
Expressions (17) and (18) can be evaluated numerically. Note
that although the actual evaluation becomes cubersome when
the number of users is large, it still may be more favorable than
a complete simulation of a downlink WCDMA network. Fur-
ther, the numerical evaluation is not a difcult task on a com-
puter nowadays.
C. Throughput and fairness of proportional fair scheme
In the proportional fair scheme, the throughput monitoring
algorithm is included in a way that a user which does not get
220
transmitted for too long gets its priority raised. The essential
feature of the scheme is that in each transmission slot the packet
is only transmitted to the user that experiences the largest C/I-
to-mean-C/I ratio. In other words, the criterion of packet al-
location will be based on the users relative C/I. Therefore,
the proportional fair scheme can provide a good compromise
between throughput and fairness among the users.
To derive the throughput, denote
i
and
i
=
i
/
i
as the
mean C/I and the C/I-to-mean-C/I ratio, respectively. Then,
the proportional fair scheme is implemented by computing
i
for each use, but selecting the user m that is currently having
the largest C/I-to-mean-C/I ratio
m
= max
i
{
i
}. The pro-
cedure for obtaining the throughput is parallel to that followed
in the case of the maximum C/I scheme. First, using (10) the
mean C/I
i
can be evaluated as

i
= E[
i
] = exp
_
ln 10
10

i
+
1
2
_
ln 10
10
_
2

2
i
_
. (19)
Then, the PDF of
i
which is a linear transformation of
i
(i.e.,
the product of
i
and constant 1/
i
) can be evaluated as
f(
i
) =
10/ ln10
_
2
2
i
1

i
exp
_

[10 log
10
(
i

i
)
i
]
2
2
2
i
_
(20)
The corresponding CDF is given by
(
i
) = 1
1
2
erfc
_
10 log
10

i

i
+ 10 log
10

i

2
_
. (21)
Finally, the relative frequency for user i to transmit is given by
P[max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] = (22)
M

l=1,l=i
_
1
1
2
erfc
_
10 log
10

i

l
+ 10 log
10

l

2
__
.
Therefore, the throughput can be evaluated as

3
= E
_
M

i=1
R
i
P[max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
]
_
=
M

i=1
_

0
R
i
P[max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
]f(
i
) d
i
. (23)
Putting (4), (20) and (22) into (23) yields

3
=
M

i=1
W
i

i
10/ ln10
_
2
2
i
_

0
exp
_

(10 log
10

i
)
2
2
2
i
_

l=1,l=i
_
1
1
2
erfc
_
10 log
10

2
__

d
i
(24)
where

i
=
i
10 log
10

i
.
In the proportional fair scheme the probability of system ac-
cess of ith user is given by
_

0
P [max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] f(
i
) d
i
.
Therefore, the fairness F
3
can be obtained as
F
3
=
_

M
i=1
_

0
P [max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] f(
i
) d
i
_
2
M
_

M
i=1
__

0
P [max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] f(
i
) d
i
_
2
_.
(25)
IV. CONCLUDING DISCUSSION
This section presents some numerical results to illustrate the
behavior of throughput and fairness as a function of the various
system parameters.
We consider a two-user system which is sufcient to help
illustrate our discussion. Fig. 2 shows two kinds of user dis-
tribution, namely, scenario 1 and scenario 2. Points A and C
represent the location of user one. Points B and D represent the
location of user two. The system parameters used in our evalua-
tion are as follows: the system bandwidth W = 3.84 MHz, the
variance
2
= 1, the standard deviation = 8 and the power
fraction = 80%. We also assume both users have the same bit
energy-to-interference-plus-noise ratio, i.e., =
i
, i = 1, 2.
Figs. 3 and 4 plot the normalized throughput gains against
E
b
/I
0
for user distribution scenario 1 and scenario 2, respec-
tively. We rst compute the throughputs
1
,
2
and
3
by us-
ing equations (13), (17) and (24), respectively. The throughput
gains are then obtained by normalizing each throughput when
using one of the three scheduling schemes for E
b
/I
0
=5 dB, 6
dB and 7 dB with that throughput when using the Round Robin
scheme for E
b
/I
0
= 5 dB. Fromthese plots several conclusions
can be drawn. First, the Round Robin scheme gives the low-
est throughput of the three schemes. This is expected since in
the Round Robin scheme slot allocations are xed in time and
implemented in an one-by-one fashion which completely ig-
nores the channel conditions. Therefore, when the user suffers
from deep fading due to lognormal shadowing and Rayleigh
fading, the throughput will decrease tremendously. Second,
the throughput is highly dependent on the users location. For
example, in scenario 1, when both users have the same dis-
tance from the base station, the mean
1
in (10) is equal to

2
and the variance
2
1
is equal to
2
2
. This will cause the mean
C/I
1
=
2
. Therefore, in this case choosing the user with
the maximum C/I is equivalent to choosing the user with the
largest relative C/I. This is why in Fig. 3 the throughput gain
of the maximum C/I scheme is equal to that of the propor-
tional fair scheme. However, when the two users have differ-
ent distance from the base station, the maximum C/I scheme
has higher throughput gain than that of the proportional fair
scheme, as can be seen in Fig. 4 for scenario 2.
In Table 1, we provide the fairness comparison for differ-
ent scheduling schemes. The fairness metric F
1
, F
2
and F
3
are obtained by using equations (14), (18) and (25), respec-
tively. It can be seen that in scenario 1, all three scheduling
schemes provide a totally fair allocation with a fairness of 1.
This is mainly due to the fact that if two users have equal dis-
tance from the base station 0, it can be shown that the proba-
bilities of system access
_

0
P [max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] f(
i
) d
i
in
(18) and
_

0
P [max
l=i
{
l
} <
i
] f(
i
) d
i
in (25) are equal to
1/M. Therefore, the fairness expressions F
2
in (18) and F
3
in
(25) can be evaluated to yield the value of 1. As the distance
difference increases (see Fig.2 for scenario 2), the fairness of
maximum C/I scheme goes down faster than that of propor-
tional fair scheme, as can be seen in Table 1. This indicates
that the proportional fair scheme can provide better trade-off
between throughput and fairness.
221
REFERENCES
[1] H. Holman and A. Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS: Radio Access for Thrid
Generation Mobile Communication. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons,
2001.
[2] S. Parkvall, E. Dahlman, P. Frenger, P. Beming, and M. Persson, The
evolution of WCDMA towards higher speed downlink packet data ac-
cess, IEEE VTC Spring 2001, vol. 3, pp. 2287-2291, Rhodes, Greece,
May 2001.
[3] P. Bender, P. Black, M. Grob, R. Padovani, N. Sindhushayana, and A.
Viterbi, CDMA/HDR: A bandwidth-efcient high-speed wireless data
service for nomadic users, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 38,
pp. 70-77, July 2000.
[4] 3GPP Technical Specication, Physical layer aspects of UTRA high
speed downlink packet access, 3GPP TR 25.848 v4.0.0, Mar. 2001.
[5] P. Viswanath, D. N. C. Tse, and R. Laroia, Opportunistic beamforming
using dumb antennas, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 48, pp. 1277-
1294, June 2002.
[6] J. M. Holtzman, Asymptotic analysis of proportional fair algorithm,
IEEE PIMRC 2001, vol. 2, pp. F33-F37, San Diego, Sept. 2001.
[7] A. Jalali, R. Padovani, and R. Pankaj, Data throughput of CDMA-HDR a
high efciency-high data rate personal communication wireless system,
IEEE VTC Spring 2000, vol. 3, pp. 1854-1858, Tokyo, May 2000.
[8] Qualcomm, Inc. 1xEV: 1xEVolution IS-856 TIA/EIA Standard, Airlink
Overview, Nov. 2, 2001.
[9] A. M. Turkmani, Probability of error for M-branch macroscopic selec-
tion diversity, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., pp. 71-78, Feb. 1992.
[10] N. C. Beaulieu, A. A. Abu-Dayya, and P. J. McLane, Estimating the
distribution of a sum of independent lognormal random variables, IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 43, pp. 2869-2873, Dec. 1995.
[11] K.S. Gilhousen, I.M. Jacobs, R. Padovani, A.J. Viterbi, L.A. Weaver, and
C.E. Wheatley, On the Capacity of a cellular CDMA system, IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 40, pp. 303-312, May 1991.
[12] A. J. Viterbi, CDMA: Principles of spread spectrum communications.
Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 1995.
[13] D. M. Chiu, and R. Jain Analysis of the increase and decrease algorithm
for congestion avoidance in computer networks, Computer Networks and
ISDN System, vol. 17, pp. 1-14, June 1989.
[14] D. I. Kim, E. H. Hossain, and V. K Bhargava, Downlink joint rate and
power allocation in cellular multirate WCDMA systems, IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 2, pp. 69-80, Jan. 2003.
[15] G. L. Stuber, Principles of Mobile Communication. 2nd ed. Boston:
Kluwer Academic, 2001.
Table 1. Fairness comparison
Scheduling Scenario 1 Scenario 2
Round Robin Scheme 1 1
MaximumC/I Scheme 1 0.5410
Proportional Fair Scheme 1 0.9977
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2

i
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

d
e
n
s
i
t
y

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
simulation result
theoretical result
Fig. 1. The PDF of C/I
i
when the user lies on the vertex of the active cell.
Fig. 2. User distribution scenario in the active cell.
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
E
b
/I
0
(dB)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t
Round Robin scheme
Maximum C/I scheme
Proportional fair scheme
Fig. 3. Normalized Throughput versus E
b
/I
0
for user distribution scenario 1.
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
E
b
/I
0
(dB)
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

T
h
r
o
u
g
h
p
u
t
Round Robin scheme
Maximum C/I scheme
Proportional fair scheme
Fig. 4. Normalized Throughput versus E
b
/I
0
for user distribution scenario 2.
222