1

Random Access Analysis for Massive IoT
Networks under A New Spatio-Temporal
Model: A Stochastic Geometry Approach
Nan Jiang, Yansha Deng, Xin Kang, and Arumugam Nallanathan

arXiv:1704.01988v3 [cs.IT] 27 Jul 2017

Abstract
Massive Internet of Things (mIoT) has provided an auspicious opportunity to build powerful and
ubiquitous connections that faces a plethora of new challenges, where cellular networks are potential
solutions due to their high scalability, reliability, and efficiency. The Random Access CHannel (RACH)
procedure is the first step of connection establishment between IoT devices and Base Stations (BSs) in
the cellular-based mIoT network, where modelling the interactions between static properties of physical
layer network and dynamic properties of queue evolving in each IoT device are challenging. To tackle
this, we provide a novel traffic-aware spatio-temporal model to analyze RACH in cellular-based mIoT
networks, where the physical layer network is modelled and analyzed based on stochastic geometry in
the spatial domain, and the queue evolution is analyzed based on probability theory in the time domain.
For performance evaluation, we derive the exact expressions for the preamble transmission success
probabilities of a randomly chosen IoT device with different RACH schemes in each time slot, which
offer insights into effectiveness of each RACH scheme. Our derived analytical results are verified by
the realistic simulations capturing the evolution of packets in each IoT device. This mathematical model
and analytical framework can be applied to evaluate the performance of other types of RACH schemes
in the cellular-based networks by simply integrating its preamble transmission principle.

I. INTRODUCTION
Massive Internet of Things (mIoT) is deemed to connect billions of miscellaneous mobile
devices or IoT devices that empowers individuals and industries to achieve their full potential.
A plethora of new applications, such as autonomous driving, remote health care, smart-homes,
smart-grids, and etc, are being innovated via mIoT, in which ubiquitous connectivities among
massive IoT devices are operated fully automatedly without human intervention. The successful
N. Jiang, Y. Deng and A. Nallanathan are with Department of Informatics, King’s College London, London, UK (e-mail:{nan.3.jiang, yansha.deng, arumugam.nallanathan}@kcl.ac.uk). (Corresponding author: Yansha Deng (email:yansha.deng@kcl.ac.uk).)
X. Kang is with National Key Laboratory of Science and Technology on communications, University of Electronic Science
and Technology of China, Chengdu, 611731, Sichuan, China (e-mail: kangxin83@gmail.com).

2

operation of these IoT applications faces various challenges, among them providing wireless
access for the tremendous number of IoT devices has been considered to be the main problem.
This issue has been regarded as one of key differences between mIoT and human-to-human (H2H)
wireless communication networks, such that the conventional H2H communication architecture
needs to be adjusted to support the mIoT networks.
Previously, cellular network (e.g, Long Term Evolution (LTE)) and short-range transmission
technologies (e.g, ZigBee, Bluetooth) were considered as potential solutions to support mIoT
networks, however none of them can achieve all wide coverage, low power consumption and
supporting massive IoT devices at the same time [1–4]. To solve this, Low-Power Wide Area
Networks (LPWANs) is proposed as an alternative solution for mIoT networks that enables the
operation in the unlicensed band (e.g, LoRa, Sigfox) and licensed band (e.g, extended coverage
GSM-IoT, enhanced machine type communication, and narrow band IoT (NB-IoT)). According
to the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), the IoT technologies are suggested to
be developed based on the existing cellular infrastructure, due to its low additional hardware
deployment cost as well as high-level of security by operating on the licensed band [3–9].
In the cellular-based mIoT network, connections between IoT device with BS are provided by
incorporating these IoT devices in existing cellular networks directly or via IoT gateways. In this
network, the number of IoT devices is expected to raise up to more than thirty thousands per cell
and such IoT devices may request access simultaneously for their small size data packets uplink
transmission [5, 10, 11]. As such improving the access mechanisms of current cellular systems is
one of key challenges for the cellular-based mIoT network [3–7, 12]. In LTE, a device performs
Random Access CHannel (RACH) procedure when it needs to establish or re-establish a data
connection with its associated BS, and the first step of RACH is that the device transmits a
preamble via physical random access channel (PRACH) [13]. Two ways exist for accessing to the
network: 1) the contention-free RACH for delayed-constrained access requests (e.g, handover),
where the BS distributes one of the reserved dedicated preamble to a device, and then the device
uses its dedicated preamble to initiate a contention-free RACH; 2) the contention-based RACH
for delay-tolerant access requests (e.g, data transmission), where an IoT device randomly chooses
a preamble from non-dedicated preambles to transmit to its associated BS [13]. Generally, the
contention-based RACH is much more sensitive to IoT traffic [3, 4, 12], such that most works
have analyzed its scalability characteristics in supporting massive concurrent access requests
[14–18].

3

The works on the analysis of contention-based RACH in cellular-based IoT networks, have
focused on addressing the following two problems: 1) modelling preamble success transmission
impacted by physical channel propagation characteristics (e.g., the fading, noise and interference)
[19]; 2) modelling time-varying queues and RACH schemes in MAC layer [14, 16, 17]. In
[14, 16, 17], the preamble transmission failure impacted by the physical channel propagation
characteristics is not modelled. This is especially important in the uplink transmission of largescale cellular-based mIoT networks, where the received signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio
(SINR) at the BS is negatively influenced by the mutual interference generated by other IoT
devices due to massive concurrent access requests. In this scenario, the random positions of the
transmitters make accurate modelling and analysis of the this interference even more complicated.
Stochastic geometry has been regarded as a powerful tool to model and analyze mutual
interference between transceivers in the wireless networks, such as conventional cellular networks
[20–22], wireless sensor networks [23], cognitive radio networks [24, 25], and heterogenous
cellular networks [26–28]. However, there are two aspects that limit the application of conventional stochastic geometry analysis to the RACH analysis of the cellular-based mIoT networks:
1) conventional stochastic geometry works focused on analyzing normal uplink and downlink
data transmission channel, where the intra-cell interference is not considered, due to the ideal
assumption that each orthogonal sub-channel is not reused in a cell, whereas massive IoT
devices in a cell may randomly choose and transmit the same preamble using the same subchannel; 2) these conventional stochastic geometry works only modelled the spatial distribution
of transceivers, and ignored the interactions between static properties of physical layer network
and the dynamic properties of queue evolving in each transmitter due to the assumptions of
backlogged network with saturated queues. [29, 30].
To model these aforementioned interactions, recent works have studied the stability of spatially
spread interacting queues in the network based on stochastic geometry and queuing theory [28–
30]. The work in [29] is the first paper applying the stochastic geometry and queueing theory to
analyze the performance of RACH in distributed networks, where each transmitter is composed
of an infinite buffer, and its location is changed following a high mobility random walk. The
work in [30] investigated the stable packet arrival rate region of a discrete-time slotted RACH
network, where the transceivers are static and distributed as independent Poisson point processes
(PPPs). The work in [28] analyzed the delay in the heterogeneous cellular networks with spatiotemporal random arrival of traffic, where the traffic of each device is modelled by a marked

4

Poisson process, and the statistics of such traffic with different offloading policies are compared.
In this paper, we develop a novel spatio-temporal mathematical framework for cellular-based
mIoT network using stochastic geometry and probability theory, where the BSs and IoT devices
are modelled as independent PPPs in the spatial domain. In the time domain, the new arrival
packets of each IoT device are modelled by independent Poisson arrival processes [15, 28, 31, 32].
The packets status in each IoT device that are jointly populated by the new Poisson arrival packets
and the accumulated packets in the previous time slots according to its stochastic geometry
analysis, determines the aggregate interference at the received SINR in the current time slot,
which then determines the active probability of IoT device (i.e., IoT device have available packets
and permission to transmit currently) in the current time slot. The contributions of this paper
can be summarized in the following points:
•

We present a novel spatio-temporal mathematical framework for analyzing contention-based
RACH of the mIoT network. Assuming the independent Poisson arrival, the packets accumulation and preamble transmission of a typical IoT device in each time slot is accurately
modelled.

•

With single time slot, we derive the exact expressions for the preamble detection probability
of a randomly chosen BS, the preamble transmission success probability of a randomly
chosen IoT device, and the number of received packets per BS in the cellular-based mIoT
networks.

•

With multiple time slots, the queue statuses are firstly analyzed based on probability theory,
and then approximated by their corresponding Poisson arrival distributions, which facilitates
the queueing analysis. By doing so, we derive the exact expressions for the preamble
transmission success probability of a randomly chosen IoT device in each time slot with
the baseline, the ACB, and the back-off schemes for their performance comparison.

•

We develop a realistic simulation framework to capture the randomness location, preamble
tranmission, and the real packets arrival, accumulation, and departure of each IoT device in
each time slot, where the queue evolution as well as the stochastic geometry analysis are
all verified by our proposed realistic simulation framework.

•

The analytical model presented in this paper can also be applied for the performance
evaluation of other types of RACH schemes in the cellular-based networks by substituting
its preamble transmission principle.

5

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II presents the network model. Sections
III derives preamble detection probability of a randomly chosen BS and the preamble transmission success probability of a randomly chosen IoT device in single time slot. Section IV derives
the preamble transmission success probabilities of a randomly chosen IoT device in each time
slot with different schemes. Finally, Section V concludes the paper.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
We consider an uplink model for cellular-based mIoT network consists of a single class of base
stations (BSs) and IoT devices, which are spatially distributed in R2 following two independent
homogeneous Poisson point process (PPP), ΦB and ΦD , with intensities λB and λD , respectively.
Same as [20, 27, 33], we assume each IoT device associates to its geographically closest BS, and
thus forms a Voronoi tesselation, where the BSs are uniformly distributed in the Voronoi cell.
Same as [28, 30], the time is slotted into discrete time slots, and the number and locations of
BSs and IoT devices are fixed all time once they are deployed.
A. Network Description
We consider a standard power-law path-loss model, where the signal power decays at a rate
r−α with the propagation distance r, and the path-loss exponent α. We consider Rayleigh fading
channel, where the channel power gains h(x, y) between two generic locations x, y ∈ R2 is
assumed to be exponentially distributed random variables with unit mean. All the channel gains
are independent of each other, independent of the spatial locations, and identically distributed
(i.i.d.). For the brevity of exposition, the spatial indices (x, y) are dropped.
Uplink power control has been an essential technique in cellular network [20, 27, 34]. We
assume that a full path-loss inversion power control is applied at all IoT devices, where each
IoT device compensates for its own path-loss to keep the average received signal power equal to
a same threshold ρ. By doing so, as a user moves closer to the desired base station, the transmit
power required to maintain the same received signal power decreases, which saves energy for
battery-powered IoT devices. More importantly, it helps to solve the “near-far” problem, where
a BS cannot decode the signals from cell-edge due to high aggregate interference from other
nearby IoT devices. The transmit power of ith IoT device Pi depends on the distance from its
associated BS, and the defined threshold ρ, where Pi = ρri α . In order to successfully transmit
a signal from the IoT device, the maximum transmit power should be high enough for its pathloss inversion, otherwise, it does not transmit the signal and goes into a truncation outage. Here,

6

we assume that the density of BSs is high enough and none of the IoT device suffers from
truncation outage (i.e., the transmit power of IoT device is large enough for uplink path-loss
inversion, while not violating its own maximum transmit power constraint).
B. Contention-Based Random Access Procedure
In LTE, the first step to establish an air interface connection is delivering requests to the
associated BS via RACH [13], where the contention-based RACH is favored by mIoT network
for the initial association to the network, the transmission resources request, and the connection
re-establishment during failure [3, 4, 6, 12]. The contention-based RACH has four steps: In step
1, each device randomly chooses a preamble from avalaible preamble pool, and send to its
associated BS via PRACH. In step 2, the IoT device sets a random access response (RAR)
window and waits for the BS to response with an uplink grant in the RAR. In step 3, the IoT
device that successfully receives its RAR transmits a radio resource control connection request
with identity information to BS. In step 4, the BS transmits a RRC Connection Setup message to
the IoT device. Note that, only within the step 1 preamble is transmitted via PRACH, but within
other steps signals are transmitted via normal uplink and downlink data transmission channel.
Further details on the RACH can be found in [13].
LTE defines prime-length Zadoff-Chu sequences as the random multiple access codes (also
called preambles) for the step 1 of RACH, where different preambles are orthogonal [13]. In
the mIoT network, each IoT device requests for access in the first available opportunity leading
to a huge number of IoT devices transmit preambles simultaneously, such that the network
performance might degrade due to that the preambles cannot be detected or decoded by the BS
[3, 4]. Such preamble transmission failures occur in the step 1 of contention-based RACH, which
has been analysed in many previous works [16, 17, 35, 36]. This preamble transmission can be
failed due to the following two reasons: 1) a signal cannot be recognized by the received BS,
due to its low received SINR; 2) the BS successfully detected more than two signals using same
preamble simultaneously, such that the collision occurs, and the BS cannot decode any collided
signals. The 3GPP and organization members have investigated the preamble transmission failure
problem of the RACH in mIoT network [5, 10, 11]. In this work, we limit ourselves to single
preamble transmission fail, and leave the collision for our future work, thus we assume that a
RACH procedure is always successful if the IoT device successfully transmits the preamble to
its associated BS. Without loss of generality, we assume that each BS has an available preamble
pool with same number of different preambles, known by its associated IoT devices, where

7

Np denotes the number of preambles. Each preamble has an equal probability (1/Np ) to be
chosen by an IoT device, and the average density of the IoT devices using the same preamble
is λDp = λD /Np , where the λDp is measured with unit devices/preamble/km2 .
C. Physical Random Access CHannel and Traffic Model
PRACHs is formed by sequences of allocated time-frequency resources, which are reserved
in the uplink channel, and repeated in the system with a certain period that specified by the BS.
For instance, the uplink resource reserved for RACH preamble transmission has a bandwidth
corresponding to six resource blocks (1.08 MHz), and the RACH opportunity is repeated with
a periodicity varies between every 1ms to 20 ms [4, 13]. Without loss of generality, we assume
that each time slot consists of a gap interval duration τg and a RACH duration τc , where the
RACH duration τc is shorter than the gap interval duration τg as shown in the Fig. 1.
We model the arrival of new packets in mth time slot at each IoT device as independent
m
Poisson arrival process, Λm
New with same arrival rate εNew as [15, 31, 32]. It is assumed that the

new packets arrival only takes place within the gap duration τg of each time slot, such that
m
the number of new arrival packets NNew
in duration τg is described by the Poisson distribution
m
m
m
with NNew
∼ Pois(τg εm
New ), where µNew = τg εNew . Within the duration of τg , the new arrival

packets are stored in their buffers immediately, and then each device with non-empty buffer try
to request uplink data transmission channel resources for its head-of-line packet in the following
RACH within the duration of τc . Note that the data transmission after a successful RACH can be
easily extended following the analysis of preamble transmission success probability in RACH.
Due to the main focus of this paper is analyzing the time-slotted contention-based RACH in the
mIoT network, we assume that the actual intended packet transmission is always successful if
the corresponding RACH succeeds.
Each device is assumed to have an infinite buffer, where the arrived packets are stored in the
buffer until successful transmission, and none of the packets will be dropped off. In each device,
the packets are scheduled as a queue for transmission, where each packet has same priority,
and the BSs are unaware of the queue status of their associated IoT devices. Each IoT deivce
transmits packets via a First Come First Serve (FCFS) packets scheduling scheme - the basic and
the most simplest packet scheduling scheme, where all packets are treated equally by placing
them at the end of the queue once they arrive [37].
In the temporal domain, the queue status of each device is evolved following transmission
condition over time. A packet is successfully transmitted and removed from the buffer once the

8

RACH succeeds, otherwise, this packet will be still in the first place of the queue, and the IoT
device will try to request channel resources for the packet in the next available RACH. The
m
number of accumulated packets in the buffer in mth time slot is denoted as NCum
, where the
m
m
buffer status NCum
is recorded (Recording NCum
in Fig.1) at the begin of the mth time slot. Note

that the buffer of each IoT device is set empty at the beginning of the first time slot (m = 1).
The evolving of queue status in an IoT device is described in Table I.
Frequency

Time

τg

τc

τg

τc
RACH

RACH

st

2

1 time slot

nd

τg

...

time slot

τc

RACH

RACH

τg

Gap duration with new
packets arrival

τc

RACH duration without
new packets arrival

...

th

m time slot

m
Recording NCum

Activation Time

m
Fig. 1: RACH duration and gap duration, and recording the number of accumulated packets NCum
in each time slot.

TABLE I: The Number of Packets in Buffer in Each Time Slot.

Time Slot
1st
2nd
3rd
..
.
mth

Success
1
=0
NCum
1
2
NCum = NN
ew − 1
2
2
3
+ NN
= NCum
NCum
ew − 1
..
.
m−1
m−1
m
= NCum
+ NN
NCum
ew − 1

Failure
1
=0
NCum
1
2
NCum = NN
ew
2
2
3
+ NN
= NCum
NCum
ew
..
.
m−1
m−1
m
= NCum
+ NN
NCum
ew

D. Transmission Schemes
In the cellular-based mIoT network, a huge number of IoT devices are expected to request
for access frequently, such that network congestion may occur due to mass concurrent data and
signaling transmission [5]. To solve this, efficient RACH control mechanisms are needed for
congestion reduction. In the following, we listed three schemes to meet this requirement:
•

Baseline scheme: each IoT device attempt RACH immediately when there exists packet
in the buffer. The baseline scheme is the simplest scheme without any control of traffic.
Due to RACH attempts are not be alleviated at the IoT devices, the baseline scheme can
contributes to the relatively faster buffer flushing in non-overloaded network scenarios.
However, once the network is overloaded, high delays and service unavailability appear due
to mass simultaneous access request.

•

Access Class Barring (ACB) scheme: each non-empty IoT device draws a random number
q ∈ [0, 1], and attempts to RACH only when q ≤ PACB , here PACB is the ACB factor
specified by the BS according to the network condition [5, 13]. ACB scheme is a basic

9

congestion control method that reduces RACH attempts from the side of IoT devices based
on the ACB factor. It is known that a suitable ACB factor can keep the allowable access
in a reasonable density, and assure a relative high data transmission rate when the network
is overloaded.
•

Back-off scheme: each non-empty IoT device transmits packets same as baseline scheme,
when there exists packet in the buffer. However, when RACH fails, the IoT device automatically defers the RACH re-attempt and waits for tBO time slots until it trys again.
Back-off scheme is another basic congestion control method, where each IoT device can
automatically alleviate congestion and requires less control massage from BS than that of
ACB scheme [3].

E. Signal to Noise plus Interference Ratio
As we mentioned earlier, each IoT device transmits a randomly chosen preamble to its
associated BS to request for channel resources, where different preambles represent orthogonal
sub-channels, and thus only IoT devices choosing same preamble have correlations. Note that IoT
devices belonging to a same BS may choose same preamble, such that the intra-cell interference
is considered. A preamble can be successfully received at the associated BS, if its SINR is above
the threshold. Based on Slivnyak’s theorem [38], we formulate the SINR of a typical BS located
ρho
at the origin as
,
(1)
S IN R =
Iinter + Iintra + σ 2
where ρ is full path-loss inversion power control threshold, ho is channel power gain from the
typical IoT device to its associated BS, σ 2 is noise power, Iinter is aggregate inter-cell interference,
and Iintra is aggregate intra-cell interference. It is noted that only the non-empty IoT devices are
active and generate interference, where the active probability of each IoT device can be treated
using the thinning process. The active probability of each IoT device in the mth time slot T m
can be defined as

m
m
T m = P {NNew
+ NCum
> 0},

(2)

m
m
where NNew
is the number of new arrived packets in the mth time slot, and NCum
is the number

of accumulated packets in the mth time slot.
X
m
Iintra =
1{NNew

j

m
+NCum
>0} ρhj ,
j

(3)

j∈Zin

where Zin is the set of intra-cell interfering IoT devices, 1{·} is the indicator function that takes
m
the value 1 if the statement 1{·} is true, and zero otherwise, NNew
is the number of new arrived
j
m
packets of jth device in the mth time slot, NCum
is the number of accumulated packets of
j

10

jth device in the buffer in the mth time slot, hj is channel power gain from the jth intra-cell
interfering IoT device to the typical BS. The aggregate inter-cell interference is expressed as
X
−α
m
m
Iinter =
1{NNew
,
(4)
+NCum
>0} Pi hi kui k
i

i

ui ∈Zout
m
where Zout is the set of inter-cell interfering IoT devices, k·k is the Euclidean norm, NNew
is
i
m
the number of new arrived packets of ith device in the mth time slot, NCum
is the number of
i

accumulated packets of ith device in the buffer in the mth time slot, hi is channel power gain
from the ith inter-cell interfering IoT device to the typical BS, ui is the distance between the ith
inter-cell IoT device and the typical BS, and Pi is the actual transmit power of the ith inter-cell
IoT device, and Pi depends on the power control threshold ρ and the distance between the ith
inter-cell typical IoT device and its associated BS ri with Pi =ρri α .
III. A NALYSIS UNDER THE S INGLE T IME S LOT M ODEL
In this section, we provide a single time slot model (1st time slot), where the queue status
(number of packets in buffer) of each IoT device only depends on the new packets arrival process
Λ1New . Note that inactive IoT devices (those with no packet in buffer) do not attempt RACH, such
that they do not generating interference. Due to that the preamble (sub-channel) has an equal
probability to be chosen, the analysis performed on a randomly chosen preamble can represent
the whole network. The probability that the received SINR at the BS exceeds a certain threshold
γth is written as
n
P

o
γth 2 
γth
γth
ρho
=
exp
≥
γ
σ
L
(
)L
(
),
th
I
I
intra
inter
Iinter + Iintra + σ 2
ρ
ρ
ρ

(5)

where LI (·) denotes the Laplace Transform of the PDF of the aggregate interference I. Note
that whether an IoT device is active only depends on the new packets arrival process Λ1New in
the 1st time slot, such that the active probability (the thinning factor) of each IoT device T 1 in
the 1st time slot is expressed as
 1
1
T 1 = P NNew
> 0 = 1 − e−µNew ,

(6)

where µ1New = τg ε1New , ε1New is the new packets arrival rate of each IoT device in the 1st time
1

1
slot, and the probability of NNew
= 0 during τg in the 1st time slot is equal to e−τg µNew .

We perform the analysis on a randomly chosen BS and a BS associating with a randomly
chosen IoT device in terms of the preamble detection probability and the preamble transmission
success probability. The probability that the received SINR at a randomly chosen BS exceeds a
certain threshold γth has been studied in many stochastic geometry works [20, 22, 27, 33]. Those
analyses focus on the uplink transmission channel of a cellular networks, without considering

11

intra-cell interference due to TDMA or FDMA assumptions, and only considered inter-cell
interference. In their models, the aggregate interference is the same, no matter if the tagged
BS is randomly chosen, or is determined by a randomly chosen device via association, thus the
probability that the received SINR exceeds a threshold γth at a randomly chosen BS is equally
same as the probability of a BS associating with a randomly chosen uplink device.
Different from the conventional stochastic geometry works in [20, 22, 27, 33] with no intracell interference, we take into account the intra-cell interference due to the same preamble reuse
among many IoT devices in a cell during their uplink RACH. We will derive the preamble
detection probability from the view of a randomly chosen BS (i.e., each BS has an equal
probability to be chosen), and the preamble transmission success probability from the view
of a BS that a randomly chosen IoT device belongs to (i.e., the probability of a BS being chosen
is determined by the number of its associated IoT devices). The difference between these two
characteristics comes from the fact that a cell, that a randomly chosen IoT device belonging to,
has chance to cover more IoT devices than a randomly chosen cell [22, 39].
A. Preamble Detection Probability
We first perform analysis on a randomly chosen BS, and one of its active associated IoT
device (with a preamble being randomly chosen) is tagged, where the other active IoT devices
choosing same preamble are visualized as interfering IoT devices. The Laplace Transform of
aggregate inter-cell interference is characterized in the following Lemma.
Lemma 1. The Laplace Transform of aggregate inter-cell interference received at the typical
BS in the cellular-based mIoT network is given by
Z ∞
1

2 T λDp
y
γth
α
dy
,
LIinter ( ) = exp −2(γth )
−1
α
ρ
λB
(γth ) α 1 + y

(7)

where T 1 is given in (6). Remind that λDp is the intensity of IoT devices using same preamble.
Proof. See Appendix A.
Since the interference generating by each intra-cell IoT device is strictly equal to ρ, such
that the aggregate intra-cell interference only depends on the number of active interfering IoT
devices in the Voronoi cell. We assume Zbin denotes the number of active IoT device in a specific
Voronoi cell, and let ZB = Zbin − 1 denotes the number of active interfering IoT devices in
such cell, where the Laplace Transform of aggregate intra-cell interference is conditioned on
ZB . The Probability Density Function (PDF) of the number of active interfering IoT devices in
a Voronoi cell has been derived by the Monte Carlo method in [40], and the Probability Mass

12

function (PMF) of the number of IoT devices Zbin in a randomly chosen BS has been clearly
introduced in [22], which is expressed as
n
o
b
P Zin = n =

cc Γ(n + c)(
Γ(c)Γ(n + 1)(

T 1 λDp n
)
λB

T 1 λDp
λB

n+c ,

(8)

+ c)

where c = 3.575 is a constant related to the approximate PMF of the PPP Voronoi cell, and
Γ (·) is gamma function. For the Voronoi cell with at least one active IoT device, the PMF of
the number of active interfering intra-cell IoT devices ZB in a randomly chosen Voronoi cell
(BS) is given by
n

o
(n+1)
c
T 1λ
T 1λ
Zbin = n + 1
cc Γ(n + c + 1)( λBDp )
(1+ cλBDp )
n
o =

.
P {ZB = n} =
n+c+1
c
T 1λ
T 1λ
1 − P Zbin = 0
Γ(c)Γ(n + 2)( λBDp + c)
(1+ cλBDp ) − 1
P

(9)

The Laplace Transform of aggregate intra-cell interference is conditioned on the number of
interfering intra-cell IoT devices ZB , which is derived in the following Lemma.
Lemma 2. The Laplace Transform of aggregate intra-cell interference at the typical BS in
cellular-based mIoT network is given by
−c
h

−c i (1 + γ ) (1 + (T 1 λ /λ ))c
T 1 λDp γth 
cλB
γth
th
Dp
B

.
−
LIintra ( ) = 1 +
c
1
ρ
cλB (1 + γth )
cλB + T 1 λDp
1 + T λDp /λB
−1
(10)
Proof. See Appendix B.
Substituting (7) and (10) into (5), we derive the preamble detection probability of the typical
BS in the 1st time slot Pd1 in the following theorem.
Theorem 1. The preamble detection probability of a randomly chosen BS in the 1st time slot of
the cellular-based mIoT network is given by
Z ∞
−c
 γ σ2
h
1
2 T λDp
y
T 1 λDp γth 
th
1
Pd = exp −
− 2(γth ) α
dy
1+
−1
α
ρ
λB
cλB (1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y
c

−c i (1 + γ ) (1 + (T 1 λ /λ ))
cλB
th
Dp
B
−
.
cλB + T 1 λDp
(1 + (T 1 λDp /λB ))c − 1

(11)

Proof. Following the proofs of Lemma 1 and Lemma 2.
B. Preamble Transmission Success Probability
Next, we move to the preamble transmission success probability that is performed on a BS
in which a randomly chosen IoT device belongs to. Conditioned on a randomly chosen IoT

13

device in its cell, the PMF of the number of interfering intra-cell IoT devices in that cell ZD is
expressed as [22]
P {ZD = n} =

T 1 λDp n
)
λB
n+c+1 .
T 1λ
1)( λBDp + c)

c(c+1) Γ(n + c + 1)(
Γ(c + 1)Γ(n +

(12)

The difference between (9) and (12) is clearly explained in [39]. Briefly speaking, in (9), each
Voronoi cell has an equal probability to be chosen, whilst in (12), a Voronoi cell with more
IoT devices has a higher probability to be chosen. Following similar approach in the proof of
Lemma 2, and with the help of (12), the Laplace Transform of aggregate intra-cell interference
is given in the following lemma.
Lemma 3. The Laplace Transform of aggregate intra-cell interference at the BS to which a
randomly chosen IoT device belongs in the cellular-based mIoT network is given by
∞
−c−1
X
1 n
T 1 λDp γth 
γth
P {ZD = n}
= 1+
.
LIintra ( ) = P {ZD = 0} +
ρ
1 + γth
cλB (1 + γth )
n=1

(13)

Substituting (7) and (13) into (5), we derive the preamble transmission success probability of
the 1st time slot Pt1 in the following theorem.
Theorem 2. In the depicted cellular-based mIoT network, the preamble transmission success
probability of a randomly chosen IoT device of the 1st time slot is given by
Z ∞
−c−1
 γ σ2

1
2 T λDp
y
T 1 λDp γth 
th
1
Pt = exp −
− 2(γth ) α
dy 1 +
.
−1
α
ρ
λB
cλB (1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y

(14)

Proof. The proof follows from Theorem 1.
In Theorem 1, the preamble detection probability at a randomly chosen BS in mIoT network is
analyzed based on the number of active interfering intra-cell IoT devices in that randomly chosen
Voronoi cell (BS) in (9), whereas in Theorem 2, the preamble transmission success probability
at a randomly chosen IoT device is described by the number of interfering intra-cell IoT devices
in that cell, where that randomly chosen IoT device belongs to in (12).
C. The Number of Received Packets per BS
Next, we analyze the number of received packets per BS of cellular-based mIoT networks
as a function of the densities of IoT devices using same preamble and BS, which reflects the
density of successfully RACH IoT devices using same preamble per BS ( [22], e.q. (6)). In our
model, the number of received packets per BS in the 1st time slot Ct1 is defined as
1
∆ T λDp
Ct1 =
· Pt1 .
λB

(15)

14

Substituting (14) into (15), we derive the number of received packets per BS Ct1 in the following
proposition.
Proposition 1. The number of received packets per BS in the 1st time slot is
Z ∞
−c−1
 γ σ2

1
1
2 T λDp
y
T 1 λDp γth 
th
1 T λDp
α
Ct =
exp −
− 2(γth )
dy
1+
. (16)
−1
α
λB
ρ
λB
cλB (1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y
To obtain the optimal number of received packets per BS in proposed IoT-enabled cellular
network, we take the first derivative on Ct1 , and obtain the density of BSs achieving the maximum
number of received packets per BS λ∗B as
Z ∞
2
y
γth
T 1 λDp
∗
α
2(γth )
+
dy +
λB =
−1
α
2
(1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y
s
!
Z ∞
Z ∞
α+2




2
2
α
(γ
)
y
γ
y
8
2
th
th
2(γth ) α
dy +
dy
. (17)
2 +(4 + )
−1
−1
α
α
c
(1 + γth )
(1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y
(γth ) α 1 + y
It is easily observed from (14) that the preamble transmission success probability Pt1 is
negatively proportional to the density ratio λDp /λB . Undoubtedly, increasing the BS intensity λB
improves the preamble transmission success probability, whereas it does not strictly improve the
number of received packets per BS, which can be found in (16). Such phenomenon occurs due
to that the number of received packets per BS is jointly determined by two opposite factors: 1)
the average received SINR of each BS, 2) the average number of associated IoT devices of each
BS. More specifically, increasing the BS intensity increases the received SINR, but decreases
the average number of associated IoT devices, which contributes to higher number of received
packets per BS in the scenario of overloaded network, but decreases the that in the scenario
of non-overloaded network due to low utilization of channel resources. Therefore, there exists
a optimal BS density deployment which enables the maximum number of received packets per
BS as shown in (17).
IV. A NALYSIS UNDER THE P ROPOSED S PATIO -T EMPORAL M ODEL
In this section, we analyze the performance of the cellular-based mIoT network in each time
slot with different schemes. We first introduce how to analyze the queue evolution with the
baseline scheme, and then extend to other two schemes.
A. Baseline Scheme
We start by studying the preamble transmission success probability of the baseline scheme at
any time slot. The queue status and the preamble transmission success probability are interdependent, and imposes a causality problem. More specifically, the preamble transmission success

15

probability of current time slot depends on the aggregate interference from those active IoT
devices with packets in their buffer in that time slot, thus we need to know the current queue
status, which is decided by the previous queue statuses, as well as the preamble transmission
success probabilities of previous time slots. Recall that the evolution of queue status follows Table
I, where the accumulated packets come from the packets that are not successfully transmitted in
the previous time slots. As the number and locations of BSs and IoT devices are fixed all time
once they are deployed, the locations of active IoT devices are correlated across time. However,
this correlation only has very little impact on the distributions of active IoT devices, and thus
we approximate the distributions of active IoT devices following independent PPPs in each time
m
slot. Next, we provide two approaches to derive the PMF and CDF of the NCum
of each time

slot, which are probabilistic statistics and Poisson approximation.
2
is
1) Probabilistic Statistics: The PMF of the cumulated packets in the 2nd time slot NCum

expressed as
2
fNCum
(x) =


−µ1
1
−µ1
1


 e New + µNew e New Pt ,
1

x

(µNew ) e



x!

−µ1New

(1 − Pt1 ) +

x = 0,
−µ1New

(µ1New )x+1 e
(x + 1)!

(18)
Pt1 , x > 0,

where µ1New = τg ε1New , ε1New is the new packets arrival rate of each IoT device in the 1st time
slot, and Pt1 is the preamble transmission success probability of the IoT device in the 1st time
slot given in (14). The reason for (18) is the number of cumulated packets in the 2nd time slot
equals to x occurs only when 1) the number of cumulated packets in the 1st time slot equals
to x + 1, and one packet is successfully transmitted in the 1st time slot, and 2) the number of
cumulated packets in the 1st time slot equals to x, and no packet is successfully transmitted in
the 1st time slot.
Based on (18), we derive the CDF of the number of cumulated packets in the 2nd time slot
2
NCum
as
2
FNCum
(y) =

y 
X
(µ1

New )

x=0

x −µ1

New

e
x!

y+1

1

(µ1 ) e−µNew 1
+ New
Pt .
(y + 1)!

(19)

We are interested in the zero-cumulated packets probability in the 2nd time slot, since it determines the density of active IoT devices (with more than one packet in the buffer) in that time
slot, and the activity probability of IoT devices. Based on the probabilistic statistics and (18),
we present the active probability of IoT devices in the 2nd time slot as


2
1
1
T 2 = 1 − e−µNew e−µNew + µ1New e−µNew Pt1 .

(20)

16

Following the proof of Theorem 2 and substituting (20) into (A.1), we derive the preamble
transmission success probability of a randomly
device in the 2nd time slot as
Z ∞ chosen IoT 
−c−1
 γ σ2
2
2 T λDp
y
T 2 λDp γth 
th
2
Pt = exp −
− 2(γth ) α
dy 1 +
.
(21)
−1
α
ρ
λB
cλB (1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y
Similar as (18) and (19), we can derive the PMF and the CDF of the number of cumulated
3
packets in the 3rd time slot NCum
as
3
fNCum
(x) =

h
i
−µ2New
2
2 −µ2New
−µ2New


2
2
2
e
f
(0)
+
P
µ
e
f
(0)
+
e
f
(1)
,
x = 0,
NCum
NCum
NCum
t
n


1
1
x+1 h
x h
z
z
i
i
X
X
(µ1New ) e−µNew
(µ1New ) e−µNew

2
2

2
2
f
(x
−
z)
+
P
f
(x
−
z)
, x > 0,
1
−
P

NCum
NCum
t
t

(z)!
(z)!

z=0

z=0

(22)
and
3
FNCum
(y)=

y
x h
X
X
(µ1

z −µ1
New
New ) e

(z)!

x=0 z=0

y+1 h
1
z
i
i
X
(µ1New ) e−µNew
2
2
2
fNCum
(x − z) +Pt
fNCum
(y − z) , (23)
(z)!
z=0

2
respectively. In (22) and (23), fNCum
(x) is given in (18), and Pt2 is given in (21). The PMF

m
and CDF of NCum
in the mth time slot can be calculated by the iteration process, however,

as m increases, it becomes more complicated, and hard to analysis. As such, we approximate
the number of cumulated packets in the mth time slot as a Poisson distribution (m > 1) in the
following subsection, which largely simplifies the derivations.
2) Poisson Approximation: We approximate the number of accumulated packets of an IoT
m
m
as Poisson distribution Λm
device in mth time slot NCum
Cum with intensity µCum . The intensity

of the accumulated packets in the 1st time slot µ1Cum is equal to zero, due to the buffer of each
IoT device is set as empty at the beginning of the first time slot (Nb1 = 0). In the 2nd time
slot, µ2Cum depends on the new packets arrival rate µ1New and the preamble transmission success
probability Pt1 of an IoT device in the 1st time slot, which is given by
∞
∞
X
 X


2
1
1
1
1
µCum = Pt
fNCum
(x) · (x − 1) + 1 − Pt
fNCum
(x) · x
x=1

x=1

|
=

Pt1

{z

}

(a)
∞
X
(µ1

New )

x=1
∞
X

x −µ1
New

e

x!

|

(x − 1) 

{z
(b)

}


+ 1 − Pt1 µ1New

1
1
∞
x
x

(µ1New ) e−µNew x X (µ1New ) e−µNew 
=
−
+ 1 − Pt1 µ1New
x!
x!
x=0
x=1

1
= µ1New − Pt1 1 − e−µNew ,

Pt1

(24)

17

1
where µ1n = τg ε1n , ε1n is the new packets arrival rate of each device in the 1st time slot, fNCum
(·)

1
is the PMF of the number of new arrived packets NCum
, Pt1 is given in (14) of Theorem 1.

In (24), (a) is the density of the cumulated packets in the 2nd time slot due to the success
transmission in the 1st time slot, and (b) is the density of the cumulated packets in the 2nd time
slot due to the unsuccess transmission in the 1st time slot.
According to Poisson approximation and (24), the CDF of the number of packets in the 2nd
2
time slot due to previous cumulated packets NCum
is approximated as

y
y
2
X µ1New − Pt1 1 − e−µ1New z e−µ1New −Pt1
X (µ2 )z e−µCum
Cum
2
=
FNCum
(y) ≈
z!
z!
z=0
z=0

1

1−e−µNew


,

(25)

and the active probability of an IoT devices in the 2nd time slot is approximated as
2

2

T 2 ≈ 1 − e−µNew −µCum ,

(26)

where µ2N ew is given in (24).
Similarly, the intensity of the number of accumulated packets in the 3rd time slot µ3Cum is

2
2
µ3Cum = µ2New + µ2Cum − Pt2 1 − e−µNew −µCum ,
(27)
where µ2Cum is given in (24), and Pt2 is given in (21). Thus, we approximate the CDF of the
3
number of accumulated packets in the 3nd time slot NCum
as
y
z −µ3
3
X
(µCum ) e Cum
3
,
FNCum
(y) ≈
z!
z=0

(28)

Probability

where µ3Cum is given in (27).
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

τg = 1
time
slot 2

3
5
10
15
20
Probabilistic Statistic

0

time
Poisson Approximation
Simulation
slot 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Number of Packets

Fig. 2: Comparing the CDFs of the number of accumulated packets between probabilistic statistics and Poisson approximation in 2nd and 3rd.
We present 6 scenarios with different RACH interval durations, where τg = 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 and 20 ms. The simulation parameters are λB = 10
BS/km2 , λDp = 100 IoT deivces/preamble/km2 , ρ = −90 dBm, σ 2 = −90 dBm, and ε1New = ε2New = ε3New = 0.1 packets/ms.

Fig. 2 shows the CDFs of the number of accumulated packets via simulation, as well as
calculating by the probabilistic statistics and the Poisson approximation. We see the close

18

match among the probabilistic statistics, Poisson approximation and the simulation results, which
validates our approximation approach.
We have derived the preamble transmission success probability of an IoT device in the 1st time
slot given in (14), and that of the following M time slots can be derived based on the iteration
process. In the mth time slot (m = 2, 3, · · · , M ), we first derive the number of accumulated
packets µm
Cum , based on the proposed Poisson approximation approach (i.e., following equation
(24). Second, we derive the active probability of an IoT device T m using µm
Cum . Finally, we derive
the preamble transmission success probability of an IoT device Ptm using T m . The preamble
transmission success probability of a randomly chosen IoT device in the mth time slot is derived
in the following Theorem.
Theorem 3. The preamble transmission success probability of a randomly chosen IoT device in
the mth time slot in the spatio-temporal model is derived as


−c−1
Z
m
2 T
λDp ∞
γth σ 2
y
T m λDp γth
m
α
.
Pt = exp −
− 2(γth )
dy
1+
−1
α
ρ
λB
cλB (1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y

(29)

where the active probability of each IoT device is
m

m

T m = 1 − e−µNew −µCum .

(30)

is
In (30), the intensity of number
of accumulated packets µm

 Cum
m−1
−µm−1
New ,
 µm−1
−
P
1
−
e
m = 2,
t
New
µm
=
Cum
m−1
m−1 
 m−1
m−1
µNew + µCum
− Ptm−1 1 − e−µNew −µCum , m > 2.

(31)

The number of received packets per BS in the mth time slot Ctm is derived by using Ptm
following (16). Next, we derive the number of received packets per BS in the mth time slot,
the mean of preamble transmission success probabilities of a randomly chosen IoT device over
M time slots and the mean of number of received packets per BS over M time slots in the
following proposition.
Proposition 2. The number of received packetsZ per BS in the mth time slot is
m

2 T
T m λDp γth −c−1
γth σ 2
λDp ∞
y
T m λDp
dy
1
+
. (32)
exp −
− 2(γth ) α
Ctm =
−1
α
λB
ρ
λB
cλB (1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y
The mean of preamble transmission success probabilities of a randomly chosen IoT device over
M time slots is

M
M
R∞
P
P
2
2 T mλ
m
Pt
exp − γthρσ − 2(γth ) α λBDp (γ ) −1
th α
E[Ptm ] = m=1
= m=1
M
M

y
dy
1+y α

 

1+

T m λDp γth
cλB (1+γth )

−c−1
,
(33)

19

where T m is active probability of each IoT device in the mth time slot, which is given in (30).
The mean of numbers of received packets per BS over M time slots is


M
M
R∞
P
P
2
2 T mλ
y
Ctm λDp T m exp − γthρσ −2(γth ) α λBDp (γ ) −1
dy
1+
α
th α 1+y
m=1
m=1
m
=
E[Ct ]=
M
λB M

T m λDp γth
cλB (1+γth )

−c−1
.
(34)

B. Access Class Barring Scheme
In the ACB scheme, the BS first broadcasts the ACB factor PACB , then each IoT device
can access the network with probability PACB or defer its access with probability (1 − PACB ).
Transmission failure occurs not only due to a low SINR, but also resulting from the failure
of passing the ACB check (q < PACB ). In the derivation, the Laplace Transform of aggregate
interference is jointly determined by the ACB probability (PACB ) and the active probability in
m
of each IoT device. The preamble transmission success probability of a
mth time slot TACB

randomly chosen IoT device with the ACB scheme in the mth time slot is also derived based
on the iteration process, which is presented in the following Proposition.
Proposition 3. The preamble transmission success probability of a randomly chosen IoT device
in mth time slot in the spatio-temporal model with the ACB probability PACB is derived as
Z
m
m

2 PACB T
λDp γth −c−1
λDp ∞
PACB TACB
y
γth σ 2
ACB
m
− 2(γth ) α
dy
1
+
Pt,ACB = exp −
.
−1
α
ρ
λB
cλB (1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y
(35)
where the active probability of each IoT device with ACB scheme is
m

m

m
TACB
= 1 − e−µNew −µCum,ACB ,

In (36), the intensity of number of accumulated packets µm
Cum,ACB is

m−1 
m−1
 µm−1
− PACB Pt,ACB
1 − e−µNew ,
m = 2,
New
µm
=
Cum,ACB

m−1
 m−1
−µm−1
m−1
New −µCum,ACB ,
µNew + µm−1
−
P
P
1
−
e
m > 2.
ACB
Cum,ACB
t,ACB

(36)

(37)

The mean of the preamble transmission success probabilities of a randomly chosen IoT device
and the mean of the transmission capacities per BS per preamble with ACB transmission scheme
over M time slots are presented in the following proposition.

20

Proposition 4. The mean of the preamble transmission success probability of a randomly chosen
IoT device with ACB scheme over m time slots is
Z ∞
M
 γ σ2

m
2 PACB T
1 Xn
y
th
ACB λDp
M
α
exp −
− 2(γth )
E[Pt,ACB ] =
dy
−1
α
M m=1
ρ
λB
(γth ) α 1 + y

m
PACB TACB
λDp γth −c−1 o
1+
.
cλB (1 + γth )

(38)

The mean of numbers of received packets per BS with ACB scheme over m time slots is
Z ∞
M
 γ σ2

m
2 PACB T
PACB λDp X n m
y
th
ACB λDp
M
α
TACB exp −
− 2(γth )
E[Ct,ACB ] =
dy
−1
α
M λB m=1
ρ
λB
(γth ) α 1 + y

m
PACB TACB
λDp γth −c−1 o
.
(39)
1+
cλB (1 + γth )
C. Back-Off Scheme
We assume that each IoT device defers its access and waits for tBO time slots, when such
IoT devices failed to transmit a packet in the last time slot. The analysis of the back-off scheme
is similar to the ACB scheme, due to the back-off procedure can be visualised as a group of
IoT devices are completely barred for a time slot. In the 1st time slot, none of IoT device
defers the access attempt, such that the transmission procedure is same as the baseline scheme.
After the 1st time slot, the back-off procedure starts to execute, an active IoT device defers its
access attempt if the back-off being trigged. The preamble transmission success probability of
a randomly chosen IoT device with the back-off scheme in the mth time slot is also derived
based on the iteration process, which is presented in the following Proposition.
Proposition 5. The preamble transmission success probability of a randomly chosen IoT device
with back-off scheme is
Z ∞
 γ σ2

m m
m
2 B T
y
B m TBO
λDp γth −c−1
th
BO λDp
m
α
− 2(γth )
dy
1
+
. (40)
Pt,BO = exp −
−1
α
ρ
λB
cλB (1 + γth )
(γth ) α 1 + y
where the active probability of each IoT device with back-off scheme is
m

m

m
= 1 − e−µNew −µCum,BO ,
TBO

(41)

In (41), the intensity
of the number of accumulated
packets
with back-off scheme µm
Cum,BO is


m−1
m−1 m−1

 µm−1
Pt,BO 1 − e−µNew ,
m = 2,
New − B
m
µCum,BO =
(42)


m−1
m−1

 µm−1 + µm−1 − B m−1 P m−1 1 − e−µNew −µCum,BO , m > 2.
New
Cum,BO
t,BO
Due to the back-off mechanism, only active IoT devices without RACH attempt failures in the
last tBO time slots can attempt to transmit a preamble, and only those IoT devices generate

21

interference that determine the preamble transmission success probability in the mth time slot. In
(40), whether an IoT device generating interference is jointly determined by the active probability
(41) and the probability of that active IoT device does not deferring its access attempt B m (ie.,
due to back-off mechanism).
We derive B m using



1,
m = 1,





i
hm−1

X

m−j
m−j

m
m−j

TBO
,
(tBO + 1) ≥ m > 1,
1
−
(1
−
P
)T
(B
)

t,BO
BO
|
{z
}
m
j=1
B =
(a)




h m−1
i

X

m−j
m−j
m


1−
(1 − Pt,BO
)TBO
(B m−j ) TBO
,
m > tBO ,


|
{z
}


j=m−tBO

(43)

(a)

where (a) is the probability that an randomly chosen IoT device fails to transmit a preamble in
the (m − j)th time slot, and thus this IoT device would defer its RACH request in the mth time
slot due to the back-off mechanism.
The mean of the preamble transmission success probabilities of a randomly chosen IoT device
and the mean of the transmission capacities per BS per preamble with back-off scheme over M
time slots are presented in the following proposition.
Proposition 6. The mean of the preamble transmission success probability of a randomly chosen
IoT device with back-off scheme over M time slots is
Z
M
 γ σ2

m m
2 B T
1 Xn
λDp ∞
y
th
BO
M
E[Pt,BO ] =
exp −
− 2(γth ) α
dy
−1
α
M m=1
ρ
λB
(γth ) α 1 + y
−c−1 o

m
λDp γth
B m TBO
1+
.
cλB (1 + γth )

(44)

The mean of numbers of received packets per BS with back-off scheme over M time slots is
Z
M
 γ σ2
m m
2 B T
λDp X n m m
λDp ∞
y
th
BO
M
E[Ct,BO ] =
B TBO exp −
− 2(γth ) α
dy
−1
α
λB M m=1
ρ
λB
(γth ) α 1 + y

m
B m TBO
λDp γth −c−1 o
1+
.
(45)
cλB (1 + γth )
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, we validate our analysis via independent system level simulations, where the
BSs and IoT devices are deployed via independent PPPs in a 100 km2 area. Each IoT device
employs the channel inversion power control, and associated with its nearest BS. Importantly,

22

the real buffer at each IoT device is simulated to capture the packets arrival and accumulation
process evolved along the time. The received SINR of each active and non-deferred IoT device
(i.e., IoT devices with packets and do not deferred by the ACB or the back-off mechanism) in
each time slot is captured, and compared with the SINR threshold γth to determine the success
or failure of each RACH attempt. Furthermore, in the ACB scheme, we also simulate that each
IoT device generates a random number q ∈ [0, 1] and compares with the ACB factor PACB to
determine whether the current RACH is deferred, and in the back-off scheme, we capture all
RACH failures and practically defer RACH attempts of these IoT devices for the next tBO time
slots. In all figures of this section, we use “Ana.” and “Sim.” to abbreviate “Analytical” and
“Simulation”, respectively. Unless otherwise stated, we set the same new packets arrival rate for
2
each time slot (ε1New = ε2New = ε3New = · · · = εm
New = 0.1 packets/ms), ρ = −90 dBm, σ = −90

dBm, λB = 10 BS/km2 , λDp = 100 IoT deivces/preamble/km2 , α = 4, and γth = −10 dB.
In the back-off scheme, we set that failure transmission IoT device waits 1 time slot before
retransmission in the back-off scheme.
Fig. 3 plots the preamble detection probability Pd1 and the preamble transmission success
probability Pt1 versus the SINR threshold γth for the 1st single time slot. We set the duration of
gap interval between two RACHs as τg = 1 ms, which is the duration of gap interval between
two RACHs, and µ1New = τg · ε1New = 0.1. The analytical curves of preamble detection probability
and the preamble transmission success probability are plotted using (11) and (14), respectively.
We first see the well match between the analysis and the simulation results, which validates the
accuracy of developed single time slot mathematical framework. As expected, both the preamble
detection probability and the preamble transmission success probability increases with decreasing
the SINR threshold. The preamble transmission success probability of a randomly chosen IoT
device is always lower than the preamble detection probability of a randomly chosen BS, due
to that a randomly chosen IoT device has higher chance to associate with a BS with large
number of intra-cell interfering IoT devices as shown in (9) and (12), which leads to relatively
low average received SINR. Interestingly, increasing the density ratio between the IoT devices
and the BSs increases the gap between the preamble transmission success probability and the
preamble detection probability, due to that it improves the probability of such randomly chosen
IoT device associating with a BS with large number of intra-cell interfering IoT device, but each
BS is equally treated in the analysis of the preamble detection probability without influence of
density ratio.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 λ /λ =50
Dp B
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
−20
−15

Ana. Preamble Transmission Success Probability
Ana. Preamble Detection Probability
Sim. Preamble Transmission Success Probability
Sim. Preamble Detection Probability

λDp /λ B =1

λDp /λ B
=10

−10

−5

γth (dB)

0

5

10

Preamble Transmission Sucess Probability

Number of Packets

23

0.9
0.8

α = 4.5

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

Sim.

α = 4.5

τg = 1 ms

4
3.5

α=
4.5
4
3.5

0.2
0.1
0

Ana.

4
3.5

τg = 5 ms

τg = 15 ms
0

5

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

λDp /λ B
Fig. 3: Preamble transmission success probability and preamble Fig. 4: Preamble transmission success probability.
detection probability.

Fig. 4 plots the preamble transmission success probability Pt1 versus the density ratio λDp /λB
for various path-loss exponents (α) and various interval duration (τg ), where the analytical plots
of the preamble transmission success probability in the 1st time slot Pt1 is calculated using (14).
We observe that increasing the density ratio between the IoT devices and the BSs decreases the
preamble transmission success probability of the 1st time slot, due to the increasing aggregate
interference from more IoT devices transmitting signals simultaneously. We also notice that
increasing the interval duration between RACHs decreases the preamble transmission success
probability. This can be explained by the reason that the number of new arrival packets during
longer interval duration increases, and leads to higher active probability of IoT devices as shown

6
Ana.
Sim.
Optimum

Number of Packets

5
4
3

γth = −15

2

−10
−5

1
0
0

5

10

15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

λB
Fig. 5: The number of received packets per BS.

Preamble Transmission Sucess Probability

in (6).
0.9
0.8

γth = −10

0.7
0.6

Ana.
Sim. ACB (PACB=0.5)
Sim. Back-Off
Sim. ACB (PACB=0.9)
Sim. Baseline

γth = −5

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1

2

3

4

5
6
Time Slot

7

8

9

10

Fig. 6: Preamble transmission success probability of each time slot.

Fig. 5 plots the number of received packets per BS Ct1 versus the density of BSs λB for
various SINR threshold γth . We set λDp = 500 IoT deivces/preamble/km2 . The analytical curves

24

for the number of received packets per BS are plotted using (16), and the optimal BSs densities
that achieve the maximum number of received packets per BS are plotted using (17). We can
see that the calculated optimal BS densities well predict the optimal density points achieving
the maximum number of received packets per BS. The first increasing trend of the number of
received packets per BS is mainly due to the improvement of the average received SINR, whereas
the decreasing trend after λ∗B is mainly due to the decreased average number of associated IoT
devices of each BS leading to the reduction in channel resources utilization.
Fig. 6 plots the preamble transmission success probabilities of a random IoT device at each
time slot with the baseline scheme, the ACB scheme, and the back-off scheme. For each scheme,
the preamble transmission success probabilities decrease with increasing time, due to that the
intensity of interfering IoT devices grows with increasing active probability of each IoT device,
caused by the increasing average number of accumulated packets. For each scheme, its preamble
transmission success probability with γth = −5 dB decreases faster than that with γth = −10 dB,
due to the higher chance of the accumulated packets being reduced for γth = −10 dB leading
to relatively lower average active probability of each IoT device. Interestingly, we observe that
the preamble transmission success probabilities of a random IoT device at each time slot always
follow ACB(PACB = 0.5)>back-off>ACB(PACB = 0.9)>baseline scheme (except the 1st time
slot, where the back-off procedure is not executed), this is because more strict congestion control
schemes reduce more access requests from the side of IoT devices, which decrease the aggregate
interference in the network.
We also notice that for γth = −10 dB case, the preamble transmission success probabilities
with the PACB = 0.5 slightly outperform that of ACB scheme (PACB = 0.9), and the gap
between them reduces with increasing time, whilst for γth = −5 dB, the preamble transmission
success probabilities with PACB = 0.5 is much greater than that with PACB = 0.9, and such gap
increases with increasing time. This is because for γth = −5 dB, the ACB scheme PACB = 0.5
is more efficient than PACB = 0.9, in terms of providing higher average SINR by reducing the
probability of queue flushing, but reversely for γth = −10 dB, the ACB scheme (PACB = 0.5) has
less access requests leading to lower utilization of channel resources. The preamble transmission
success probability of a randomly chosen IoT device with back-off scheme is fluctuated, due to
the alternation of high load and low load network condition in each time slot. Furthermore, for
γth = −10 dB case, the fluctuation become stable quickly, due to the accumulated packets can
be handled much quicker.

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5

Ana. ACB (PACB=0.3)
Ana. Baseline
Ana. Back-Off
Sim. ACB (PACB=0.3)
Sim. Baseline
Sim. Back-Off

0.4
0.3
0

5

10

15
20
Time Slot

25

30

(a) γth = −8 dB

Preamble Transmission Sucess Probability

Preamble Transmission Sucess Probability

25

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
Ana. ACB (PACB=0.3)
Ana. Baseline
Ana. Back-Off
Sim. ACB (PACB=0.3)
Sim. Baseline
Sim. Back-Off

0.2
0.1
0
0

5

10

15

20
25
Time Slot

30

35

40

(b) γth = −6 dB

Fig. 7: Preamble transmission success probability of each time slot.

Fig. 7 plots the preamble transmission success probability of a random IoT device at each
time slot with the baseline scheme, the ACB scheme, and the back-off scheme. We set τg = 5
ms, ACB factor PACB = 0.3, and new arrival traffics only happen in the first 10 time slots
(εm
New = 0 for m > 10). Note that this simulation method with new arrival traffics happen in first
several time slots is to examine how well the network can handle bursty traffic, where similar
practical simulations has been tested in [10, 11]. In both Fig. 7(a) and Fig. 7(b), the preamble
transmission success probabilities decrease in the first 10 time slots, due to increasing traffic
(new packets arrived) leading to increasing active probabilities of IoT devices. After first 10
time slots, these probabilities increase with time, due to decreasing traffic (i.e., no new packets
arrive) leading to decreased active probabilities of IoT devices. After most of the accumulated
packets are delivered with time, the preamble transmission success probabilities reaches the
stable ceiling. Interestingly, we see that the preamble transmission success probabilities in Fig.
7(a) (γth = −8 dB) become stable earlier than that in Fig. 7(b) (γth = −6 dB), due to that the
higher chance of the accumulated packets being reduced in lower threshold case.
The preamble transmission success probability of the baseline scheme increases rapidly after
first 10 time slots and outperforms other two schemes after first 12th time slots in Fig. 7(a),
but it increases relatively slowly after first 10 time slots and only outperforms that of the ACB
scheme after first 25 time slots in Fig. 7(b), due to that the baseline scheme provide faster buffer
flushing, which leads to lower chance of the accumulated packets being reduced in relatively
higher loaded network condition due to the high aggregate interference. The back-off scheme
performs better than the baseline scheme in the first 10 time slots (except 1st time slot where back-

26

off is not executed), due to that it automatically defers the retransmission requests and control
the congestion in the overloaded network condition. Interestingly, it gradually outperforms the
ACB scheme with strictly ACB factor PACB = 0.3 after the first 10 time slots, due to that the
back-off scheme automatically release the blocking of packets and provide faster buffer flushing

Ana. ACB (PACB=0.3)
Ana. Back-Off
Ana. Baseline

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−40 −30 −20
−10
γth (dB)

30
Number of Packets

Preamble Transmission Sucess Probability

than the ACB scheme in the non-overloaded network condition.

0
0

10

20
40 λ /λ
Dp B
20 60

(a) The mean of preamble transmission success probabilities

Ana. ACB (PACB=0.3)
Ana. Back-Off
Ana. Baseline

25
20
15
10
5
0
−40 −30 −20 −10
γth (dB)

20

0

10

20 60

0

40 λ /λ
Dp B

(b) The mean of transmission capacities per BS per preamble

Fig. 8: The mean of preamble transmission success probabilities and the transmission capacities per BS per preamble

In Fig. 8(a) and Fig. 8(b), we plot the mean of preamble transmission success probabilities
and the mean of numbers of received packets per BS over 10 time slots with each scheme,
respectively. We set τg = 1 ms and ACB factor PACB = 0.3. Note that the new traffics arrival
happen in every time slot. In Fig. 8(a), the ACB scheme always outperforms the other two
schemes, and the mean of probabilities of the back-off scheme is slightly higher than that of the
baseline scheme before γth = −25 dB, and then such gap between the back-off scheme and the
baseline scheme increase with increasing γth , which is due to that the back-off scheme blocks
more packets.
In Fig. 8(b) we observe that 1) For −40 ≤ γth ≤ −25 dB, the mean of numbers of received
packets per BS with the back-off scheme is slightly lower than the baseline scheme, but nearly
double that of the ACB scheme, due to the preamble transmission success probability is close
to 1 as shown in Fig. 8(a), and thus less packets are blocked in the IoT device in the back-off
scheme. 2) For −25 < γth ≤ −15 dB, the mean of numbers of received packets per BS with the
baseline and the back-off schemes decrease dramatically and reduce to same level with the ACB
scheme. The back-off scheme gradually outperforms the baseline scheme around the γth = −20
and −15 dB, because the back-off scheme gradually blocks more IoT devices, and provides better

27

network condition as well as higher probabilities of removing packets from the queue. 3) For
−15 < γth ≤ −5 dB, the ACB scheme outperforms the other schemes, which showcases that the
ACB scheme with a relatively strict ACB factor can provide improved successful transmission
in overloaded network.
VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we developed a spatio-temporal mathematical model to analyze the RACH of
cellular-based mIoT networks. We first analyzed RACH in the single time slot, and provide
the preamble detection probability performed on a randomly chosen BS, preamble transmission
success probability performed on a BS associated with a randomly chosen IoT device. We then
derived the preamble transmission success probabilities of a randomly chosen IoT device with
baseline, ACB, and back-off schemes by modelling the queue evolution over different time slot.
Our numerical results show that the ACB and back-off schemes outperform the baseline scheme
in terms of the preamble transmission success probability. We also show that the baseline scheme
outperforms the ACB and back-off schemes in terms of the number of received packets per BS
for light traffic, and the back-off scheme performs closing to the optimal performing scheme in
both light and heavy traffic conditions.
A PPENDIX A
A P ROOF OF L EMMA 1
The Laplace Transform of aggregate inter-cell interference can be derived as
h Y
h
ii
(a)
−sPi hi kui k−α
=
LIinter (s) EZbout
EPi Ehi e
ui ∈Zbout
(b)



= exp −2πT 1 λDp

Z

∞
1

h
i

−sP hx−α
xdx
EP Eh 1 − e

(P/ρ) α
∞


Z
(c)
1
= exp −2πT λDp





1
1−
xdx
1 EP
α
1 + sP x−α
(P/ρ)
Z ∞


(d)
2
2
y
1
= exp −2πT λDp s α EP [P α ]
dy
,
−1
α
(sρ) α 1 + y

(A.1)

where s = γth /ρ, Ex [∗] is the expectation with respect to the random variable x, T 1 is given
in (6), (a) follows from independence between λDp , Pi , and hi , (b) follows from the probability
generation functional (PGFL) of the PPP, (c) follows from the Laplace Transform of h, and
(d) obtained by changing the variables y =
expressed as [27]

x
1

(SP ) η

. The kth moments of the transmit power is
2

EP [P k ] =

ρk γ( kα
+ 1, πλB ( Pρ ) α )
2
kα
2

(πλB ) (1 − e

,

2

−πλB ( Pρ ) α

)

(A.2)

28

where γ(a, b) =

Rb
0

ta−1 e−t dt is the lower incomplete gamma function. As mentioned earlier, the

transmit power of IoT device is large enough for uplink path-loss inversion, while not violating
its own maximum transmit power constraint, and thus The moments of the transmit power is
obtained as

2

ρα
.
EP [P ] =
πλB
2
α

(A.3)

Substituting (A.3) into (A.1), we derive the Laplace Transform of aggregate inter-cell interference.
A PPENDIX B
A P ROOF OF L EMMA 2
The Laplace Transform of aggregate intra-cell interference is conditioned on known the number
of interfering intra-cell IoT devices ZB given as
LIintra (s) =

∞
X




P {ZB = n} E e−sI ZB = n

n=0

= P {ZB = 0} +
(a)

= P {ZB = 0} +

∞
X
n=1
∞
X

"
P {ZB = n} Ehn exp −s

n
X

!#!
ρhn

1


P {ZB = n}

n=1

1
1 + sρ

n
,

(B.1)

where s = γth /ρ, P {ZB = n} is the probability of the number of interfering intra-cell IoT
devices ZB = n given in (9), and (a) follows from the Laplace Transform of hn . After some
mathematical manipulations, we proved (10) in Lemma 2.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Zanella, N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi, “Internet of things for smart cities,” IEEE Internet Things
J., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–32, Feb. 2014.
[2] J. Gubbi, R. Buyya, S. Marusic, and M. Palaniswami, “Internet of things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future
directions,” Future Gener. Comp. Sy., vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 1645–1660, Sep. 2013.
[3] M. Hasan, E. Hossain, and D. Niyato, “Random access for machine-to-machine communication in LTE-advanced networks:
issues and approaches,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 86–93, Jun. 2013.
[4] A. Laya, L. Alonso, and J. Alonso-Zarate, “Is the random access channel of LTE and LTE-A suitable for M2M
communications? a survey of alternatives.” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 4–16, Jan. 2014.
[5] “Study on RAN improvements for machine-type communications,” 3GPP, Sophia, Antipolis, France, TR 37.868 V11.0.0,,
Sep. 2011.

29

[6] A. G. Gotsis, A. S. Lioumpas, and A. Alexiou, “M2M scheduling over LTE: Challenges and new perspectives,” IEEE Veh.
Technol. Mag., vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 34–39, Sept. 2012.
[7] A. Ksentini, Y. Hadjadj-Aoul, and T. Taleb, “Cellular-based machine-to-machine: overload control,” IEEE Netw., vol. 26,
no. 6, pp. 54–60, Nov. 2012.
[8] Nokia, “LTE evolution for IoT connectivity,” White Paper, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://resources.alcatel-lucent.com/
asset/200178
[9] Ericsson, “Cellular networks for massive IoT - enabling low power wide area applications,” White Paper, 2016. [Online].
Available: https://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/whitepapers/wp iot.pdf
[10] “[70bis11] – LTE: MTC LTE simulations,” 3GPP, ZTE, Madrid, Spain, 3GPP TSG RAN WG2 71 R2-104663, Aug. 2010.
[11] “Evaluation of RACH congestion solutions,” 3GPP, ZTE, Stockholm, Sweden, TSG RAN WG2 R2 103742, Jun. 2010.
[12] A. Biral, M. Centenaro, A. Zanella, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi, “The challenges of M2M massive access in wireless
cellular networks,” Digital Commun. and Netw., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–19, Feb. 2015.
[13] E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, and J. Skold, 4G: LTE/LTE-advanced for mobile broadband.

Academic press, 2013.

[14] Z. Alavikia and A. Ghasemi, “A multiple power level random access method for M2M communications in LTE-A network,”
Trans. on Emerg. telecommun. technol., 2016.
[15] A. G. Gotsis, A. S. Lioumpas, and A. Alexiou, “Evolution of packet scheduling for machine-type communications over
LTE: algorithmic design and performance analysis,” in IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM).

IEEE, Dec. 2012,

pp. 1620–1625.
[16] I. Leyva-Mayorga, L. Tello-Oquendo, V. Pla, J. Martinez-Bauset, and V. Casares-Giner, “Performance analysis of access
class barring for handling massive M2M traffic in LTE-A networks,” in Int. Conf. Commun. (ICC). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[17] G.-Y. Lin, S.-R. Chang, and H.-Y. Wei, “Estimation and adaptation for bursty LTE random access,” IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 2560–2577, Apr. 2016.
[18] K. Zheng, F. Hu, W. Wang, W. Xiang, and M. Dohler, “Radio resource allocation in LTE-advanced cellular networks with
M2M communications,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 7, Jul. 2012.
[19] F. Baccelli, B. Błaszczyszyn, and P. Mühlethaler, “Stochastic analysis of spatial and opportunistic aloha,” IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 27, no. 7, pp. 1105–1119, Sep. 2009.
[20] T. D. Novlan, H. S. Dhillon, and J. G. Andrews, “Analytical modeling of uplink cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 2669–2679, Jun. 2013.
[21] J. G. Andrews, F. Baccelli, and R. K. Ganti, “A tractable approach to coverage and rate in cellular networks,” IEEE Trans.
Commun., vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 3122–3134, Nov. 2011.
[22] S. M. Yu and S. L. Kim, “Downlink capacity and base station density in cellular networks,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Modeling
Mobile Ad Hoc WiOpt Netw., May. 2013, pp. 119–124.
[23] Y. Deng, L. Wang, M. Elkashlan, A. Nallanathan, and R. K. Mallik, “Physical layer security in three-tier wireless sensor
networks: A stochastic geometry approach,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 1128–1138, Jun. 2016.
[24] Y. Deng, L. Wang, S. A. R. Zaidi, J. Yuan, and M. Elkashlan, “Artificial-noise aided secure transmission in large scale
spectrum sharing networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 2116–2129, May. 2016.
[25] H. ElSawy, E. Hossain, and M. Haenggi, “Stochastic geometry for modeling, analysis, and design of multi-tier and cognitive
cellular wireless networks: A survey,” Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 996–1019, Jul. 2013.
[26] Y. Deng, L. Wang, M. Elkashlan, M. Di Renzo, and J. Yuan, “Modeling and analysis of wireless power transfer in
heterogeneous cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 12, pp. 5290–5303, Dec. 2016.
[27] H. ElSawy and E. Hossain, “On stochastic geometry modeling of cellular uplink transmission with truncated channel
inversion power control,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 8, pp. 4454–4469, Aug. 2014.

30

[28] Y. Zhong, T. Q. Quek, and X. Ge, “Heterogeneous cellular networks with spatio-temporal traffic: Delay analysis and
scheduling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1611.08067, 2016.
[29] K. Stamatiou and M. Haenggi, “Random-access poisson networks: stability and delay,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 14,
no. 11, pp. 1035–1037, Nov. 2010.
[30] Y. Zhong, M. Haenggi, T. Q. Quek, and W. Zhang, “On the stability of static poisson networks under random access,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 2985–2998, Jul. 2016.
[31] L. Chen, W. Chen, X. Zhang, and D. Yang, “Analysis and simulation for spectrum aggregation in LTE-advanced system,”
in 70th Vehicular Technology Conf. (VTC Fall).

IEEE, 2009, pp. 1–6.

[32] K. Zhou, N. Nikaein, and T. Spyropoulos, “LTE/LTE-A discontinuous reception modeling for machine type communications,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 102–105, Feb. 2013.
[33] S. N. Chiu, D. Stoyan, W. S. Kendall, and J. Mecke, Stochastic geometry and its applications. John Wiley & Sons, 2013.
[34] A. Goldsmith, Wireless communications.

Cambridge university press, 2005.

[35] H. M. Gursu, M. Vilgelm, W. Kellerer, and M. Reisslein, “Hybrid collision avoidance-tree resolution for m2m random
access,” IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst., Mar. 2017.
[36] M. N. Soorki, W. Saad, M. H. Manshaei, and H. Saidi, “Stochastic coalitional games for cooperative random access in
m2m communications,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., Jun. 2017.
[37] G. Gow and R. Smith, Mobile and wireless communications: an introduction.
[38] M. Haenggi, Stochastic geometry for wireless networks.

McGraw-Hill Education (UK), 2006.

Cambridge University Press, 2012.

[39] B. Francois and B. Bartlomej, “Stochastic geometry and wireless networks,” B. NoW Publishers: Paris, pp. 10–10, 2009.
[40] J.-S. Ferenc and Z. Néda, “On the size distribution of poisson voronoi cells,” Phys. A: Statistical mech. appl., vol. 385,
no. 2, pp. 518–526, Nov. 2007.

