On the Foundation of NOMA and its Application to
5G Cellular Networks
Hikmet Sari1, 4 , Ali Maatouk2 , Ersoy Caliskan3 , Mohamad Assaad2 , Mutlu Koca3 , and Guan Gui1
1

NUPT, 66 Xinmofan Road, Gulou District, Nanjing, 210003 China
CentraleSupélec, Plateau de Moulon, 91192 Gif sur Yvette, France
3
Bogazici University, Electrical & Electronics Eng. Dept., Bebek 34342 Istanbul, Turkey
4
Sequans Communications, 15 – 55 Boulevard Charles de Gaulle, 92700 Colombes, France

arXiv:1710.03046v2 [] 11 Oct 2017

2

Abstract—Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) is recognized today as a most promising technology for future 5G cellular
networks and a large number of papers have been published
on the subject over the past few years. Interestingly, none of
these authors seems to be aware that the foundation of NOMA
actually dates back to the year 2000, when a series of papers
introduced and investigated multiple access schemes using two
sets of orthogonal signal waveforms and iterative interference
cancellation at the receiver. The purpose of this paper is to
shed light on that early literature and to describe a practical
scheme based on that concept, which is particularly attractive
for Machine-Type Communications (MTC) in future 5G cellular
networks. Using this approach, NOMA appears as a convenient
extension of orthogonal multiple access rather than a strictly
competing technology, and most important of all, the power
imbalance between the transmitted user signals that is required to
make the receiver work in other NOMA schemes is not required
here.

I. INTRODUCTION
Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) is currently a
hot research topic for the physical layer of future 5G cellular
networks, and more particularly for Machine-Type Communications (MTC) in that context. The interest in this multiple
access technique originated from a well-established result
in multi-user information theory, which says that orthogonal
multiple access is not optimal in general and that superposition
coding coupled with successive interference cancellation (SIC)
provides an optimal solution for multiple access [1], [2].
Historically, time-division multiple access (TDMA) and
frequency-division multiple access (FDMA) have been known
and used in various forms for quite a long time. Focusing on
digital cellular networks, the two major standards in secondgeneration (2G) cellular networks were the Global Standard
for Mobile Communications (GSM) and IS-95. The first one
of these was based on TDMA, and the second was based on
code-division multiple access (CDMA) [3]. For 3G networks,
the winner was the CDMA technology, and the so-called
Wideband CDMA (WCDMA) became the standard [4]. All
of these networks were based on single-carrier transmission.
Finally, 4G networks were based on the multicarrier transmission technology known as orthogonal frequency-division
multiplexing (OFDM), previously used for terrestrial digital
video broadcasting (DVB-T), WiFi, and WiMAX. In terms of
multiple access, WiFi continued to use TDMA, but WiMAX

used orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA)
which uses the frequency dimension of OFDM for resource
allocation [5]. As for the 3GPP Long-Term Evolution (LTE)
and LTE-Advanced standards [6] and [7], they used OFDMA
on the downlink and single-carrier FDMA (SC-FDMA) on
the uplink in order to reduce the peak-to-average power ratio
(PAPR) of the transmitted signal.
All of these multiple access techniques are orthogonal
and ensure that no interference exists between users in ideal
conditions. In TDMA only one user is active at a time, and
in conventional FDMA only one user is active at a given
frequency. In CDMA orthogonality is ensured by the properties of the Walsh-Hadamard (WH) sequences used for signal
spreading. Finally, although individual user signals overlap in
frequency in the case of OFDMA, orthogonality is achieved
thanks to the carrier spacing of 1/T, where T is the symbol
period. Of course, in all of these techniques, orthogonality on
the uplink requires perfect synchronization between different
user signals.
Until the development of multi-user information theory,
orthogonality of different user signals was always perceived as
a most desirable property. But analysis of the channel capacity
which indicated that orthogonal multiple access is not always
optimal opened up new perspectives and research directions
for future networks. Recently, a large number of papers have
been published on non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA),
which is perceived as a most promising technology for 5G
cellular networks (See, e.g., [8]–[11]). The analysis in these
papers promise substantial gains compared to conventional
orthogonal multiple access. The purpose of the present paper
is to put into context the current work on NOMA, quantify its
potential, and point out previous work on the subject [12]–[15],
which seems to be unnoticed by current researchers. Using
that approach, NOMA appears as a convenient extension of
orthogonal multiple access rather than a strictly competing
technology.
The paper is organized as follows: In the next section, we
recall the basic principle of NOMA and we quantify the gain
that this technique can achieve with respect to orthogonal
multiple access in different scenarios. In Section III, we
review the earlier work on NOMA that is based on the joint
use of two orthogonal multiple access schemes. Using this

concept, we describe in Section IV a practical NOMA scheme
which elegantly combines OFDMA and Multi-Carrier CDMA
(MC-CDMA) and turns out to be particularly suitable for
accommodating two user groups with different profiles in
terms of data rate requirements. Finally, we give simulation
results in Section V and our conclusions in Section VI.
II. PRINCIPLE OF NOMA
To describe the basic principle of NOMA, we will focus
here on a two-user uplink channel in a cellular network. We
will assume that user 1 has a strong signal power P1 and
user 2 has a weaker signal power P2 . In these conditions,
the receiver can detect the user-1 signal in the presence of
interference from the user-2 signal, and then it can subtract the
detected user-1 signal from the received signal to detect the
weaker user-2 signal without interference. Assuming that the
channel is an additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel
of normalized bandwidth W = 1 Hz, the user 1 capacity in
bits per Hertz is given by
P1 
(1)
R1 = log2 1 +
P2 + N 0
where N0 is the noise spectral density (the noise power in
the unit bandwidth W = 1 Hz). After detecting the signal
transmitted by user 1, the receiver can subtract this from the
received signal and detect the user 2 signal in the absence of
interference. The user 2 capacity is given by
P2 
R2 = log2 1 +
(2)
N0
and consequently, the total capacity for the two users is
expressed as
P1 
P2 
R = R1 + R2 = log2 1 +
+ log2 1 +
. (3)
P2 + N0
N0
A simple manipulation of this equation shows that

P1
P2 
P 
R = log2 (1 +
)(1 +
) = log2 1 +
(4)
P2 + N 0
N0
N0
where P = P1 + P2 is the total power. This indicates that
the capacity of the multi-user channel is identical to that of a
single-user channel with the same total power.
The situation is actually not different for orthogonal waveform multiple access (OWMA). Without any loss of generality,
consider an OFDMA scheme with 2 users. Again, P1 will
designate here the power of the user-1 signal, P2 will designate
the power of the user-2 signal, and P = P1 + P2 is the
total power. We write P1 = αP and P2 = (1 − α)P , with
0 ≤ α ≤ 1. The signal power being uniformly distributed over
the N carriers composing the OFDMA signal, the bandwidth
allocation to the two users follows the same proportions as
the signal power. In other words, we have W1 = αW and
W2 = (1 − α)W , where bandwidth W1 is allocated to user 1
and W2 is allocated to user 2. The capacity equations for the
two users are given by
P 
P1 
= αlog2 1 +
(5)
R1 = αlog2 1 +
W1 N0
N0

and
R2 = (1 − α)log2 1 +

P2 
P 
= (1 − α)log2 1 +
(6)
W 2 N0
N0

respectively. The total capacity R = R1 + R2 is therefore
identical to the NOMA capacity given by equation (4). In
summary, when the user signals do not have relative attenuations, both OWMA and NOMA achieve the single-user
channel capacity, and the two multiple access technique do
not have any difference in terms of capacity.
The difference between the two multiple access techniques
appears when one of the user signals is subject to a different
attenuation than the other signal. Suppose that user 2 signal is
attenuated by 6 dB while the user 1 signal has no attenuation.
In that case, the OFDMA capacity becomes
P/4 
P 
+ (1 − α)log2 1 +
(7)
N0
N0
and the NOMA capacity will be


αP
RN OM A = log2 1 +
(1 − α)P/4 + N0
(8)


(1 + 3α)P 
(1 − α)P/4 
= log2 1 +
.
+ log2 1 +
N0
4N0
To compare these two capacities, assume now that α = 0.8
and P/N0 = 15 so that the single-user channel capacity is 4
bits per Hertz. In that case, (7) will read ROF DM A = 3.65 and
(8) will read RN OM A = 3.78. Comparing these numbers, we
can see that NOMA increases the two-user channel capacity
by 3.5% in this particular case. Pursuing the comparison
further, it turns out that the advantage of NOMA increases
when the parameter α is reduced and when the attenuation
of the user-2 signal is further increased. But the capacity
increase offered by NOMA does not come completely for free.
Since user signals interfere with each other, iterative detection
with interference cancellation is needed. When one signal is
significantly weaker than the other, the strong signal can be
detected with a small penalty and then subtracted from the
received signal to detect the weak signal. Next, the weak
signal is subtracted from the received signal to make more
reliable second iteration decisions on the symbols of the strong
signal, and so forth, until performance gets close to that of
interference-free transmission. This process works fine when
there is a strong imbalance between the two user signals, but
it will have convergence problems when the two signals have
similar powers.
ROF DM A = αlog2 1 +

III. EARLY LITERATURE
The interest in NOMA today is closely related to the
emergence of research projects on 5G cellular networks. The
main research topics for the definition of the physical layer of
5G networks have been Massive MIMO, Waveform Design,
and Millimeter-Wave Technologies, and multiple access is a
key component of waveform design. Most papers on NOMA
have been published over the past few years, and interestingly,
the authors seem to be completely unaware of a series of
papers which laid the foundation of NOMA over 15 years

ago. This early literature did not use the word NOMA, but
the principle of NOMA and all of the ingredients which
characterize this technique were disclosed back in the year
2000. Below is a short summary of this work whose basic
principle is to use two sets of orthogonal signal waveforms.
We describe it here focusing on the combination of TDMA
and OCDMA as in [12], where the TDMA signal set is used
in full and OCDMA signal set is used in part.
Consider a simple TDMA system with N users in which
each user gets one data symbol per frame of N symbols. The
multiple access channel has a bandwidth of N W Hz, where
W is the bandwidth which would be required to transmit the
signal of the individual users if they transmitted alone. This
scheme thus accommodates N users without any interference.
To accommodate additional users (say M users, where M <
N ), a second signal set is used. The second signal set too is an
orthogonal set, but the two sets are not mutually orthogonal.
Specifically, the second set used here is the OCDMA signal
set formed of length-N Walsh-Hadamard (WH) sequences. In
the resulting multiple access scheme with N + M users, the
first N users do not interfere with each other, and the same
applies to the second set of M users, but each user from the
first set interferes with every user from the second set, and vice
versa. That is, we have here a NOMA scheme with interference
between two groups of users, and iterative detection with serial
interference cancellation is needed to detect the transmitted
symbols.
The basic principle is schetched in Fig.1, which shows how
M OCDMA symbols are stacked to a block of N TDMA
symbols. On the abscissa of this figure, TC designates the
OCDMA chip duration as well as the TDMA symbol duration,
and T = N · TC is the OCDMA symbol duration, which is
also the duration of the TDMA symbol block. The transmitted
instantaneous power is P for each OCDMA symbol and N ·P
for each TDMA symbol so that both TDMA and OCDMA
symbols have an energy of E = N ·P ·TC = P ·T . The TDMA
signal set here is used in full, while the OCDMA signal set is
used only partially. This picture clearly shows that preliminary
decisions can be made on the TDMA symbols as long as M
remains small compared to N .
Let us write down the equations describing the transmitted
signal. The time index describing the symbol position in a
TDMA block is denoted n. Symbol an with 1 ≤ n ≤ N
is assigned to TDMA user #n. The symbols assigned to the
OCDMA users are denoted bm with 1 ≤ m ≤ M . We also
write the WH sequences used for signal spreading as Wm =
(wm,1 , wm,2 , . . . .., wm,N ) for m = 1, 2, . . . ., M . Using this
notation, the transmitted signal can be written as
M
1 X
wm,n bm
(9)
xn = an + √
N m=1
√
for n = 1, 2, . . . , N . The division by N in (9) is to preserve
the symbol energy during the symbol spreading process. The
received signal can be written as rn = xn + un with un
being the additive noise for n = 1, 2, . . . , N . Provided that the

Fig. 1: An illustration of the combined TDMA/OCDMA
scheme, where the TDMA signal set is used in full and the
OCDMA signal set is used partially.

number of OCDMA users M is not too large, the interference
term in (9) remains small compared to the TDMA symbol
power, and the received signal sample rn can be sent to a
threshold detector to make a decision on the transmitted an
symbol. Once these first-iteration decisions are made on all
an symbols, the estimated symbol values are subtracted from
the received signal samples according to yn = rn − ân , where
for each n, ân stands for the decision made on symbol an .
Referring back to (9), we can write yn as
M
1 X
wm,n bm + un .
yn = an − ân + √
N m=1

(10)

Assuming ân = an , (10) simplifies to
M
1 X
yn = √
wm,n bm + un .
N m=1

(11)

The next operation in the receiver is to perform signal despreading and make decisions on the OCDMA symbols. Signal
despreading consists of
N
1 X
zk = √
wk,n yn
N n=1


N
M
1 X
1 X
=√
wk,n √
wm,n bm + un
N n=1
N m=1

(12)

N
1 X
= bk + √
wk,n un .
N n=1

The second term is a noise term with identical variance to
that of the original noise. The first iteration decisions on the
OCDMA symbols are made by passing the zk ’s to a threshold
detector.
Once the first-iteration decisions are also made for the
{bm , m = 1, 2, . . . , M } symbols, their interference can be
cancelled to make second-iteration decisions on the {an , n =
1, 2, . . . , N } symbols. The process is as follows: For each n,

compute vn = rn −

√1
N

PM

m=1

wm,n b̂m , where for each m,

b̂m is the decision on bm . Assuming that b̂m = bm for all m
and using (9), we get vn = an +un . This signal is next sent to
a threshold detector to make a decision on an in the absence
of interference. The second-iteration decisions are obviously
more reliable than the first-iteration decisions, and the process
continues as in the first iteration to make second-iteration
decisions on the {bm , m = 1, 2, . . . , M } symbols. Additional
iterations can further improve performance in some cases, but
the results show that two iterations are sufficient when M is
small.
The concept described above is not just applicable to multiple access. It is equally applicable to single-user transmission,
and therefore the terminology of “channel overloading” was
used in [14] to describe it. The basic idea is that once the
channel is fully loaded using an orthogonal signaling scheme
(orthogonal transmission for a single-user channel or orthogonal multiple access for a multiuser channel), it is overloaded
through the superposition of a second signal to the first one.
Optimum joint detection being too complex to implement,
the receiver in practice takes the form of an iterative receiver
with interference cancellation. For multiple access, the recent
NOMA literature focuses on the superposition of two user
signals, but the concept reviewed in this section goes actually
further and superposes the signals of two user groups.
IV. NOMA FOR 5G
Since OFDMA has been the basic multiple access scheme
used in 4G cellular systems and it has also been adopted by
the 3GPP for mobile broadband (eMBB) services in 5G [16],
we will now describe a frequency-domain NOMA scheme,
which consists of using OFDMA for the first group of users
and Multi-Carrier CDMA (MC-CDMA) for the second group.
The principle is exactly the same as the one described in the
previous section, with the frequency dimension substituted
for the time dimension as shown in Fig. 2. In this figure,
1/N T is the carrier spacing, the OFDMA symbols have a
power spectrum density (PSD) of N · D Watt/Hz, and the
MC-CDMA symbols that are superposed to them have a PSD
of D Watt/Hz.
To describe this NOMA technique further, consider an
OFDMA system with N carriers and without any loss of
generality assume that each carrier is assigned to a separate
user. Such a system accommodates N users providing one
QAM symbol to each of them during every OFDM symbol.
Applying the concept described in Section III, we superpose
to this OFDMA signal a set of MC-CDMA signals carrying
information for a second group of users. The mathematical
equations of Section III remain the same except that here, n
with 1 ≤ n ≤ N designates the carrier index, and xn given
by (9) designates the signal transmitted on the nth carrier. A
simple block diagram of the transmitter is shown in Fig. 3.
The output of the OFDMA Users block is an N-dimensional
QAM symbol vector {an , n = 1, 2, . . . , N } and the MCCDMA Users block is an M-dimensional symbol vector
{bm , m = 1, 2, . . . , M }. The Walsh-Hadamard Spreading box

Fig. 2: An illustration of the combined OFDMA/MC-CDMA
scheme, where the OFDMA signal set is used in full and the
MC-CDMA signal set is used partially.

Fig. 3: Transmitter block diagram of a NOMA scheme using
OFDMA for the first set of users and MC-CDMA for the
second set of users.

spreads the MC-CDMA symbols over the N carriers and
outputs an N-dimensional vector that is summed with the
OFDMA symbols vector. The resulting signal block is passed
to an N-point inverse DFT operator followed by the insertion
of cyclic prefix (CP) between consecutive inverse DFT blocks.
The corresponding receiver is sketched in Fig. 4.

Fig. 4: Receiver block diagram for the NOMA scheme of Fig.
3.
After CP removal in the time domain, the signal is converted
to the frequency domain by means of an N-point DFT. The
output of this operator {rn , n = 1, 2, . . . , N } is directly passed
to a threshold detector to make first-iteration decisions on the
OFDMA symbols. These are denoted {ân , n = 1, 2, . . . , N }.
These decisions are subtracted from the DFT operator output
to provide {yn = rn − ân , n = 1, 2, ..., N } and this signal

is passed to a Walsh-Hadamard despreader. The despreader
output is next sent to a threshold detector to make first-iteration
decisions on the MC-CDMA symbols {bm , m = 1, 2, . . . , M }.
These decisions, which are denoted {b̂m , m = 1, 2, . . . , M },
are Walsh-Hadamard spread, the spreader output block is
subtracted from {rn , n = 1, 2, . . . , N }, and the resulting
signal is passed to a threshold detector to make seconditeration decisions on {an , n = 1, 2, . . . , N }. Finally, these
decisions are subtracted from the threshold detector inputs,
the resulting signal is Walsh-Hadamard despread and passed
to a threshold detector to make second-iteration decisions on
{bm , m = 1, 2, . . . , M }. The process can continue to make
further iterations as required, but two iterations are sufficient
in practice for small values of M .
At this point, it is important to discuss the number of MCCDMA user signals which can be superposed to the OFDMA
user signals without a significant performance degradation.
The WH sequences used for signal spreading are binary
sequences
with components ±1. Due to the multiplicative term
√
each
1/ N used in signal spreading, the interference from √
MC-CDMA user on OFDMA users is of the form
±1/
N.
√
When the number of MC-CDMA users reaches N , the peak
interference amplitude reaches 1 and the eye diagram of the
OFDMA signal becomes closed. In this case, errors occur
in the first-iteration decisions of OFDMA symbols even in
the absence of noise, which means that the corresponding bit
error rate (BER) curve features an error floor. Correspondingly,
we
√ limit for the moment the number of MC-CDMA users to
N , although this does not represent a strict bound. Indeed,
an iterative receiver employing soft decisions instead of hard
decisions as described in [15] will help accommodating a
higher number of MC-CDMA users.

that is close to 1 dB at BER values lower than 10−4 . At the
second iteration, performance improves sharply and the BER
curve virtually coincides with the theoretical BER curve of
QPSK at BER values below 10−5 . These results indicate that
in the case at hand no more than 2 iterations are needed in the
iterative receiver to cancel the interference between OFDMA
users and MC-CDMA users.

Fig. 5: Bit error rate for OFDMA users for N = 64 and
M = 4.

V. SIMULATION RESULTS
Performance of the NOMA scheme presented in the previous section was evaluated using computer simulations. The
simulations were carried out over an additive white Gaussian
noise (AWGN) channel using an OFDMA/MC-CDMA scheme
with N = 64 carriers, 16-QAM modulation for the OFDMA
users, and QPSK for the MC-CDMA users. In a first set of
simulations, the number of MC-CDMA users was M = 4
and in a second set M was increased to 8 such that the
superposition of the MC-CDMA signals to the OFDMA signal
leads to a closed eye diagram.
With M = 4, the performance results are given in Fig. 5
for OFDMA users and in Fig. 6 for MC-CDMA users. As
can be seen in Fig. 5, the BER curve of OFDMA users at the
first iteration has a large gap from the theoretical BER curve
of 16-QAM, but the second iteration gives a remarkable result
and leads essentially to the same performance as the theoretical
curve for BER values below 10−3 . The gap at the first iteration
can be explained by the level of interference from MC-CDMA
users. Next, examining Fig. 6, we can see that performance
of the MC-CDMA users has somewhat a different behavior.
The performance curve at the first iteration has essentially the
same shape as the theoretical BER curve of QPSK with a gap

Fig. 6: Bit error rate for MC-CDMA users for N = 64 and
M = 4.
The results corresponding to M = 8 are given in Fig. 7
for OFDMA users and in Fig. 8 for OCDMA users. Three
iterations were made in this case. Fig. 7 shows that at the first
iteration, the BER curve decays only very slowly and reaches
5.10−3 at Eb /N0 of 14 dB. The second iteration reduces the
bit error rate to some extent, but a BER floor slightly below
10−3 is clearly visible on that curve. A third iteration gave
only a marginal improvement and did not change the value of
the BER floor. Next, Fig. 8 shows that the BER curve is very
flat at the first iteration and that the second iteration provides

a very small improvement. The third iteration provided no
improvement at all and the BER floor is slightly higher than
10−2 on this figure. This result confirms that when hard
decisions are made in the iterative receiver,
the number of
√
MC-CDMA users must be kept below N in order to avoid
the appearance of a BER floor.

and OCDMA for the second set. Next, focusing on the context
of 5G cellular systems, we described a practical NOMA
scheme employing a combination of OFDMA and MCCDMA, which can form an attractive solution for machinetype communications in 5G. In that approach, NOMA can
be viewed as an extension of OFDMA to perform channel
overloading and accommodate a higher number of users when
all resources of OFDMA are used. Alternatively, OFDMA
and MC-CDMA can be used to accommodate two user sets
with different profiles and data rate requirements. The power
imbalance which is required to make reliable detection in
NOMA appears very naturally in this approach, because for
identical symbol energy, the power spectrum density of MCCDMA symbols is only (1/N )th of the OFDMA spectrum
density.
R EFERENCES

Fig. 7: Bit error rate for OFDMA users for N = 64 and
M = 8.

Fig. 8: Bit error rate for MC-CDMA users for N = 64 and
M = 8.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we have addressed NOMA, which is a strong
candidate today for machine-type communications in future
5G cellular systems. After describing the basic principle of
this technique, we pointed out that its foundation actually goes
back to the year 2000, a fact that seems to be unnoticed by
authors of recent papers. The concept appeared in a series
of papers published in that period describing multiple access
using two orthogonal signal sets and iterative detection with
serial interference cancellation. We first gave a comprehensive
review of this technique using TDMA for the first set of users

[1] D. Tse and P. Viswanath, Fundamentals of Wireless Communication.
Cambridge University Press, 2005.
[2] A. Goldsmith, Wireless Communications. Cambridge University Press,
2005.
[3] A. J. Viterbi, CDMA: Principles of Spread Spectrum Communication.
Addison Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1995.
[4] H. Holma and A. Toskala, WCDMA for UMTS: HSPA Evolution and
LTE. John Wiley & Sons, 2007.
[5] “IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks – Part
16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Access
Systems,” IEEE 802.16-2005, February 2006.
[6] 3rd Generation Partnership Project Technical Specification Group Radio
Access Network, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA); User Equipment (UE) Radio Transmission and Reception,”
3GPP, Tech. Rep. (Release 8), TS 36.101 v8.7.0, September 2009.
[7] H. Holma and A. Toskala, LTE for UMTS: Evolution to LTE-Advanced.
John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[8] Y. Saito, Y. Kishiyama, A. Benjebbour, T. Nakamura, A. Li, and
K. Higuchi, “Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access (NOMA) for Cellular
Future Radio Access,” in 2013 IEEE 77th Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), June 2013, pp. 1–5.
[9] Z. Ding, Z. Yang, P. Fan, and H. V. Poor, “On the Performance of NonOrthogonal Multiple Access in 5G Systems with Randomly Deployed
Users,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 21, no. 12, pp. 1501–1505,
Dec 2014.
[10] L. Dai, B. Wang, Y. Yuan, S. Han, C. l. I, and Z. Wang, “Non-Orthogonal
Multiple Access for 5G: Solutions, Challenges, Opportunities, and
Future Research Trends,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53,
no. 9, pp. 74–81, September 2015.
[11] Z. Ding, Y. Liu, J. Choi, Q. Sun, M. Elkashlan, C. L. I, and H. V.
Poor, “Application of Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access in LTE and 5G
Networks,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 185–
191, February 2017.
[12] H. Sari, F. Vanhaverbeke, and M. Moeneclaey, “Multiple Access Using
Two Sets of Orthogonal Signal Waveforms,” IEEE Communications
Letters, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 4–6, January 2000.
[13] ——, “Extending the Capacity of Multiple Access Channels,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 74–82, January 2000.
[14] ——, “Channel Overloading in Multiuser and Single-User Communications,” in 11th IEEE International Symposium on Personal Indoor
and Mobile Radio Communications. PIMRC 2000. Proceedings (Cat.
No.00TH8525), vol. 2, 2000, pp. 1106–1111 vol.2.
[15] F. Vanhaverbeke, M. Moeneclaey, and H. Sari, “Turbo Multiple Access:
Channel Overloading Using Two Sets of Orthogonal Signal Waveforms
and Iterative Interference Cancellation.” in Proceedings 2nd International Symposium on Turbo Codes and Related Topics, Brest, Sept. 4-7
2000, September 2000, pp. 181–184.
[16] 3rd Generation Partnership Project, “Study on New Radio Access
Technology Physical Layer Aspects,” 3GPP, Tech. Rep. TR 38.802
v14.0.0, March 2017.

