What Is the True Value of Dynamic TDD:
A MAC Layer Perspective
Ming Ding‡ , David López Pérez† , Guoqiang Mao∦‡ , Zihuai Lin¶
‡

Data61, Australia {Ming.Ding@data61.csiro.au}
Nokia Bell Labs, Ireland {david.lopez-perez@nokia.com}
∦
School of Computing and Communication, University of Technology Sydney, Australia
¶
The University of Sydney, Australia

arXiv:1611.02828v6 [cs.IT] 26 Sep 2017

†

Abstract—Small cell networks (SCNs) are envisioned to embrace dynamic time division duplexing (TDD) in order to
tailor downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) subframe resources to quick
variations and burstiness of DL/UL traffic. The study of dynamic
TDD is particularly important because it provides valuable
insights on the full duplex transmission technology, which has
been identified as one of the candidate technologies for the 5thgeneration (5G) networks. Up to now, the existing works on
dynamic TDD have shown that the UL of dynamic TDD suffers
from severe performance degradation due to the strong DL-toUL interference in the physical (PHY) layer. This conclusion
raises a fundamental question: Despite such obvious technology
disadvantage, what is the true value of dynamic TDD? In this
paper, we answer this question from a media access control
(MAC) layer viewpoint and present analytical results on the
DL/UL time resource utilization (TRU) of synchronous dynamic
TDD, which has been widely adopted in the existing 4thgeneration (4G) systems. Our analytical results shed new light
on the dynamic TDD in future synchronous 5G networks.1

To overcome the drawbacks of static TDD, a new technology, referred to as dynamic TDD, has recently drawn much
attention [4–8]. In dynamic TDD, the configuration of the
TDD DL/UL subframe number in each cell or a cluster of cells
can be dynamically changed on a per-frame basis, i.e., once
every 10 milliseconds [3]. Thus, dynamic TDD can provide a
tailored configuration of DL/UL subframe resources for each
cell or a cluster of cells at the expense of allowing inter-cell
inter-link interference, e.g., DL transmissions of a cell may
interfere with UL ones of a neighboring cell, and vice versa.
The study of dynamic TDD is particularly important because it provides valuable insights on the full duplex (FD)
transmission [8, 9], which has been identified as one of the
candidate technologies for 5G. In more detail,
•

I. I NTRODUCTION
An orthogonal deployment of dense small cell networks
(SCNs) within the existing macrocell ones is characterized by
small cells and macrocells operating on different frequency
spectrum. Due to its capacity gain and easy implementation,
such deployment is considered as one of the workhorses for
capacity enhancement in the 4th-generation (4G) and 5thgeneration (5G) networks, developed by the 3rd Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) [1, 2]. It is also envisaged that
dense SCNs will embrace time division duplexing (TDD),
which does not require a pair of frequency carriers, and offers
the possibility of tailoring the amount of time radio resources
to the downlink (DL)/uplink (UL) traffic conditions. In this
line, seven TDD configurations, each associated with a specific
DL/UL subframe number in a 10-milisecond TDD frame, are
available for static or semi-static selection at the network side
in the 4G Long Term Evolution (LTE) networks [3]. However,
such static TDD operation cannot adapt DL/UL subframe
resources to the fast fluctuations in DL/UL traffic demands.
1 To appear in IEEE GLOBECOM2017. 1536-1276 l’ 2015 IEEE.
Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires
IEEE permission. Please find the final version in IEEE from the link:
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/xxxxxxx/. Digital Object Identifier:
10.1109/xxxxxxxx

•

In an FD system, a base station (BS) can simultaneously
transmit to and receive from different user equipments
(UEs), thus enhancing spectrum reuse, but creating (i)
inter-cell inter-link interference and (ii) intra-cell interlink interference, a.k.a., self-interference [9].
The main difference between an FD system and a dynamic TDD one is that intra-cell inter-link interference
does not exist in dynamic TDD [8].

The physical (PHY) layer signal-to-interference-plus-noise
ratio (SINR) performance of dynamic TDD has been analyzed
in [4], assuming deterministic positions of BSs and UEs, and
in [5–7], considering stochastic positions of BSs and UEs. The
main conclusion in [4–7] was that the UL SINR of dynamic
TDD suffers from severe performance degradation due to the
strong DL-to-UL interference, which is generated from a BS
to another one. To address this challenge, cell clustering as
well as full or partial interference cancellation (IC) at the BS
side were recommended in [10, 11]. However, since clustering
and IC are not trivial operations, such disadvantage of dynamic
TDD in terms of UL SINR triggers a fundamental question:
What is the true value of dynamic TDD? The answer
can only be found through a thorough media access control
(MAC) layer analysis, since the main motivation of dynamic
TDD is to dynamically adapt DL/UL subframe resources to the
variation of traffic demands. To the best our knowledge, the
MAC layer analysis of dynamic TDD has not been investigated
from a theoretical viewpoint in the literature, although some

preliminary simulation results can be found in [8, 10–12].
In this paper, for the first time, we conduct a theoretical
study on the MAC layer performance of dynamic TDD, and
present a single contribution in this paper:
• We derive closed-form expressions of the DL/UL time resource utilization (TRU) for synchronous dynamic TDD,
which has been widely adopted in the existing LTE systems. Such results quantify the performance of dynamic
TDD in terms of its MAC layer resource usage, as SCNs
evolve into dense and ultra-dense ones. More specifically,
– We show that the DL/UL TRU varies across different
TDD subframes.
– We prove that the average total TRU2 of dynamic
TDD is larger than that of static TDD.
– We derive the limit of the performance gain of
dynamic TDD compared with static TDD, in terms
of the average total TRU.
II. N ETWORK S CENARIO

AND

P ERFORMANCE M ETRICS

In this section, we present the network scenario and the
performance metrics considered in the paper.
A. General Network Scenario
We consider a cellular network with BSs deployed on a
plane according to a homogeneous Poisson point process
(HPPP) Φ with a density of λ BSs/km2 . Active UEs are also
Poisson distributed in the considered network with a density of
ρ UEs/km2 . Here, we only consider active UEs in the network
because non-active UEs do not trigger data transmissions.
In practice, a BS will mute its transmission, if there is
no UE connected to it, which reduces inter-cell interference
and energy consumption [13]. Note that such BS idle mode
operation is not trivial, which even changes the capacity
scaling law [14]. Since UEs are randomly and uniformly
distributed in the network, we assume that the active BSs also
follow an HPPP distribution Φ̃ [15], the density of which is
denoted by λ̃ BSs/km2 . Note that 0 ≤ λ̃ ≤ λ, and a larger ρ
leads to a larger λ̃. From [15, 16], λ̃ is given by


1
q  ,
(1)
λ̃ = λ 1 − 
ρ
1 + qλ

where q takes an empirical value around 3.5~4 [15, 16]3 .
For each active UE, the probabilities of it requesting DL
and UL data are respectively denoted by pD and pU , with
pD + pU = 1. Besides, we assume that each request is large
enough to be transmitted for at least one TDD frame, which
consists of T subframes. In the sequel, the DL or UL subframe
number per frame will be shortened as the DL or UL subframe
number, because subframes are meant within one frame.

2 Later, the average total TRU will be formally defined as the sum of the
average DL TRU and the average UL TRU.
3 With a 3GPP path loss model incorporating both line-of-sight (LoS) and
non-LoS (NLoS) transmissions [3], it was shown in [13] that q = 4.05 when
ρ = 300 UEs/km2 , which is a typical value of ρ in 5G [1]. Note that our
analytical results in this paper can work with any value of q.

Fig. 1. An example of the LTE TDD configurations, where one TDD frame
is composed of T = 10 subframes. Here, ’D’ and ’U’ denote a DL subframe
and an UL one, respectively.

B. Asynchronous and Synchronous Networks
Regarding TDD frames, we need to differentiate two types
of networks, i.e., asynchronous ones and synchronous ones.
Note that most previous works only investigated dynamic TDD
operating in an asynchronous network [4–7]. More specifically,
in an asynchronous network, e.g., Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi),
the TDD transmission frames are not aligned among cells,
and thus both the PHY layer performance and the MAC
layer one are uniform across all TDD subframes. However,
in a synchronous network, such as LTE and the future 5G
networks, the TDD transmission frames from different cells
are aligned to simplify the design of the radio protocols. As a
result, the performance of dynamic TDD becomes a function
of the TDD configuration structure. Fig. 1 shows an example
of such TDD configuration structure in LTE [3].
In Fig. 1, TDD frames of different cells are aligned in
the time domain. One TDD frame is composed of T =
10 subframes, and the time length of each subframe is
1 millisecond [3]. As an example, we assume that BS 1 and
BS 2 use the TDD configurations with 6 and 8 DL subframes,
respectively. For this synchronous network with TDD frame
alignment, we have the following two remarks.
Remark 1: The first few subframes are more likely to
carry DL transmissions than the last few ones. The opposite
conclusion applies for the UL. This leads to a subframe
dependent MAC layer performance of dynamic TDD.
Remark 2: The subframes in the middle of the frame are
more likely to be subject to inter-cell inter-link interference
than those at the two ends of the TDD frame. This implies a
subframe dependent PHY layer performance of dynamic TDD.
Unfortunately, such synchronous dynamic TDD that has
been used in LTE and will be used in 5G, has not been
well treated in the literature, and previous works considering
synchronous dynamic TDD were only based on simulations
and lack of analytical rigor [8, 10–12]. In this paper, we
explore Remark 1, and study the MAC layer performance of
synchronous dynamic TDD, with the consideration of the DLbefore-UL TDD configuration structure adopted in LTE, as
illustrated in Fig. 1.
C. MAC Layer Performance Metrics
For the l-th subframe (l ∈ {1, 2, . . . , T }), we define the
subframe dependent DL TRU and UL TRU as the probability
of BSs transmitting DL signals and that of UEs transmitting
UL signals, respectively, which are denoted by qlD and qlU .
In other words, qlD and qlU characterize how much time

resource is actually used for DL and UL, respectively. Note
that generally we do not have qlD + qlU = 1, because some
subframe resources might be wasted, e.g., in static TDD.
Moreover, we define the average DL TRU κD and the
average UL TRU κU as the mean value of qlD and qlU across
all of the T subframes:
(
P
κD = T1 Tl=1 qlD
.
(2)
P
T
κU = T1 l=1 qlU

Finally, we define the average total TRU κ as the sum of
κD and κU , which is written as
κ = κD + κU .

(3)

In the following sections, we will investigate the performance of qlLink , κLink and κ considering Remark 1, where
the string variable Link denotes the link direction, and takes
the value of ’D’ and ’U’ for the DL and the UL respectively4.
III. M AIN R ESULTS
The main goal of this section is to derive theoretical results
on the DL/UL TRU defined in Subsection II-C. Note that
computing qlD and qlU is a non-trivial task for synchronous
dynamic TDD, because it involves the following distributions:
•

•

•

•

the distribution of the UE number in an active BS, which
will be shown to follow a truncated Negative Binomial
distribution in Subsection III-A;
the distribution of the DL/UL data request numbers in
an active BS, which will be shown to follow a Binomial
distribution in Subsection III-B;
the dynamic TDD subframe splitting strategy and the corresponding distribution of the DL/UL subframe number,
which will be shown to follow an aggregated Binomial
distribution in Subsection III-C; and finally
the prior information about the TDD frame structure, such
as the DL-before-UL structure adopted in LTE [3] (see
Fig. 1), which will lead to subframe dependent results of
qlD and qlU to be presented in Subsection III-D.

A. The Distribution of the UE Number in an Active BS: A
Truncated Negative Binomial Distribution
According to [15], the coverage area size X of a BS can
be approximately characterized by a Gamma distribution [15],
and its probability density function (PDF) is written as
fX (x) = (qλ)q xq−1

exp(−qλx)
,
Γ(q)

(4)

4 On a side node, the DL/UL area spectral efficiency (ASE) in bps/Hz/km 2
PT
Link r Link , where r Link is the PHY
can be further computed by Tλ̃
l=1 ql
l
l
layer per-BS data rate in bps/Hz/BS for subframe l. As explained in Remark 2,
Link
should consider the subframe dependent inter-cell
the derivation of rl
inter-link interference, which is out of the scope of this paper since our focus
is on the MAC layer performance. The study on rlLink will be left as our
future work.

Fig. 2. The PMF of the UE number K̃ in an active BS (ρ = 300 UEs/km2 ,
q = 4.05, various λ).

where Γ(·) is the Gamma function [17]. Then, the UE number
per BS can be denoted by a random variable (RV) K, and the
probability mass function (PMF) of K can be derived as
fK (k) = Pr [K = k]
Z +∞
k
(ρx)
(a)
exp(−ρx)fX (x)dx
=
k!
0

k 
q
Γ(k + q)
ρ
qλ
(b)
=
, (5)
Γ(k + 1)Γ(q) ρ + qλ
ρ + qλ
where (a) is due to the HPPP distribution of UEs and (b) is
obtained from (4). It can be seen from (5) that K followsa
ρ
Negative Binomial distribution [17], i.e., K ∼ NB q, ρ+qλ
.
As discussed in Subsection II-A, we assume that a BS with
K = 0 is not active, which will be ignored in our analysis
due to its muted transmission. Hence, we focus on the active
BSs and further study the distribution of the UE number per
active BS, which is denoted by a positive RV K̃. Considering
(5) and the fact that the only difference between K and K̃
lies in K̃ 6= 0, we can conclude that K̃ follows a truncated

ρ
Negative Binomial distribution, i.e., K̃ ∼ truncNB q, ρ+qλ
.
 
More specifically, the PMF of K̃ is denoted by fK̃ k̃ , k̃ ∈
{1, 2, . . . , +∞}, and it is given by
 
 
h
i
fK k̃
,
(6)
fK̃ k̃ = Pr K̃ = k̃ =
1 − fK (0)

where the denominator (1 − fK (0)) represents the probability
of a BS being active, i.e., λ̃/λ.
 
Example: As an example, we plot the results of fK̃ k̃
in Fig. 2 with the following parameter values: UE density
ρ = 300 UEs/km2 , BS density λ ∈ {50, 200, 1000} BSs/km2
and q = 4.05 [13].
From this figure, we can draw the following observations:
• The analytical results based on the truncated Negative
Binomial distribution match well with the simulation results. More specifically, the maximum difference between

•

the simulated PMF and the analytical PMF is shown to
be less than 0.5 percentile.
 
For the active BSs, fK̃ k̃ shows a more dominant
peak at k̃ = 1 as λ, and in turn λ̃, increases. This is
because the ratio of ρ to λ̃ gradually decreases toward
1 as λ increases, approaching the limit of one UE
per active BS in ultra-dense SCNs. In particular, when
λ = 1000 BSs/km2 , more than 80 % of the active BSs will
serve only one UE. Intuitively speaking, each of those
BSs should dynamically engage all subframes for DL or
UL transmissions based on the specific traffic demand
of its served UE. In such way, the subframe resources
can be fully utilized in dynamic TDD. Note that such
operation is not available in static TDD due to its fixed
TDD configuration.

B. The Distribution of the DL/UL Data Request Number in
an Active BS: A Binomial Distribution
 
After obtaining fK̃ k̃ , we need to further study the
distribution of the DL/UL data request number in an active
BS, so that a tailored TDD configuration can be determined
in a dynamic TDD network.
For clarity, the DL and UL data request numbers in an active
BS are denoted by RVs M D and M U , respectively. Since we
assume that each UE generates one request of either DL data
or UL data (see Subsection II-A), it is easy to show that
M D + M U = K̃.

(7)

As discussed in Subsection II-A, for each UE in an active
BS, the probability of it requesting DL data and UL data
is pD and pU , respectively. Hence, for a given UE number
U
k̃, M D and
[17], i.e.,

 distributions
 M  follow Binomial
U
D
U
D
and M ∼ Bi k̃, p . More specifically,
M ∼ Bi k̃, p
the PMFs of M D and M U can be respectively written as



k̃−mD
mD
k̃
D
=
fM D m
, (8)
1 − pD
pD
D
m
and

f M U mU =



k̃
mU



pU

mU

1 − pU

k̃−mU

.

(9)


Example: As an example, we plot the results of fM D mD
in Fig. 3 with the following parameter values: pD = 32 and
k̃ ∈ {1, 4, 12}. For brevity, we omit displaying the PMF of
M U , due to its duality to M D as shown in (7).
From this figure, we can draw the following observations:
•

•

The Binomial distribution accurately characterizes the
distribution of M D , as the analytical PMFs well match
the simulated ones.
The average value of M D is around pD k̃, which is inline
with intuition.

Fig. 3. The PMF of the DL data request number M D in an active BS
(pD = 23 , various k̃).

C. The Distribution of the DL/UL Subframe Number with
Dynamic TDD: An Aggregated Binomial Distribution
After knowing the distribution of the DL data request
number M D in an active BS, we are now ready to consider
dynamic TDD, and derive the distribution of the DL subframe
number in an active BS. For a given UE number k̃, the DL
subframe number in an active BS is denoted by N D . Here, we
adopt a dynamic TDD algorithm to choose the DL subframe
number, which matches the DL subframe ratio with the DL
data request ratio [8]. In more detail,
values of mD
 for certain

D
and k̃, the DL subframe number n m , k̃ is determined by
 D 


m
T ,
(10)
n mD , k̃ = round
k̃

where round (x) is an operator that rounds a real value x to
D
its nearest integer. In (10), mk̃ can be deemed as the DL data
request ratio, because (i) mD denotes the DL data request
number with its distribution characterized in (8); and (ii) k̃
represents the UE number, and thus the total number of the DL
D
and UL data requests. As a result, mk̃ T yields the desirable
DL subframe number that matches the DL subframe ratio with
the DL data request ratio. Due to the integer nature of the DL
subframe number, we use the round operator to generate a
D
valid DL subframe number that is nearest to mk̃ T in (10).
Based  on (10), the PMF of N D is denoted by
fN D nD , nD ∈ {0, 1, . . . , T }, and it can be derived as



fN D nD = Pr N D = nD


 D 
k̃

m
(a) X
D
T =n fM D mD , (11)
=
I round
k̃
mD =0

where (10) is plugged into (a), and I {X} is an indicator
function that outputs
 one when X is true and zero otherwise.
Besides, fM D mD is computed by (8). Due
 to the existence
of the indicator function in (11), fN D nD can be viewed as
an aggregated PMF of Binomial PMFs, since N D is computed
from M D according to a many-to-one mapping in (10).

D. The Subframe Dependent DL/UL TRU
In this subsection, we present our main results on the
subframe dependent DL/UL TRUs qlD and qlU for dynamic
TDD in Theorem 1.
Theorem 1. For dynamic TDD, qlD and qlU are given by


 

P
P
 q D = +∞ 1 − l−1 fN D (i) f
k̃
l
i=0
k̃=1
  K̃
,
(13)
P
P
+∞
l−1
 qU =
f
D (i) f
k̃
N
l
i=0
K̃
k̃=1
 
where fN D(i) and fK̃ k̃ are given by (11) and (6), respectively.

Fig. 4. The PMF of the DL subframe number N D in an active BS (pD =
T = 10, various k̃).

2
,
3

Because the total subframe number in a frame is T , and
each subframe should be either a DL one or an UL one, it is
apparent that N D + N U = T , and thus we have


f N U nU = f N D T − nU .

(12)


Example: As an example, we plot the results of fN D nD
in Fig. 4 with the following parameter values: pD = 23 , T = 10
and k̃ ∈ {1, 4, 12}.
From this figure, we can draw the following observations:
•

•

Following the logic of dynamic TDD characterized in
(10), when k̃ = 1, the DL subframe number is set
to either T = 10 or 0, meaning that the active BS
dynamically invest all subframes in DL transmissions
or UL transmissions based on the instantaneous data
request being DL (with a probability of pD ) or UL (with
a probability of pU ). Such strategy fully utilizes the
subframe resources in a dynamic TDD network.
When k̃ > 1, the PMF of the DL subframe number
turns out to be rather complex, because multiple DL
data request numbers may be mapped to the same DL
subframe number due to the dynamic TDD algorithm
given by (10). For example, when k̃ = 12, we have
fN D (8) = 0.339 as exhibited in Fig. 4. This is because:
D
– according to (10), both M D = 9 and M
= 10

9
D
result in N = 8, since round 12 × 10 = 8 and
round 10
12 × 10 = 8. In other words, with dynamic
TDD, 8 subframes will be allocated for the DL, if
either 9 or 10 data requests in k̃ = 12 data requests
are DL;
– as shown in Fig. 3, fM D (9) = 0.212 and
fM D (10) = 0.127; and thus
– from (11), we have fN D (8) = fM D (9) +
fM D (10) = 0.339. In other words, with dynamic
TDD, the probability of allocating 8 DL subframes
equals to the sum of the probabilities of observing 9
and 10 DL data requests in 12 data requests.

Proof: Based on (11) and conditioned on K̃ = k̃, the
probability of performing a DL transmission in subframe l
(l ∈ {1, 2, . . . , T }) can be calculated as
h
i
ql,Dk̃ = Pr Yl = ’D’| K̃ = k̃


(a)
= Pr N D ≥ l
= 1 − FN D (l − 1) ,
(14)
where Yl denotes the link direction for the transmission on
the l-th subframe, which takes a string value of ’D’ and ’U’
for the DL and the UL, respectively. Besides, the step (a) of
(14) is due to the LTE
 TDD configuration structure shown in
Fig. 1, and FN D nD is the cumulative mass function (CMF)
of N D in an active BS, which is written as
D

FN D n

D





= Pr N

D

≤n

D



=

n
X

fN D (i) .

(15)

i=0

Considering the dynamic allocation of subframe to the DL
and the UL in dynamic TDD, the conditional probability of
performing an UL transmission in subframe l is given by
ql,Uk̃ = 1 − ql,Dk̃ = FN D (l − 1) .

(16)

Furthermore, the unconditional probabilities of performing
a DL and UL transmissions on the l-th subframe, i.e., qlD and
qlU , can be respectively derived by calculating the expected
values of ql,Dk̃ and ql,Uk̃ over all the possible values of k̃ as
shown in (13), which concludes our proof.
E. The Average DL/UL/Total TRU
From Theorem 1, and Equations (2) and (3), we can obtain
the results on the average DL/UL/total TRU for dynamic TDD,
which are summarized in Lemma 2.

Lemma 2. For dynamic TDD, κD , κU , κ is given by

 

Pl−1
PT P+∞ 
1
D

D (i)
κ
=
k̃
f
f
1
−

N
i=0
l=1
T
k̃=1

  K̃
1 PT P+∞ Pl−1
U
, (17)
κ = T l=1 k̃=1 i=0 fN D (i) fK̃ k̃



κ=1
 
where fN D(i) and fK̃ k̃ are given by (11) and (6), respectively.

Proof: The proof is straightforward by plugging (13) into
(2) and (3).
Lemma 2 not only quantifies the average MAC layer performance of dynamic TDD, but also shows from a theoretical
viewpoint that dynamic TDD always achieves a full resource
utilization, i.e., κ = 1, thanks to the smart adaption of DL/UL
subframes to DL/UL data requests.
Next, we present our main results on κD , κU and κ for
static TDD in Theorem 3.

Theorem 3. For static TDD, κD , κU , κ can be derived as


  D

P+∞

N0
D
D k̃

κ
=
1
−
f
1
−
p

K̃ k̃
T

k̃=1




  U

P
k̃
+∞
N0
κU = 1 − k̃=1 1 − pU fK̃ k̃
, (18)
T


   





k̃
k̃
P+∞


N0U fK̃ k̃
N0D+ 1 − pD
κ= T1 k̃=1 1 − pU

 
where fK̃ k̃ is obtained from (6), and N0D and N0U are the
designated subframe numbers for the DL and the UL in static
TDD, respectively, which satisfy N0D + N0U = T .

Proof: In static TDD, for a given UE number k̃ in an
active BS, the probabilities that no UE requests any DL
data and no UE requests any UL data can be calculated by
fM D (0) from (8) and fM U (0) from (9), respectively. Even in
such cases, static TDD still unwisely allocates N0D and N0U
subframes for the DL and the UL, respectively, which causes
resource waste. The probabilities of such resource waste for
the DL and the UL are denoted by wD and wU , and they can
be calculated as

 
  P

P
wD = +∞ fM D (0) f k̃ = +∞ 1 − pD k̃f k̃
K̃
K̃
k̃=1
k̃=1
 
  .
wU = P+∞ f U (0) f k̃ = P+∞ 1 − pU k̃f k̃
K̃
K̃
k̃=1 M
k̃=1
(19)
Excluding such resource waste from N0D and N0U , we can
obtain κD and κU for static TDD as
(
 ND
κD = 1 − wD T0
(20)
 NU .
κU = 1 − wU T0
Our proof is thus completed by plugging (19), (8) and (9) into
(20), followed by computing κ from (3).
From Lemma 2 and Theorem 3, we can further quantify the
additional total TRU achieved by dynamic TDD as

+∞ 
 


1 X
U
D
D k̃
U k̃
ADD
N0 fK̃ k̃ , (21)
N0 + p
p
κ
=
T
k̃=1

where κADD measures the difference of κ in (17) and that in
(18).
In addition, we present the performance limit of κADD in
Lemma 4.
Lemma 4. When λ → +∞, the limit of κADD is given by
lim κADD =

λ→+∞

pD N0U
pU N0D
+
.
T
T

(22)

Fig. 5. The subframe dependent DL TRU qlD .

Proof: From (6), we have

h
i
lim Pr K̃ = 1 = 1.

λ→+∞

Hence, using Lemma 2, we can draw the following conclusion
for dynamic TDD:

 lim κD = 1 − fN D (0) = 1 − pU = pD
λ→+∞
.
(23)
 lim κU = 1 − fN U (0) = 1 − pD = pU
λ→+∞

Based on

h
i
lim Pr K̃ = 1 = 1 and Theorem 3, we can

λ→+∞

obtain the following conclusion for static TDD:

D
D
 D
 lim κD = 1 − 1 − pD NT0 = p TN0
λ→+∞
.
 U
U
U
 lim κU = 1 − 1 − pU N0 = p N0
T
T

(24)

λ→+∞

Our proof is completed by comparing (23) with (24).
Note that in (22) of Lemma 4, the first and the second terms
are contributed from the DL and the UL, respectively.
IV. S IMULATION

AND

D ISCUSSION

In this section, we present numerical results to validate the
accuracy of our analysis. In our simulations, the UE density is
set to ρ = 300 UEs/km2 , which leads to q = 4.05 in (4) [13].
In addition, we assume that pD = 32 and T = 10. Thus, for
static TDD, we have N0D = 7 and N0U = 3 in (18), which
achieves the best match with pD and pU , according to (10).
A. Validation of the Results on the Subframe Dependent TRU
In Fig. 5, we plot the analytical and simulation results of
qlD . For brevity, we omit showing the results of qlU , due to
its duality to qlD as shown in (16).
From this figure, we can see that:
D
• The analytical results of ql match well with the simulation results. More specifically, the maximum difference
between the simulation results and the analytical results is
shown to be less than 0.3 %. Note that the curves are not
smooth in Fig. 5. This is because of the non-continuous
mapping in (10), not due to an insufficient number of
simulation experiments.

•

•

•

•

qlD monotonically decreases with l because of the considered DL-before-UL TDD configuration structure shown
in Fig. 1. In other words, DL transmissions, if scheduled
by BSs, are likely to be conducted in earlier subframes.
When λ is relatively small compared with ρ, e.g., λ =
D
50 BSs/km2 , q1D is almost one and q10
is close to zero.
This is because:
– the UE number in an active BS tends to be relatively
large, e.g., the typical value of k̃ is around 4 UEs/BS
when λ = 50 BSs/km2 , as exhibited in Fig. 2;
– as a result, the DL data request number is nonzero for most cases, e.g., around mD = 3 DL data
requests when pD = 23 and k̃ = 4, as shown in Fig. 3;
– thus, the DL subframe number is also relatively large
to accommodate those DL data requests, e.g., the
typical value of nD is {3, 5, 8} DL subframes when
pD = 32 , k̃ = 4 and T = 10; as displayed in Fig. 4;
– due to the DL-before-UL LTE TDD configuration
structure shown in Fig. 1, the first subframe has a
very high probability to be a DL one, i.e., q1D is
almost one, and the last subframe is the most likely
D
not to be a DL one, i.e., q10
is close to zero.
When λ is relatively large compared with ρ, e.g., λ =
1000 BSs/km2 , qlD is nearly a constant for all values of
l. Such constant roughly equals to the DL data request
probability pD = 32 . This is because:
– more than 80 % of the active BSs will serve k̃ = 1
UE when λ = 1000 BSs/km2 , as exhibited in Fig. 2;
– as a result, when k̃ = 1, both the DL data request
number and the DL subframe number show high
fluctuation, as illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4 due to the
strong traffic dynamics;
– and hence, in most cases, all the subframes are
used as either DL ones or UL ones, the probability
of which depends on the DL or UL data request
probability. Since pD = 23 , we have that qlD ≈ 32 .
It is straightforward to see that the case of λ =
200 BSs/km2 plays in the middle of the above two cases.

B. Validation of the Results on the Average TRU
In Fig. 6, we display the analytical and simulation results
of κD and κU . From this figure, we can see that:
D
U
• The analytical results of κ and κ match well with the
simulation results for both static TDD and dynamic TDD.
D
• The sum of κ
and κU , i.e., κ, for dynamic TDD is
shown to always equal to one, which verifies Lemma 2,
and shows the main advantage of dynamic TDD.
• The κ for static TDD become smaller than one in dense
SCNs, e.g., λ > 10 BSs/km2 , which verifies Theorem 3,
and shows the main drawback of static TDD.
• According to Lemma 4, the additional total TRU achievable by dynamic TDD, lim κADD , should be composed
λ→+∞

pD N U

of two parts, i.e., one from the DL ( T 0 ) and another
pU N D
one from the UL ( T 0 ), which in this case are 0.2 and

Fig. 6. The average DL/UL TRU κD and κU .

0.23, respectively. These values can be validated in Fig. 6.
Thus, the average total gain of dynamic TDD over static
TDD in terms of lim κADD is 0.43 (+75.4 %).
λ→+∞

V. C ONCLUSION
For the first time, we investigated the MAC layer TRU for
synchronous dynamic TDD with the network densification,
which quantifies the performance of dynamic TDD in terms
of its MAC layer resource usage. We showed that the DL/UL
TRU varies across TDD subframes, and that dynamic TDD
can achieve an increasingly higher average total TRU than
static TDD with the network densification of up to 75.4 %. As
future work, we will combined our results on the MAC layer
TRU with the PHY layer SINR results to derive the total area
spectral efficiency for synchronous dynamic TDD.
R EFERENCES
[1] D. López-Pérez, M. Ding, H. Claussen, and A. Jafari, “Towards 1
Gbps/UE in cellular systems: Understanding ultra-dense small cell
deployments,” IEEE Communications Surveys Tutorials, vol. 17, no. 4,
pp. 2078–2101, Jun. 2015.
[2] X. Ge, S. Tu, G. Mao, C. X. Wang, and T. Han, “5G ultra-dense cellular
networks,” IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 72–79,
Feb. 2016.
[3] 3GPP, “TR 36.828: Further enhancements to LTE Time Division Duplex
for Downlink-Uplink interference management and traffic adaptation,”
Jun. 2012.
[4] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, A. V. Vasilakos, and W. Chen, “Analysis on
the SINR performance of dynamic TDD in homogeneous small cell
networks,” 2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference, pp. 1552–
1558, Dec. 2014.
[5] H. Sun, M. Wildemeersch, M. Sheng, and T. Q. S. Quek, “D2d enhanced
heterogeneous cellular networks with dynamic tdd,” IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communications, vol. 14, no. 8, pp. 4204–4218, Aug. 2015.
[6] B. Yu, L. Yang, H. Ishii, and S. Mukherjee, “Dynamic TDD support
in macrocell-assisted small cell architecture,” IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas in Communications, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1201–1213, Jun. 2015.
[7] A. K. Gupta, M. N. Kulkarni, E. Visotsky, F. W. Vook, A. Ghosh, J. G.
Andrews, and R. W. Heath, “Rate analysis and feasibility of dynamic
TDD in 5G cellular systems,” 2016 IEEE International Conference on
Communications (ICC), pp. 1–6, May 2016.
[8] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, R. Xue, A. Vasilakos, and W. Chen, “On
dynamic Time-Division-Duplex transmissions for small-cell networks,”
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 11, pp. 8933–
8951, Nov. 2016.

[9] S. Goyal, C. Galiotto, N. Marchetti, and S. Panwar, “Throughput and
coverage for a mixed full and half duplex small cell network,” IEEE
International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 1–7, May 2016.
[10] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, A. V. Vasilakos, and W. Chen, “Dynamic
TDD transmissions in homogeneous small cell networks,” 2014 IEEE
International Conference on Communications Workshops (ICC), pp.
616–621, Jun. 2014.
[11] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, R. Xue, A. V. Vasilakos, and W. Chen, “Small
cell dynamic tdd transmissions in heterogeneous networks,” 2014 IEEE
International Conference on Communications (ICC), pp. 4881–4887,
Jun. 2014.
[12] Z. Shen, A. Khoryaev, E. Eriksson, and X. Pan, “Dynamic uplinkdownlink configuration and interference management in td-lte,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 50, no. 11, pp. 51–59, Nov. 2012.
[13] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, G. Mao, and Z. Lin, “Performance impact of
idle mode capability on dense small cell networks with LoS and NLoS
transmissions,” arXiv:1609.07710 [cs.NI], Sep. 2016.
[14] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, and G. Mao, “A new capacity scaling law in
ultra-dense networks,” arXiv:1704.00399 [cs.NI], Apr. 2017. [Online].
Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.00399
[15] S. Lee and K. Huang, “Coverage and economy of cellular networks with
many base stations,” IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 16, no. 7, pp.
1038–1040, Jul. 2012.
[16] M. Ding, D. López-Pérez, G. Mao, and Z. Lin, “Study on the idle mode
capability with LoS and NLoS transmissions,” IEEE Globecom 2016,
pp. 1–6, Dec. 2016.
[17] I. Gradshteyn and I. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products
(7th Ed.). Academic Press, 2007.

