Range Assignment for Power Optimization in
Load-Coupled Heterogeneous Networks
Lei You1 , Lei Lei2 , and Di Yuan2
1

arXiv:1602.08466v2 [] 21 Jun 2017

2

Information Engineering College, Qingdao University, China
Department of Science and Technology, Linköping University, Sweden
youleiqdu@gmail.com, {lei.lei, di.yuan}@liu.se

Abstract—We consider the problem of transmission energy optimization via range assignment for Low Power Nodes (LPNs) in
Long Term Evolution (LTE) Heterogenous Networks (HetNets).
The optimization is subject to the load coupling model, where
the cells interfere with one another. Each cell provides data
service for its users so as to maintain a target Quality-of-Service
(QoS). We prove that, irrespective the presence of maximum
power limit or its value, operating at full load is optimal.
We perform energy minimization by optimizing the association
between User Equipments (UEs) and cells via selecting cellspecific offsets on LPNs. Moreover, the optimization problem
is proved to be NP-hard. We propose a tabu search algorithm
for offset optimization (TSO). For each offset, TSO computes
the optimal power solution such that all cells operate at full
load. Numerical results demonstrate the significant performance
improvement of TSO on optimizing the sum transmission energy,
compared to the conventional solution where uniform offset is
used for all LPNs.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Recently, Heterogeneous Networks (HetNets) are viewed as
an attractive approach for expanding mobile network capacity
[1], balancing the network load as well as alleviating the traffic
burden. A HetNet is a mix of both overlaying Macro Cells
(MCs) and underlying small Low-Power Nodes (LPNs). MCs
provide wide area data services. LPNs are deployed within
traffic hotspots, offloading part of the traffic volume from MCs
[2]. LPNs are able to handle the growing geographical diversity of traffic and the increasing variation in local densities
of user distribution. With the deployment of LPNs, HetNets
can be thereby viewed as a way of meeting traffic demands
and performance expectations, particularly in situations where
traffic is concentrated in hotspots, or areas that cannot be
suitably covered by MCs.
In a Long Term Evolution (LTE) HetNet is that, cells
using the same frequency band interfere with one another
such that a load coupling model should be considered [3].
We refer to the average level of usage of the time-frequency
resource units as the load. One challenge is that a base station
consumes a significant fraction of the total end-to-end energy
[3]. The cell load levels affect the sum transmission energy for
serving User Equipments (UEs), and is thereby a key aspect
of resource optimization in LTE HetNets. Within this context,
cell selection is a crucial aspect for system performance. Each
UE follows the rule of selecting the cell with the best received
signal power plus an offset, which is a common cell parameter.
A served UE may add the offset to its received power from a

cell. Then, the signal strength of the cell can be ‘virtually’
amplified to be the best for the UE. Thus the association
between cells and UEs are influenced by the cell coverage
control mechanism.
In the previous work [4], [5], the power adjustment algorithm is given for all base stations to achieve full load,
thus optimizing the sum transmission energy. With the same
load coupling model, [6] provides a utility metric framework,
where the utility function is maximized by optimizing the
demand to be served. In [7], an optimization framework for
load balancing in LTE HetNets is proposed, by means of
cell range assignment using cell-specific offset. In this paper,
we focus on the problem of minimizing the sum power used
for transmission in LTE HetNets, while maintaining a target
Quality-of-Service (QoS) for each UE. The approach is to
implement cell range assignment as in [7], thus changing the
association between UEs and cells to achieve the minimal total
energy consumption. Our contributions are as follows.
1) We propose a framework modeling LPN range optimization for HetNet energy minimization.
2) We prove that, independent of the maximum power
limit, operating at full load leads to minimum energy
consumption.
3) We consider the problem complexity, and prove its NP
hardness.
4) We propose an algorithm for offset optimization based
on tabu search, for which we numerically demonstrate
its effectiveness and performance improvement.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section II we introduce
the HetNet and load coupling model. Under the model, we
formally define the optimization problem of minimum sum
energy in Section III. In Section IV, we prove the optimality
of the full load independent of the maximum power limit.
We then prove the problem is NP-hard. Section V proposes
the tabu-search algorithm for energy optimization via range
assignment. Section VI shows the numerical results. Finally,
the paper is concluded in Section VII.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. HetNet System
The sets of MCs and LPN cells are denoted by I1 and I2 ,
respectively. Let I = I1 ∪ I2 , n = |I| and m = |I2 |. The
set of UEs is denoted by J. Cell i transmits with power 0 <
pi 6 li per resource unit (in time and frequency, e.g., resource

block in LTE), where li is the power limit for each resource
unit of cell i. Notation νi represents the load of cell i for
data transmission, which is viewed as the portion of resource
consumption of the cell. The network-wide load is given by
the vector, ν = [ν1 , ν2 , . . . , νn ]T .
The cells in I1 use zero offset (set I1 may also be empty),
and cell-specific offset optimization only applies to the LPN
cells in set I2 . The candidate offset values compose set S. We
use xis ∈ {0, 1} to denote whether or not cell i ∈ I2 uses offset
level s ∈ S, in dB. Each cell uses one of the candidates
of the
P
offset levels and thereby we have the constraint s∈S xis = 1.
We use x to denote the network-wide range assignment. That
is, the association between UEs and cells, is represented as
u(x). If cell i ∈ I is the serving cell of UE j ∈ J, then
uij (x) = 1. The resulting network-wide range assignment of
x, that is, the allocation of UEs to cells, is denoted by u(x),
with uij (x) = 1, if cell i ∈ I is the serving cell of UE j ∈ J.
The UE-cell association is determined by the control channel.
The pilot power used to compute the association is fixed. For
LPNs, the UE-LPN association can be adjusted by adding an
offset s ∈ S to the pilot power. Each UE can P
only be served by
one cell at a time, so we have the constraint i∈I uij (x) = 1.
For each i ∈ I, the subset of UEs served by cell i is related to
the association u, which is determined by the offset x. So we
denote the set of UEs served by cell i as a function of offset
x, i.e., Ji (x) , {j : uij (x) = 1}.
B. Load Coupling
Next we consider the load coupling model for the HetNet.
The load νi , measures the fractional usage of resources in cell
i. In LTE systems, the load can be viewed as the expected
fraction of the time-frequency resources that are scheduled to
deliver data. Suppose uij = 1, then we model the SINR of
user j in cell i as [7]–[11].
pi gij
(1)
SINRij (ν) = P
2
k∈I\{i} pk gkj νk + σ

In (1) gkj , (k 6= i), represents the channel gain from the
interfering cells. The noise power is denoted by σ2 . We denote
the channel power gain from cell i to user j by gij . Load
νk has the role of interference scaling, as it is intuitively
interpreted as the probability that the served UEs of cell i
receives interference from cell k on all resource units. Thus,
the expected interference with expectation taken over time and
frequency for all transmissions, is denoted by pk gkj νk .
We apply the cell load coupling function developed in the
previous works [4], [6]. The achievable rate is given by r̃ij =
B log(1 + SINRij ) nat/s, where B is the bandwidth of the
resource unit and log is the natural logarithm. The demand
of user j on cell i is rij such that cell i has to occupy νij ,
rij /r̃ij resource units. Assume that there are M resource units
available
in total, then we get the load for the cell as νi =
P
j∈Ji (x) νij /M as follows.
νi =

X
rij
1
, fi (ν), i ∈ I (2)
MB
log(1 + SINRij (ν))
j∈Ji (x)

We let MB = 1 without loss of generality. Then in (2),
rij is normalized by MB, the amount of effective timefrequency resources. In (2), Ji (x) is determined by the association between cells and UEs, i.e., u(x). We let fu(x) (ν) =
[f1 (ν), . . . , fn (ν)]T . In vector form, we obtain the non-linear
load coupling equation (NLCE) as in [4], [6].
NLCE : ν = fu(x) (ν; r, p), 0 < ν 6 1

(3)

We remark that the function f is related to the cell-UE
association u(x), which is induced by the range assignment
x. Also, there is dependence of the load ν on the demand r
and power p. The equation cannot be readily solved in closedform, for that the load ν appears in both sides. However, for a
target load, it is shown in [4] that the power converges into a
fixed-point solution in (3) through an iterative process. Given
load vector ν, let p(ν) = [p1 (ν), p2 (ν), . . . , pn (ν)] be the
power solution in (3), where for any i ∈ I, pi (ν) is the power
of cell i at the convergence.
Note that there is no need to consider users with zero demand. Therefore the QoS constraints are defined as r > dmin ,
where dmin is strictly positive. Any load νi for cell i must be
positive if we combine the above assumption with |Ji (x)| > 1.
So we have 0 < ν 6 1.
III. E NERGY M INIMIZATION P ROBLEM
H ARDNESS

AND I TS

Under the load coupled HetNet model in Section II, the
energy minimization problem is given by Problem P0.
xis = Range assignment for cell i ∈ I2 on offset level s ∈ S
P0 :

min νT p
s.t.

0 < pi 6 li ,
r > dmin

(4a)
∀i ∈ I

(4b)
(4c)

ν = fu(x) (ν; r, p), 0 < ν 6 1
X
uij (x) = 1,
∀j ∈ J

(4d)

uij ∈ {0, 1},
X
xis = 1,

∀i ∈ I, j ∈ J

(4f)

xis ∈ {0, 1},

∀i ∈ I2 , s ∈ S

(4e)

i∈I

s∈S

∀i ∈ I2

(4g)
(4h)

The objective
is to minimize the sum transmission energy
P
given by n
i=1 νi pi . We note that the product νi pi measures
the transmission energy used by cell i, because the load νi
reflects the normalized amount of resource units used in time
or frequency while pi is the power per resource unit. As
mentioned earlier, the power and demand variables are strictly
positive. The maximum power constraint is shown in (4b).
Constraint (4c) is imposed so that the demand r satisfies the
QoS constraint. Constraint (4d) is the load coupling constraint.
The association constraint between cells and UEs are shown in
(4e) and (4f). Constraint (4g) and (4h) are imposed to satisfy
that one cell can only be of one offset level.

IV. T HEORETICAL P ROPERTIES
The work in [4], [5] proves that full load is optimal for
energy minimization, where there is no limit for power on
each resource unit. Extending the result in [4], [5], we show
the optimality of the full load under the maximum power
constraint. Further, we show that P0 is NP-hard.
Lemma 1. For any two load ν and ν′ with ν′ 6 ν, p(ν) 6
p(ν′ ).
Proof. The case of ν = ν′ is trivial, so we only consider
the case of ν > ν′ . Suppose there exists at least one cell i
with νi′ < νi . Let p0 = p(ν) = [p01 , p02 , . . . , p0n ]. To compute
p(ν′ ), we obtain the power sequence, e.g., p0i , p1i , p2i , p3i , . . .
for cell i, by the power adjustment algorithm proposed in [4].
Suppose we now reduce cell i’s load from νi to νi′ . Then we
obtain a new load-power pair (νi′ , p1i ) from (νi , p0i ) for cell i.
According to Lemma 7 in [4], p1i > p0i and p1i νi′ > p0i νi . This
will cause the interference originated from cell i to any other
cell k (k 6= i) to be greater. As a result, the SINR for cell
k to all its served UEs will decrease. Then the corresponding
load of cell k in Equation (2) will thereby increase, which is
larger than the target load νk′ . To reach the target load νk′ , the
power adjustment algorithm has to increase cell k’s power p0k
to a larger value p1k . At this stage, cell k’s interference to any
other cell h (h 6= k, i) thereby increases. Thus the power p0h
in cell h will increase as well. The same process repeats for all
the cells in the algorithm iterations. The network-wide power
and load will converge to a fix point, as proved in Lemma 1
in [5]. At convergence, p(ν) < p(ν′ ) and the lemma follows.

we consider a graph with n nodes (n > 2). Then for each
node i in the graph, we set three corresponding elements MC
i, LPN i and UE i in the specific HetNet scenario. In total we
have n MCs, n LPNs and n UEs. For any i, we set the gain
between MC i and UE i to be n12 , and the gain between LPN
i and UE i to be 1. In addition, we set the gain between LPN
i and other UEs that are neighbors to node i in the graph to
be a small positive real number ǫ. Gain values other than the
above two cases are negligible, treated as 0. The power limits
for LPNs and MCs are set to 1 and ∞, respectively. The noise
σ2 and any user demand dij are both set to 1. The set of offset
levels for LPNs is {−∞, 0}. If the offset for LPN i is −∞, the
LPN i serves no UE. Otherwise the offset of LPN i is 0, and
thereby LPN i is activated to serve UE i. From the reduction,
we show the following two points: 1) The association between
LPNs and UEs in the specific HetNet is corresponding to the
feasible MIS solution. 2) It’s always better to use LPN in the
specific HetNet.
The first point can be seen from the fact that it would
never happen for any i, that both UE i and its neighboring
UE are simultaneously served by their respective LPNs, due
to the interference generated from i’s neighbor LPNs. For
the second point, we prove that for a sufficiently small ǫ,
activating more LPNs is always beneficial to reducing total
power. Suppose there are k (k < n) LPNs using offset 0,
then the total power of the LPNs is k and there are n − k
MCs serving the remaining n − k UEs. Consider the bestpossible case, i.e., no interference but only noise σ2 = 1. For
power consumption of any of the n−k MCs, the load coupling
equation is 1.0 = 1/log2 (1 + p × n1 /1.0), and we get p = n2 . With
n−k MCs, we have the total power for all MCs as (n−k)n2 .
Therefore, if k LPNs use offset 0, for the best-possible power
in total, denoted by Pk , we have
2

Theorem 1. Suppose for any cell i, pi (1) 6 li , then ν = 1
and r = dmin are optimal for energy minimization.
Proof. The optimality of the minimum demand dmin is
proved in [4]. Consider a problem variant P0 of Problem P0,
where the power constraint (4b) is relaxed to pi > 0, ∀i ∈ I.
For P0, the full load optimality is proved by Theorem 1 in [4]
for any given user association. For the user association under
the optimal offset in P0, if the power solution p(1) for P0 is
less or equal than power limit l = [l1 , l2 , . . . , ln ], then p(1)
is optimal for P0. Otherwise, if there exists at least one cell
i that pi (1) > li , then by Lemma 1, reducing any cell’s load
cannot decrease pi (1). In this case, there is no solution for
P0. Hence, the full load ν = 1 is optimal for P0. In other
words, constraint (4d) in P0 can be replaced by Equation (5).
1 = f(1; dmin , p(1))

(5)

Pk > k + (n − k)n2

(6)

Suppose there is a solution with k+1 LPNs using offset 0, then
the total power of the LPNs is k+1. For the n−k−1 MCs, consider the worst-possible case, i.e., for each of the corresponding UEs, there is interference from LPNs (at the neighboring
nodes). Clearly, there cannot be more than k + 1 interfering
LPNs, each generating interference ǫ. Then, for each of the
n − k − 1 MCs to serve the corresponding UE, we have the
p× /
) and
load couple equation (2) to be 1.0 = 1/log2 (1 + (k+1)ǫ+1.0
we have p = n2 (k + 1)ǫ + n2 . With all n − k − 1 MCs, we
have the total power as (n − k − 1)n2 (k + 1)ǫ + (n − k − 1)n2 .
Therefore, if k − 1 LPNs use offset 0, for the worst-possible
power in total, denoted by Pk+1 , we have
1 n2

Pk+1 6 k + (n − k)n2 + [1 − n2 + ǫ(n − k − 1)n2(k + 1)] (7)
Theorem 2. P0 is NP-hard.
Proof. The proof is under the assumption of full load for all
MCs and LPNs, i.e., ν = 1. The basic idea is to reduce the
Maximum Independent Set (MIS) problem to Problem P0. We
construct a specific HetNet scenario. For each served UE, there
is one potential MC and one potential LPN. Correspondingly,

Combining the two equation (6) and (7), for a sufficiently
small ǫ, we have
Pk+1 < Pk
which means that activating more LPNs is always beneficial
to reduce total power.

Consequently, solving the specified range optimization scenario of Problem P0 to optimum gives the maximum independent set of the graph.

3

20

2

7
21
16

1

V.

6 18
19

5

ALGORITHM FOR COMPUTING OFFSET SOLUTION

17

14

15

We propose an algorithm based on Tabu Search for Offset
optimization (TSO), to minimize
Pnenergy at full load. The
objective (4a) of P0 is min
i=1
Pnpi at full load. The
objective function [12] is g(x) ,
i=1 pi in TSO, where
the vector x represents the offset levels, as same as that we
mentioned earlier in Section II. We let xi ∈ {1, 2, . . . , |S|} so
that xi = s means the LPN cell i is assigned with the sth
level offset, which is corresponding to xis = 1 in Problem
P0. There are totally m = |I2 | elements in the offset solution
vector x for LPNs. The neighborhood of x is defined as
P
′
N(x) = x′ m
i=1 xi − xj 6 1 . Suppose the current best
∗
∗
solution is x , if g(x ) is not improved after α steps, then the
termination rule will be triggered and the algorithm will stop.
The tabu attribute is defined as a modification on the position
of a solution vector. The tabu length is denoted by β. We
set the aspiration rule as follows. Suppose x∗ is the current
best solution, ∀ x, if g(x) < g(x∗ ), then the solution x can
be chosen even if the modification position in the variation
x∗ → x is given the tabu status in the table T .
Algorithm 1 Tabu Search for Offset Optimization (TSO).
Given: dmin , [l1 , l2 , . . . , ln ], ν∗ = 1
Output: x∗ (the optimal offset vector)
1 x∗ = x′
∗
2 p∗ = min{p : 1 = fu(x ) (1; dmin , p)}; k = 0
1 2 ··· m
3 T=
0 0 ···
0
4 while k 6 β
5
C=φ
6
for ∀x ∈ N(x′ )
7
if T [ix′ →x ] = 0
8
C = C ∪ {x}
9
x′′ = arg min g(x)
x∈C

10
T [ix′ →x′′ ] = β
′′
11
p′′ = min{p : 1 = fu(x ) (1; dmin , p)}
′′
∗
12
if g(x ) < g(x ) and ∀i pi′′ 6 li
13
x∗ = x′′ ; p∗ = p′′ ; k = 0
14
else
15
k = k+1
16
for i = 1 to m
17
if T [i] > 0
18
T [i] = T [i] − 1
19
x′ = x′′
20 return x∗
TSO is given in Algorithm 1. We compute the optimal
power vector p(1) for each offset, by using the iterative bisection algorithm in [4]. For any two neighbored solution
vectors x′ and x, we denote the modification position between

4

0

2
11

−1

13
3
12

10
98
1

−2

−3
−3

−2

−1

0

1

2

3

Fig. 1. Network layout

the two vectors as ix′ →x . In other words, suppose x′ and x
differ in the jth position, then ix′ →x = j. In Line 1, a feasible
solution x′ is randomly chosen at the beginning and is assigned
to be the current best solution x∗ . In Line 2, the power p∗
at full load is computed. Also, k is the count parameter that
records the number of steps within which the current best
solution x∗ has not been improved. Line 3 initializes the tabu
table T by setting all the positions to be zero. Line 4–19 are
the main loop that ends when the termination rule is triggered,
i.e., k > β. The eligible neighbors set C of the current solution
vector x is calculated in Line 5–8. Then we choose the solution
x′′ ∈ C that achieves the minimal value of g, as shown in
Line 9. Regarding for the variation x′ → x′′ , the modification
position ix′ →x′′ is given the tabu status in T , shown in Line
10. We thereby get the corresponding power vector p′′ for
x′′ in Line 11. Line 12–15 state the update rule for the best
solution. If the new solution x′′ is better and satisfies the power
constraint (4b), both x∗ and p∗ will be updated and the count
variable k will be set back zero, otherwise we increase k by
one. In Line 16–18, T is refreshed, by decreasing all non-zero
records by one. In Line 19, the current solution vector x′ is
updated by x′′ , for the next iteration. When the termination
rule is triggered, the best solution x∗ is returned, in line 20.
VI.

NUMERICAL RESULTS

In this section, we numerically investigate the theoretical
findings and evaluate performance in LTE HetNets.
A. Network Configuration
The network layout is illustrated in Fig. 1, where the
numbers indicate the cell IDs. There are 7 hexagonal serving
cells, where the center is deployed with an MC (cross marker).
For each MC, we randomly place two LPN cells (green
triangles) in the corresponding hexagon. There are 21 cells (7
MCs and 14 LPN cells) in total. We generate 30 users (blue
dots) for each MC (and also for its two LPN cells). All the
users are distributed randomly and uniformly in each area. The
HetNet operates at 2 GHz. Each resource unit follows the LTE
standard of 180 KHz bandwidth and the bandwidth for each
cell is 4.5 MHz. The power limit per resource unit for MCs and
LPNs are set to 200 mW and 50 mW, respectively. The noise
power spectral density is set to -174 dBm/Hz. The channel
gain gij consists of path loss and shadowing fading, where

3.5

because some UEs served by MC 3 and 6 are assigned to some
LPNs in OO. One can observe that the energy consumption
in OO stays at the almost same level with ZO in LPN cells.
By using the optimized offset to LPNs to adjust the cell-UE
association, the UEs are assigned to more suitable cells. Thus
the overall performance is significantly improved.

à
æ Optimized offset

3.0

à

Energy Consumption HWL

à Zero offset
2.5

ì Maximal offset

à
ò

ò No LPNs

2.0

à
à

ò

ææ

à

1.5

æ
ò

1.0

à

ò
ò

0.5

ò
à
ì
æ

ò

à
æ
0.0ì

100

ì
à
æ

à
ì
æ

ì
à
æ

à
ì
æ

à
ì
æ

200

æ

ì
àì
æ

300

æ

æ

æ

400

500

VII.

User Demand HKbpsL

Fig. 2. Energy consumption with respect to user demand
1000

LPN Cells

Macro Cells

Energy Consumption HmWL

Optimized offset
Zero offset

800

600

400

200

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
12
Cell ID

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Fig. 3. Energy consumption for optimized offset and zero offset in each cell.

the path loss follows the widely used COST-231-HATA model
and the shadowing coefficients are generated by the log-normal
distribution with 8 dB standard deviation. There are 11 offset
levels for the LPN cells, as 0 dB, 1 dB, √
2 dB,. . .,10
√ dB. For
TSO, we set α = 10×m = 140 and β = ⌈ m⌉ = ⌈ 14⌉ = 4.
Note that the offset value only affects the UE-cell association
and has no effect on the real transmit power or interference.
B. Results of Offset Optimization
The sum energy for different cases appears to grow exponentially fast as demand increases in Fig. 2. Beyond some
demand value, the user demand may not be satisfiable. One
can observe in Fig. 3 that the power on each cell is far less
than the power limit in the feasible solution. However, if we
increase the user demand, then the power of a few cells may
dramatically increase such that it will exceed the maximum
constraint value. In this case, there is no solution to meet the
demand target. Thus the power in Fig. 2 is much lower than
the maximum power constraint.
In Fig. 2, we compare the Optimized Offset (OO) with Zero
Offset (ZO) and Maximal Offset (MO, set to 10 dB). We also
show the scenario of No LPN (NL) as the baseline. In the
experiments, OO achieves the lowest sum transmission energy
among all the three cases. On average, the energy consumption
for OO is about 31.9% lower than that for ZO. When the
demand is 550 Kbps, the energy consumption for OO is about
48.5% lower than that for ZO. The worst performance with
LPNs deployed is given by MO, since the transmit power for
LPN cells are ‘virtually’ amplified too large so that only a few
UEs are assigned to the MCs.
Fig. 3 shows the transmission energy in each cell for ZO and
OO. The user demand is set to 550 Kbps. For ZO, most users
are served by MCs, so the majority of energy consumption is
in MC 1–7. Specifically, for ZO, the energy consumption is
very high in MC 3 and 6. In comparison, energy consumption
in both MC 3 and 6 are significantly reduced in OO. This is

CONCLUSION

We proposed a load coupling optimization framework for
sum transmission energy in LTE HetNets via LPN range
adjustment using cell-specific offsets. Under the maximum
power constraint, we proved that full load is optimal for
energy minimization. We further provided the insight that the
optimization problem is NP-hard. With the above theoretical
properties, we proposed an algorithm TSO for optimizing
the range assignment. For a scenario of HetNet deployment,
LPN range optimization achieved by TSO leads to better sum
transmission energy.
VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been supported by the EC Marie Curie project
MESH-WISE (FP7-PEOPLE-2012-IAPP: 324515) and the
Linköping-Lund Excellence Center in Information Technology
(ELLIIT), Sweden. The work of the second author has been
supported by the China Scholarship Council (CSC).
R EFERENCES
[1] X. Zhang, Z. Su, Z. Yan, W. Wang, “Energy-efficiency study for
two-tier heterogeneous networks (HetNet) under coverage performance
constraints,” in Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 18, no. 4, pp.
567-577, Aug. 2013.
[2] K. Hiltunen, “Comparison of different network densification alternatives
from the LTE downlink performance point of view,” IEEE VTC’11, Sep.
2011.
[3] S. Parkvall, A. Furuskär and E. Dahlman, “Next generation LTE, LTEAdvanced or LTE Rel-10 is the next step in radio access technology,”
Ericsson Review 2/2010
http://www.ericsson.com/news/101221 next generation lte 244218599 c
[4] C. K. Ho, D. Yuan, L. Lei, S. Sun, “Optimal energy minimization
in load-coupled wireless networks: computation and properties,” IEEE
ICC’14, Jun. 2014.
[5] C. K. Ho, D. Yuan, L. Lei and S. Sun, “On power and load coupling
in cellular networks for energy optimization,” in IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, accepted.
[6] C. K. Ho, D. Yuan, and S. Sun. “Data offloading in load coupled
networks: a utility maximization framework,” in IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, accepted.
[7] I. Siomina and D. Yuan, “Load balancing in heterogeneous LTE: range
optimization via cell offset and load coupling characterization,” IEEE
ICC’12, Jun. 2012.
[8] I. Siomina, A. Furuskär, and G. Fodor, “A mathematical framework
for statistical QoS and capacity studies in OFDM networks,” IEEE
PIMRC’09, Sep. 2009.
[9] K. Majewski and M. Koonert, “Conservative cell load approximation
for radio networks with Shannon channels and its application to LTE
network planning,” AICT’10, May 2010.
[10] I. Siomina and D. Yuan, “Analysis of cell load coupling for LTE
network planning and optimization,” in IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 2287-2297, Jun. 2012.
[11] A. J. Fehske and G. P. Fettweis, “Aggregation of variables in load
models for interference-coupled cellular data networks,” IEEE ICC’12,
Jun. 2012.
[12] J. Lundgren, M. Rönnqvist and P. Värbrand, Optimization, Studentlitteratur, 2010.

