A Simple Scheduling Restriction Scheme for Interference Coordinated Networks

Moo Ryong JEONG  Nobuhiko MIKI  

IEICE TRANSACTIONS on Communications   Vol.E96-B   No.6   pp.1306-1317
Publication Date: 2013/06/01
Online ISSN: 1745-1345
DOI: 10.1587/transcom.E96.B.1306
Print ISSN: 0916-8516
Type of Manuscript: Special Section PAPER (Special Section on Heterogeneous Networks for Future Cellular Systems)
scheduling restriction,  inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC),  Long-Term Evolution (LTE)-Advanced,  heterogeneous network (HetNet),  proportional fair,  

Full Text: PDF>>
Buy this Article

Scheduling restriction is attracting much attention in LTE-Advanced as a technique to reduce the power consumption and network overheads in interference coordinated heterogeneous networks (HetNets). Such a network with inter-cell interference coordination (ICIC) provides two radio resources with different channel quality statistics. One of the resources is protected (unprotected) from inter-cell interference (hence, called protected (non-protected) resource) and has higher (lower) average channel quality. Without scheduling restriction, the channel quality feedback would be doubled to reflect the quality difference of the two resources. We present a simple scheduling restriction scheme that addresses the problem without significant performance degradation. Users with relatively larger (smaller) average channel quality difference between the two resources are scheduled in the protected (non-protected) resource only, and a boundary user, determined by a proportional fair resource allocation (PFRA) under simplified static channels, is scheduled on one of the two resources or both depending on PFRA. Having most users scheduled in only one of the resources, the power consumption and network overheads that would otherwise be required for the channel quality feedback on the other resource can be avoided. System level simulation of LTE-Advanced downlink shows that the performance degradation due to our scheduling restriction scheme is less than 2%, with the average feedback reduction of 40%.