This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
Improving Delay and Energy Efficiency of Vehicular
Networks using Mobile Femto Access Points
Moumita Patra, Rahul Thakur, C. Siva Ram Murthy
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India
Email: moumita@cse.iitm.ac.in, rahulthakur.ms@gmail.com, murthy@iitm.ac.in
Abstract—A vehicular network with Road Side Units (RSUs)
provides an efficient way to connect vehicles even on the move.
However, due to high deployment and maintenance cost of
RSUs, it is necessary to use lesser number of RSUs such that
total cost is minimized. It is suggested that cellular networks
such as LTE are capable of fulfilling the demands posed in
vehicular network scenarios. Availability of high bandwidth, large
coverage area, and low latency are some of the advantages of
cellular networks which help in overcoming the challenges of
high speed vehicular communication. In this paper, we propose
a maiden approach to analyse the performance of a vehicular
network with cellular infrastructure as a backbone. For this,
we use mobile femto access points as relays in place of RSUs.
We model the network using M/M/m queue and compare the
delay and throughput performance with traditional IEEE 802.11p
vehicular networks. We also formulate an optimization problem
and propose a subchannel power control algorithm to handle
increased co-channel interference which emerges due to high
mobility of vehicles in the network. Our suggested approach
shows improvement in terms of delay, throughput, and energy
efficiency. The results are verified using extensive simulations.
Index Terms—Vehicular network, cellular network, mobile
femto access points, delay, energy efficiency.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Ubiquitous wireless connectivity on the move has been
of tremendous interest amongst researchers from past few
years. Vehicular Ad-hoc NETworks (VANETs) or vehicular
networks [1] provide a strong platform to fulfil this goal. There
are two types of communications in a VANET – Vehicle-to-
Vehicle (V2V) communication and Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
(V2I) communication which facilitate connectivity even while
moving. Typical applications of VANETs include traffic con-
trol, road safety, and infotainment. IEEE 802.11p protocol
based on CSMA is used in VANETs for medium access control
[2]. However, drawbacks associated with CSMA lead to poor
performance in VANETs in terms of throughput and packet
delivery delay [3].
For continuous and efficient communication among vehi-
cles, full network coverage and low packet delivery delay are
critical. Full network coverage implies that all vehicles are
able to communicate directly with at least one RSU. This can
be achieved by placing large number of RSUs which helps
in reducing the packet delivery delay. However, this leads to
very high deployment and maintenance cost. Hence, there is
This work was supported by the Department of Science and Technology
(DST), New Delhi, India, under Grant SB/S3/EECE/0150/2013.
0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
a need to place RSUs in such a way that required coverage
and delay constraints are achieved with minimum cost.
Cellular network standards such as Long Term Evolution
(LTE) have inherent capabilities to provide wireless connec-
tivity to high speed mobile users. Such networks are charac-
terized by large coverage, high bandwidth, and low latency.
Additionally, deployment of small cells such as femtocell or
Femto Access Points (FAPs) along with Macro Base Stations
(MBSs) helps in further improving network performance.
Femtocell is a low cost, low power cellular base station de-
ployed usually in homes/offices to provide improved coverage
to nearby users. Inherent limited transmit power capability
of FAPs allows efficient reuse of available spectrum thereby
improving end users’ Quality of Service (QoS). Recent studies
have shown that the use of LTE for VANET applications helps
in overcoming the disadvantages faced in traditional VANET
scenarios [4]. Moreover, with the availability of mobile FAPs
with wireless backhaul, improved connectivity can be provided
to vehicles. Also, deployment of low cost FAPs will eliminate
the cost incurred in deployment and maintenance of RSUs.
Use of FAPs for vehicular communication improves net-
work performance but at the cost of increased interference
to users/vehicles due to high mobility. Hence, some kind
of interference control is necessary to maximize the benefits
obtained from FAP assisted vehicular communication. Various
works have been done in this direction as reported in the
literature. Our focus is to achieve the same using subchannel
power control mechanism.
In this paper, we for the first time analyse the performance
of a VANET in the presence of cellular infrastructure. We
model the network using M/M/m queue and show improve-
ment in delay and throughput performance when compared to
traditional IEEE 802.11p VANETs. Additionally, we formulate
an optimization problem and consequently propose a subchan-
nel power control algorithm to handle increased co-channel
interference which may arise due to high mobility of vehicles
in the network. We also shed some light on cost and energy
consumption aspects of such deployment. Obtained results are
verified using extensive simulations.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
reviews the related work. Section III presents the system
model for two tier cellular network along with user association
technique, spectrum allocation scheme, channel model, and
energy consumption analysis. We formulate our problem of
modelling the vehicular network using multi-server queue in
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
Fig. 1: System architecture
section IV along with an optimization problem to protect
signal quality of MBS associated users. Section V presents the
simulation scenario and obtained results. Finally, we conclude
our work in section VI with directions for future work.
II. R ELATED W ORK
Challenges faced by applications of VANETs have attracted
a lot of interest in the research community. The safety critical
applications have stringent delay requirements. Such require-
ments can be fulfilled by having maximum network coverage
which can be obtained by deploying a large number of RSUs.
An RSU however requires $13, 000 − $15, 000 capital cost
and upto $2, 400 per year for operation and maintenance [15].
Hence, it is required to place RSUs in such a way that delay
constraint is achieved with minimum cost. Several works have
been done in the literature which deal with optimal placement
of RSUs.
Recent research suggests the use of existing cellular infras-
tructure (LTE) for vehicular communication [4], [9]. This not
only helps in reducing deployment and maintenance cost but
also helps in achieving improved delay performance and spec-
trum efficiency. Self organization and ubiquitous connectivity
is another plus for such deployments. In this direction, use of
small, low cost, low power femtocells or FAPs have proved
to be an effective solution. FAPs can be deployed anywhere
at users’ convenience and remain connected to cellular core
network via some wired/wireless backhaul.
LTE does not support V2V communication and unicast com-
munication poses challenges in achieving delay constraints.
To support multicasting, an efficient multicast method is
suggested for LTE known as evolved Multimedia Broadcast
Multicast Service (eMBMS) [16]. With this technique, data
can be sent to a set of registered users, removing the need
for unicasting to each user separately [4]. The concept of
mobile FAPs is suggested in [10], [17] and [18] and they help
in providing better coverage even on the move. A detailed
comparative study of related work on the use of cellular
network architecture for vehicular communication is given in
Table I.
0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
We propose the use of mobile FAPs in a city scenario
to fulfill the performance constraints of VANET applications
without incurring high cost. Simulation results confirm our
claim when compared to traditional VANET scenarios. This
is because, in cellular networks, multiple subchannels are
allocated to users/vehicles for communication. This implies
simultaneous transmission by vehicles and hence reduces
average end-to-end delay and improves network throughput.
III. S YSTEM M ODEL
Our system model consists of a two-dimensional city sce-
nario with multiple roads and intersections. Each road has
multiple lanes and movement of vehicles is bidirectional. We
consider that vehicles in the system are distributed uniformly
and the total number of vehicles in the system is fixed.
However, the time after which vehicles change their speed
follows exponential distribution [19]. Two types of Base
Stations (BSs) are considered in the system – Macro Base
Station (MBS) and Femto Access Point (FAP). An MBS is
placed with the intention to serve cellular and vehicular users.
Large vehicles such as buses and trucks are equipped with
FAPs to provide additional connectivity in VANET apart from
providing communication to cellular users (Fig. 1). All other
vehicles are equipped with cellular devices allowing them to
communicate with MBS and FAPs. FAPs are assumed to be
in “Open Access” mode and hence can serve any user/vehicle
within their range. Here, FAPs act as wireless relay nodes
for MBS in order to extend its connectivity to vehicles [20].
We assume that FAPs remain connected to MBS via wireless
backhaul such as WiMax/millimeter wave (mmW). It has been
shown in the literature that use of these wireless technologies
can provide fast and reliable connectivity to mobile FAPs [21],
[22]. It may be noted that for simplicity and brevity we use
the terms vehicles and users, interchangeably.
In this work, the packet generation/arrival in vehicles occurs
according to a Poisson process. This is because, apart from
periodic beacon messages, vehicles also generate event-driven
and infotainment messages with exponentially distributed in-
ter arrival times. Hence, combined inter arrival duration of
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology

TABLE I: Related Work

Literature Infrastructure Technology Routing Gateway Performance Evaluation Traffic Objective
[5] eNodeB Cellular network, wireless Unicast, Roadside acess points, Probabilistic analysis Downlink Study on capacity-cost tradeoffs
mesh backbones, roadside multicast eNodeBs
access points
[6] eNodeB WiFi + cellular network Multicast + Wireless APs + eNodeBs Queueing analysis Uplink + down- Improved average service delay
unicast link
[7] eNodeB VANET + LTE Unicast, Vehicles acting as cluster Probabilistic analysis Downlink Vehicle clustering to forward data packets
multicast heads efficiently with small delay and high packet
delivery ratio
[8] eNodeB Cellular network, VANET Unicast, RSUs Probabiistic analysis Downlink Comparison of cellular network with IEEE
multicast 802.11p
[9] eNodeB Cellular network + Unicast + Vehicles Probabilistic analysis Downlink Efficient content distribution over vehicular
VANET multicast networks with cellular infrastructure
[10] eNodeB Cellular network Unicast Mobile Relay Nodes Not carried out End-to-end Advantages and implementation challenges
of mobile relay nodes
[11] eNodeBs LTE + VANET Unicast Vehicles as cluster heads Simulation based Uplink Cluster management in vehicular networks
using LTE
[12] eNodeB LTE + VANET MBMS Vehicles in range of eN- Simulation based End-to-end Communication over vehicle clusters
odeB
[13] eNodeB Cellular network + Unicast + Vehicles as cluster heads Game theory Downlink Efficient data dissemination
VANET multicast
[14] eNodeB LTE + cloud-based server MBMS eNodeB Simulation based Downlink Efficient data dissemination
Proposed eNodeB + mobile FAPs Cellular network Unicast + mobile FAPs Queueing analysis End-to-end Exploiting the use of mobile FAPs with sub-
MBMS channel power control in vehicular networks
to achieve improvement in terms of cost,
delay, throughput, and energy efficiency

packets in vehicles can be assumed to follow an exponential Total Available Spectrum

Transmit Power
distribution [19]. It is also assumed that packet sizes are of
variable length. Packets are generated in both vehicles and
FAPs, and remain in their buffers until they get a chance to MBS
be transmitted to other FAPs or nearby MBS. Additionally, the FAP
speed of vehicles is assumed to follow truncated exponential W Hz

distribution.
Frequency
A. User Association Technique
Fig. 2: Spectrum and power allocation
Our system model consists of a number of mobile FAPs
overlaid with an MBS in the simulation region. Vehicles
uniquely associate themselves with one of these base stations
based on Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP) based as-
b j
sociation technique [23]. RSRP is the average power received Ptx Γb
Ψbj = P (2)
at a vehicle over all the reference signals spread over the entire b Γj + σ 2
Ptx
′
b′ ∈B−b b′
bandwidth. Hence, using this association technique, vehicle v
will associate itself with base station b (MBS or FAP) if, where Γjb and Γjb′ represent the effective channel gain over
CellIDv = arg max(RSRPb ) (1) subchannel j from base stations b and b′ , respectively. Here,
b B denotes the set of all base stations in the system. σ 2
This association technique typically ignores interference and represents random white Gaussian noise. We assume that each
noise from RSRP calculation. Hence, vehicles will get highest subchannel within a base station is uniquely assigned to a
RSRP from their nearest base station and will get associated single vehicle without sharing. Hence, we need not use any
with them. subscript in the above equation to identify the vehicle which
is assigned a particular subchannel.
B. Spectrum Partitioning and Reuse Based on the received SINR, the instantaneous bitrate is
In our model, the entire cellular spectrum is divided into calculated using modified Shannon Hartley theorem as [26],
two partitions – one for cellular communication and the other
Bj,b = δ log2 (1 + Ψbj ) bits/s/Hz (3)
for vehicular communication. The total available bandwidth
for vehicular communication is divided into N subchannels, To bound the achievable bitrate for realistic deployment sce-
each W Hz wide (Fig. 2). Full frequency reuse of subchannels nario, δ is assigned a value between 0 and 1.
is considered for FAPs as well as for MBS. Rayleigh flat
fading subchannels are considered to have identical channel
characteristics over long term [24]. Unless otherwise stated, D. Energy Consumption and Energy Efficiency
we assume that the total transmit power is equally distributed Two different types of BSs are considered in our deployment
amongst available subchannels. scenario – MBS and FAP. Both of them differ significantly
in terms of offered load and energy consumption. An MBS
C. Channel Model and Bit-rate supports much larger number of users over longer distance as
b
Let Ptx represent the per subchannel transmit power of base compared to a FAP. Energy consumption of MBS is usually
station b. Then, received SINR at a vehicle from base station taken to be load dependent with some fixed “Zero Load”
b on subchannel j can be represented as [25], consumption. For FAPs, transmit power and number of users

0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology

served is quite low, hence their energy consumption is assumed Assume n vehicles are associated to a FAP and there are
to be independent of offered load and taken to be constant [27]. only m subchannels available such that m < n. Hence, for
The total energy consumption of MBS can be calculated transmission, vehicles have to contend for subchannel. The
using the following formula [28], average end-to-end delay for such a scenario is composed of

T
 the delay incurred by packets in their uplink and downlink
EMBS = E0 + Nsector ∗ + PSP (4) transmissions. Therefore, the average end-to-end delay will
ςP A
consist of delay incurred by following the given path:
where E0 is fixed “Zero Load” power accounting for battery • Vehicles to FAPs (E[Wv ])
backup, power supply, and cooling loss. Nsector , ςP A , PSP • FAPs to MBS (E[Wf ])
represent number of sectors, power amplifier efficiency and • Cellular Core Network (C)
signal processing overhead, respectively. Here, T is the total • MBS to FAPs (E[WM ])
input power which is obtained by summing up the transmit • FAP to Vehicles (E[WF ])
power of all the subchannels in use. The average end-to-end delay, E[D], can be written as
To evaluate energy efficiency, we consider an upper bound
on energy consumption and obtain the corresponding delay E[D] = E[Wv ] + E[Wf ] + C + E[WM ] + E[WF ] (5)
and throughput values. Consequently, we compare these values
Now, we analyse each of these delay components in detail.
for both RSU and FAP deployment. The one that gives better
In the uplink, let E[Wv ] be the expected waiting time incurred
delay and throughput performance for a given target energy,
by packets generated at vehicles to reach FAPs. This waiting
is considered to be more energy efficient.
time represents the delay in accessing the limited number
of subchannels available at FAPs. Considering a total of m
IV. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION subchannels in the network, the buffers in vehicles associated
Our work focuses on improving performance of a vehicular to a FAP can be modeled as an M/M/m queue where m
network by exploiting the merits of low power, low cost subchannels act as servers. Let the packet arrival rate be λ
mobile FAPs as a replacement to traditional RSUs. We model and the service time be exponentially distributed with mean
the vehicular network scenario with moving FAPs as relay 1/µ. Thus, the expected waiting time for packets in vehicles
nodes. The inherent spectrum allocation policies (TDMA, is given by,
FDMA, CDMA, etc.) of cellular network allows simultaneous
transmission by vehicles in a given region. Hence, use of FAPs
instead of RSUs allows vehicles to communicate simultane- E[Wv ] = E[n]/λ (6)
ously, thereby reducing the channel access delay. However, Here E[n] is the expected number of packets in the queue
for such a scenario, the performance of the network is limited including the ones in service. E[n] can be calculated as
by co-channel interference. To overcome this problem, we follows,
reduce interference by performing power control over each
subchannel. We analyse the performance of the network in ρζ
terms of three different metrics – average end-to-end delay, E[n] = (7)
1−ρ
average throughput, and energy efficiency. Additionally, we
shed some light on the financial aspects of such deployments. where ρ is the server utilization factor. ζ is defined as the
probability of queueing i.e, the probability that there are m or
more packets waiting to be served.
A. Queueing Analysis For M/M/m queue, the server utilization factor is given
We have modelled the given system using M/M/m queue by,
to analyse average end-to-end delay performance. For this, λ
we trace each packet from its generation until its delivery to ρ= (8)
mµ
other vehicles. In the uplink, vehicles keep generating packets
which are stored in their buffer until they are assigned a and probability of queueing is represented as,
subchannel to transmit (Fig. 3). The maximum number of (mρ)m
vehicles that a FAP can serve is equal to the number of ζ = p(≥ m jobs in the system) = P0 (9)
m!(1 − ρ)
subchannels. These subchannels act as servers to the incoming
packets from the vehicles. On assignment of a subchannel, a where P0 is the probability that there are no packets in the
vehicle can transfer its packets to the associated FAP. In a system and all the servers are idle. This term is represented
similar manner, packets in different FAPs form a queue and by,
wait for subchannel from MBS. Once a subchannel is assigned #−1
m−1
"
to a FAP, its packets are transferred to the associated MBS. (mρ)m X (mρ)i
Note that, vehicles which are not associated with any FAP P0 = 1 + + (10)
m!(1 − ρ) i=1
i!
can directly request subchannels from MBS. Likewise, packets
follow the downlink path from MBS to FAPs until the last Once the packets from vehicles reach their respective FAPs,
hop. Finally, in the last hop packets are broadcast from FAPs they wait in the buffer until they can be transmitted to MBS.
to their associated vehicles. This is identified as the last step in the uplink transmission

0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
Fig. 3: Queueing model
from vehicles. Similar to vehicles, buffers in FAPs also form
an M/M/k queue with MBS as shown in Figure 3. The
expected waiting time incurred by packets at FAPs is denoted
as E[Wf ]. Consider there are k subchannels available at
MBS and f moving FAPs (f > k). Due to contention for
subchannel, only a maximum of k FAPs will be able to
transmit their packets to MBS. Hence, packets in the remaining
FAPs will have to wait until a subchannel is assigned to them.
In steady state, the departure rate in M/M/m queue is equal to
the arrival rate. Since, inter arrival time of packets at vehicles
follow an exponential distribution, their departures from the
subchannels can also be considered as exponential. Hence,
inter arrival duration of packets to corresponding FAPs will
also follow an exponential distribution. Let us consider this
inter arrival duration with mean λf and service rate to be µf .
Thus, the expected waiting time spent in the FAP’s buffer can
be given by,
E[Wf ] = E[nf ]/λf
where E[nf ] is the expected number of packets in the queue
including the ones in service. This is represented as,
ρ′ ζ ′
E[nf ] =
1 − ρ′
where
λf
ρ′ =
kµf
(kρ′ )k
ζ′ = P′
k!(1 − ρ′ ) 0
" k−1
#−1
′ (kρ′ )k X (kρ′ )i
P0 = 1 + + (16)
k!(1 − ρ′ ) i=1 i!
Once the packets reach the MBS, a negligible but constant
amount of delay (C) is incurred for processing of packets
in cellular core network. Then, packets are forwarded to all
associated FAPs over downlink path. It involves a queueing
0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
delay similar to the one in Equation 11 and is represented
by E[WM ]. For the last hop, we have assumed that FAPs
broadcast packets to the vehicles which are associated to them.
This method of broadcasting packets is known as evolved
Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (eMBMS) [4]. This
technique of multicasting data to vehicles helps in reducing
the average delay incurred for packets. This delay can be
represented as,
E[WF ] = P/W (17)
where P is the average packet size and W is the subchannel
bandwidth.
B. Subchannel Power Optimization
FAPs certainly help in improving the performance of ve-
hicular network but at the cost of additional co-channel inter-
ference to their neighbouring MBS users. Unlike traditional
RSUs which are strategically deployed on roads, vehicular
(11) FAPs move randomly and hence may lead to non uniform
interference conditions. The biggest challenge in using such
FAPs is that they interfere with neighbouring MBS and FAP
users. Hence, in order to reap the benefits of their deployment,
some kind of interference control is necessary.
(12) In our model, we assume full reuse of available spectrum
(13) for both MBS and FAPs. Vehicles try to associate themselves
to nearby FAPs based on the signal received from them.
Remaining vehicles which are not associated with any FAPs,
communicate with MBS directly. Hence, these are the vehicles
(14) which receive the worst signal quality due to high path
loss. Additionally, available bandwidth to these users is quite
(15) limited due to high competition of MBS resources. To protect
the signal quality of these vehicles, we perform instantaneous
power control over FAP subchannels so as to reduce the
co-channel interference for MBS users. Interference among
FAP users is ignored considering low transmission power
and double wall penetration loss [29]. To handle interference
to MBS users, we use a power factor, θ, which allows us
to control instantaneous power over each subchannel. The
objective is to control transmit power over FAP subchannels
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology

in such a way that sum interference received at MBS users where αj and βi represent the non-negative dual variables
does not exceed a predefined threshold value. for interference constraint and maximum transmit power, re-
Let F represent the set of all FAPs. θij is the power factor spectively. Considering the time sharing channels for cellular
applied to subchannel j of FAP i. In order to maximize networks, we can solve this problem with close to zero duality
sum throughput of FAPs along with mitigating co-channel gap [32]. This remains valid even if the above problem may
interference, we formulate the following optimization problem, be non-convex in nature.
The dual decomposition methods suggested in [33], [34]
F X
N
X allow us to divide the above problem into N independent sub-
Maximize δ log2 (1 + θij Ptx
f j
Γi ) (18)
j
θi problems, one for each subchannel keeping βi fixed as,
i j
F
X
subject to f j
θij Ptx Γi ≤ Υ ∀j (19) F
X XF

i max
j
δ log2 (1 + θij Ptx
f j
Γi ) − αj ( f j
θij Ptx Γi − Υ)
θi i i
N
X f j F
Ptx θi ≤ Pmax ∀i (20) X f j
j − βi (Ptx θi − Pmax ) (23)
f j i
Ptx θi ≥0 ∀i, j (21)
In order to maximize the above Lagrangian, derivative of
Here, Equation 18 represents the objective function which Equation (23) with respect to θij is taken. Considering the
maximizes the sum throughput of FAPs over all N sub- non-negative power constraint in Equation (21), we have,
channels. Equation 19 represents the constraint that the total !
interference received at an MBS user over subchannel j should j δ 1
θi = max 0, − f j (24)
not exceed the interference threshold Υ. Higher the value of f j Ptx Γi
αj Ptx Γi + βi
Υ, MBS users will receive more interference and hence lower
SINR. Equation 20 is the maximum transmit power constraint Substituting θij in Equation (19) gives us,
on each FAP such that the total transmit power does not exceed F
!
Pmax . Finally, the constraint in Equation 21 ensures that the
X δ 1 f j
max 0, − f j Ptx Γi ≤ Υ (25)
transmit power never takes negative value. To solve this prob- i
f j
αj Ptx Γi + βi P Γ
tx i
lem, we closely follow the approach of authors as discussed in
[30] where a centralised algorithm calculates the power factor Algorithm 1 represents the sequence of steps to solve the
values for subchannels of each FAP. This centralized algorithm dual problem as given by Equation 23. In this algorithm, the
can be assumed to be present in the cellular core network entity value of βi s are initialised and stored in a column vector (β t )
(such as MBS). Once these power factor values are calculated, of size |F |. Then, the maximum possible interference at an
they are communicated to respective FAPs to perform power MBS user operating at subchannel j is calculated by setting
control. Note that, our proposed algorithm (Algorithm 1) can the value of αj to 0, as shown in step 5. If the total interference
also be implemented in a distributed manner where each MBS received at the MBS user is below Υ, then we keep the value of
user can calculate the subchannel power factor values for αj as 0. Otherwise, value of αj is calculated using Equation 25
all its interfering FAPs. Such a distributed algorithm will be as shown in steps 6-10. Once all αj s and βi s are determined,
less computationally extensive but may result in non-optimal the centralized algorithm calculates the power factor value (θij )
subchannel power factor calculation. In this work, we only for each FAP subchannel in step 11. The values of βi s in each
focus on centralized algorithm. Study of distributed algorithm iteration t are updated using sub-gradient method as shown
for subchannel power optimization is left for future work. in step 13. Steps 4-16 are repeated for all subchannels until
To solve the above problem, we make use of Lagrange’s the convergence is achieved as stated in step 17. Finally, the
dual method which incorporates the applicable constraints values of θij are communicated to all the FAPs in order to
directly into the objective function [30], [31]. We assume that perform appropriate power control.
the centralized algorithm has instantaneous information about
all the gains (signal and interference). Hence, Lagrangian of V. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
the problem can be represented as,
To analyse the performance improvement of our suggested
system, we perform simulation for two different deployment
F X
X N scenarios. First, a traditional VANET scenario with RSUs
L′ (θij , αj , βi ) = δ log2 (1 + θij Ptx
f j
Γi ) as gateways and second, mobile FAPs deployment for ve-
i j hicular communication. RSUs are placed strategically on the
N
X XF road to provide optimal coverage without any interference.
− αj ( θij Ptx
f j
Γi − Υ) Traditional VANET uses IEEE 802.11p where the channel
j i access mechanism is CSMA which compels vehicular users to
F
X XN contend for transmission. Transmission between vehicles and
f j
− βi ( Ptx θi − Pmax ) (22) RSUs is done without performing any instantaneous power
i j control. RSUs remain connected to the core network using

0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology

Number of FAPs
Algorithm 1 Power Factor Calculation
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Average End-to-End Delay (sec)

1: Initialize t = 1, β t 140 VANET-RSUs
VANET-FAPs
2: repeat 120
3: for each subchannel j do 100

4: Compute 80
F   60
f j
max 0, βδi − P f1Γj Ptx
P
5: S= Γi 40
i tx i
20
6: if S < Υ then
0
7: Set αj = 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
8: else Number of RSUs

9: Find αj using Equation (25) with equality. Fig. 4: Delay comparison between RSU and FAP deployment
10: end if
11: Calculate θij , ∀ i, j using Equation (24).
12: end for
The main metric used for performance comparison is aver-
!
N
t+1 t
P j
13: Update β = β − △ Pmax − θi age end-to-end delay. For the purpose of comparison, we have
j
considered scenarios where RSUs and FAPs provide optimal
14: if β t+1 < 0 then
coverage to the considered VANET scenario. For optimal
15: Set β t+1 = 0 and stop coverage by RSUs without interference, it is necessary to
16: end if
2 place RSUs in such a way that they do not interfere with
17: until β t+1 − β t ≤ ε
each other. It has been mentioned by authors in [39] that for
Note : Here, β t is a column vector of βi s at iteration t. a node with transmission range R, any transmission occurring
△ is the step size, and ε is a small positive number to
beyond a distance of 2.2×R will not cause any interference.
define convergence.
Considering distance of one hop to be equal to the transmission
range, any transmission after 3 hops will not cause interference
to the current transmission. Thus, for optimal coverage with
wired/wireless backhaul. The following pathloss model is minimum interference, we have placed RSUs with a distance
assumed for this deployment scenario [35], of 3 hops between them. This gives us a total of 12 RSUs
for the given scenario. In case of FAPs, with the help of
simulations, we have found out that at most 50 FAPs are
P L(d) = 34.55 + 15.4 log10 (d) + S (26) required to give optimal coverage. Therefore, for comparison,
where d is the distance between RSU and associated vehicle we have used 12 RSUs and 50 FAPs. However, our simulation
in meters. S is a zero mean random variable with normal scenario remains valid for all other possible RSU and FAP
distribution and standard deviation 4.71 dB. deployments.
We consider a two-dimensional city scenario consisting of Figure 4 shows the variation of average end-to-end delay
roads of length 10 Km with multiple lanes and intersections. A with an increase in RSU and FAP count. It can be seen that
total of 200 vehicles are distributed uniformly in the scenario. deployment of FAPs results in lower average end-to-end delay
The time after which vehicles change their speed follows as compared to RSU deployment. However, RSU and FAP
exponential distribution [19]. Also, vehicles have bidirectional differ significantly in terms of specification and operation.
movement and vehicle density at intersections is comparatively Therefore, we can not simply compare them with respect to
higher than at the rest of the roads. A set of moving FAPs their count. The major motivation behind using FAPs instead
is deployed on larger vehicles along with a fixed MBS. of RSUs is their low operation and maintenance cost. Hence,
FAPs are assumed to be in Always-ON mode. It is to be we compare their performance in terms of average end-to-end
noted that for FAPs the number of users served is quite delay, average system throughput, and energy efficiency while
low, and hence their energy consumption is assumed to be varying the budget available for their deployment. Addition-
independent of offered load and is taken to be constant (5 Watt) ally, we also analyse the energy efficiency aspects of both the
[27]. The simulations have been done using a discrete event scenarios.
simulator and obtained results have been averaged over 10, 000 Figure 5 represents the variation in average end-to-end delay
simulation runs. The selection of interference threshold is with varying annual operation and maintenance cost. It can be
done considering the path loss model, channel conditions, and seen that with an increase in annual cost, the average end-
mobile users’ QoS requirements. Authors in [36] have shown to-end delay decreases for both the scenarios. This is due to
a significant performance improvement for MBS users when the fact that with higher budget more BSs (or RSUs) can be
interference threshold is taken to be 1% of FAP maximum deployed thereby reducing the average end-to-end delay. Note
subchannel transmit power. However, to analyze the effect of that, for any annual cost, the proposed FAP based vehicular
different interference thresholds on MBS users, we have varied scenario performs better than traditional VANET scenario.
Υ between 0.01% and 10% of FAP maximum subchannel System throughput is another important parameter to eval-
transmit power. Rest of the simulation parameters are given uate network performance. Figure 6 depicts the variation in
in Table II [4], [10], [15], [37], [38]. average system throughput with annual cost. As annual cost

0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology

TABLE II: Simulation Parameters

Average End-to-End Delay (sec)
140 VANET-RSUs
VANET-FAPs Parameter Value
120
Number of Vehicles 200
100 VANET-FAPs Vehicle Speed 30-80 Km/hr
80 20 Packet arrival rate (λ) 1 packet/second
10 RSU Transmission Radius 300 m
60
3000 6000 MBS Transmission Radius 10 Km
40 FAP Transmission Radius 50 m
MBS Transmit Power 43 dBm
20
FAP Transmit Power 23 dBm
5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 RSU Transmit Power 37 dBm
Annual Cost ($) Gaussian Noise Figure -174 dBm/Hz
FAP Power Consumption 5 Watt
Fig. 5: Annual cost vs. average end-to-end delay RSU Power Consumption 20 Watt
Zero-Load Power MBS Consumption (E0 ) 100 Watt
RSU Operation & Maintenance Cost $2400/year
340 VANET-RSUs FAP Operation & Maintenance Cost $156/year
Average Throughput (Mbps)

320 VANET-FAPs Number of Sectors (Nsector ) 1

300 MBS : 2.5
VANET-RSUs Path Loss Coefficient
280 FAP : 3.5
260 165 Bandwidth (MBS/FAP/RSU) 6 MHz
160
240 Subchannel Bandwidth 180 KHz
220 5000 6000 7000 Interference Threshold (Υ) 0.01%
200
180
160
5000 6000 7000
average end-to-end delay decreases. Once the FAP count
Annual Cost ($) increases beyond 22, the corresponding delay becomes stable.
This is due to the fact that with 22 FAPs, enough subchannels
Fig. 6: Annual cost vs. average system throughput
are available for vehicles. Hence, further increase in FAP
count will not show any significant improvement in delay
performance.
increases, more BSs (or RSUs) can be deployed thereby
Figure 10 shows the effect of performing subchannel power
increasing the network coverage. Due to this, more vehicles
control over FAP subchannels. Macro-only line represents the
get associated with base stations increasing their chances
Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) SINR of vehicles
for transmission. This results in increase in total system
when all the vehicles are associated with MBS only. Due to
throughput. The use of FAPs with power control allows more
high transmitter-receiver distance, lowest SINR is observed
efficient use of the available bandwidth than in traditional
in this case. With FAP deployment in the scenario, vehicles
VANET, leading to better system throughput. Also note that,
will get associated to BSs which provide the highest signal
the sharp increase in system throughput in case of FAPs is
strength as per the RSRP based association scheme. This in
due to lower contention for subchannels and availability of
turn offloads the vehicles of MBS having low SINR to FAPs,
higher bandwidth for vehicles. Here too, better performance
thereby improving the CDF SINR of MBS users as shown by
is observed for our suggested FAP based deployment for all
the Macro-Femto line. The line labelled Macro-Femto-Power
annual costs. Note that, for a fixed budget, additional cost
represents the CDF SINR of MBS users when our proposed
saving is achieved by deploying higher number of FAPs as
algorithm is used to perform power control over subchannels
compared to RSUs.
of FAPs. This helps in maintaining the overall interference of
Now, we analyse energy efficiency aspect of both of these
MBS vehicles below the threshold value (Υ) thereby leading
deployments. Figure 7 represents variation in average end-
to significant improvement in SINR of MBS vehicles.
to-end delay with respect to energy consumed per day. As
Finally, we show the effect of different interference thresh-
expected, for a target energy consumption, more number of
old (Υ) values on SINR of vehicles associated with MBS. We
FAPs can be deployed as compared to RSUs. This leads to
have performed the simulation for Υ ∈ {0.01, 1, 10}%. As can
better delay performance for FAP-based deployment. Similar
be seen in Figure 11, CDF SINR of MBS vehicles decreases
trend is observed in Figure 8 where variation in system
with increase in interference threshold. This is due to the fact
throughput is shown with increase in target energy consump-
that with increase in interference threshold, FAPs are able to
tion. Interestingly, we see an improvement in average system
transmit at higher power to their associated vehicles. This in
throughput after a certain target energy consumption for FAP
turn results in higher interference at MBS vehicles which leads
deployments. This is due to the fact that with higher target
to deterioration of their SINR.
energy consumption, more FAPs can be deployed. This results
in frequent access to FAP subchannels to vehicles, thereby
increasing system throughput. Hence, our suggested approach VI. C ONCLUSION
to deploy FAPs instead of RSUs proves to be more energy In this paper, we introduced the concept of mobile Femto
efficient than traditional VANET with RSUs. Access Points as relays to support vehicular communication
Figure 9 validates our analysis with simulation. It can be with cellular network as backbone. We modelled the network
observed that as more number of FAPs are deployed, the using M/M/m queue to analyse the average end-to-end

0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology

Average End-to-End Delay (sec) 140 VANET-RSUs 0.8

VANET-FAPs
120
0.6

CDF
100
80 0.4

60
0.2 γ =0.01%
40 γ =1%
γ =10%
20 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
0 SINR (dB)
4000 8000 12000 16000 20000
Energy Consumption per Day (KJ) Fig. 11: Effect of different interference threshold values on
Fig. 7: Average end-to-end delay vs. energy consumption SINR of MBS vehicles

delay performance. We compared average end-to-end delay

and throughput performance for both RSU and FAP based
360
With RSU VANET-RSUs deployments. More practical parameters such as total cost
Average Throughput (Mbps)

320 VANET-FAPs
180
and energy consumption have been used for performance
280 170
160
analysis. When compared to a traditional vehicular network
240 5000 10000 15000 20000 scenario, use of FAPs as a replacement of RSUs gives better
200 performance. Additionally, we formulated an optimization
160
problem and proposed a subchannel power control algorithm to
minimize interference on MBS users. Future work can include
120
development of an efficient spectrum sharing technique among
4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 moving FAPs to enhance spectrum efficiency.
Energy Consumption per Day (KJ)

Fig. 8: Average system throughput vs. energy consumption R EFERENCES

[1] G. Karagiannis, O. Altintas, E. Ekici, G. Heijenk, B. Jarupan, K. Lin, and
T. Weil, “Vehicular networking: A survey and tutorial on requirements,
architectures, challenges, standards and solutions,” IEEE Communica-
tions Surveys & Tutorials, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 584–616, November 2011.
[2] D. Jiang and L. Delgrossi, “IEEE 802.11p: Towards an international
18
Average End-to-End Delay (sec)

Simulation standard for wireless access in vehicular environments,” in Proceedings

17 Analysis of the IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference - Spring, May 2008, pp.
16 2036–2040.
15 [3] S. Kaul, M. Gruteser, V. Rai, and J. Kenney, “Minimizing age of
14 information in vehicular networks,” in Proceedings of the 8th Annual
13 IEEE Communications Society Conference on Sensor, Mesh and Ad Hoc
12
Communications and Networks, June 2011, pp. 350–358.
[4] G. Araniti, C. Campolo, M. Condoluci, A. Iera, and A. Molinaro, “LTE
11
for vehicular networking: A survey,” IEEE Communications Magazine,
10 vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 148–157, May 2013.
9 [5] N. Lu, N. Zhang, N. Cheng, X. Shen, J. Mark, and F. Bai, “Vehicles
10 15 20 25 30
meet infrastructure: Toward capacity - cost tradeoffs for vehicular access
Number of FAPs
networks,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems,
vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 1266–1277, September 2013.
Fig. 9: Analysis and simulation results [6] N. Cheng, N. Lu, N. Zhang, X. Shen, and J. Mark, “Opportunistic WiFi
offloading in vehicular environment: A queueing analysis,” in Proceed-
ings of the IEEE Global Communications Conference, December 2014,
pp. 211–216.
[7] S. Ucar, S. C. Ergen, and O. Ozkasap, “Multihop-Cluster-Based IEEE
1 802.11p and LTE hybrid architecture for VANET safety message dis-
semination,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 65, no. 4,
0.8 pp. 2621–2636, April 2016.
[8] A. Vinel, “3GPP LTE versus IEEE 802.11p/WAVE: Which technology
0.6 is able to support cooperative vehicular safety applications?” IEEE
CDF

Wireless Communications Letters, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 125–128, April 2012.

0.4 [9] R. Atat, E. Yaacoub, M.-S. Alouini, and F. Filali, “Delay efficient
cooperation in public safety vehicular networks using LTE and IEEE
0.2 Macro-Only
802.11p,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Consumer Communications and
Macro-Femto Networking Conference, January 2012, pp. 316–320.
Macro-Femto-Power [10] Y. Sui, J. Vihriala, A. Papadogiannis, M. Sternad, W. Yang, and
0
-20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 T. Svensson, “Moving cells: A promising solution to boost performance
SINR (dB) for vehicular users,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 51, no. 6,
pp. 62–68, June 2013.
Fig. 10: CDF SINR of MBS vehicles for Υ = 0.01% [11] G. Remy, S.-M. Senouci, F. Jan, and Y. Gourhant, “LTE4V2X - Impact
of high mobility in highway scenarios,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
Global Information Infrastructure Symposium, August 2011, pp. 1–7.

0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TVT.2016.2563980, IEEE
Transactions on Vehicular Technology
[12] R. Sivaraj, A. Gopalakrishna, M. Chandra, and P. Balamuralidhar, “QoS-
enabled group communication in integrated VANET-LTE heterogeneous
wireless networks,” in Proceedings of the 7th IEEE International Con-
ference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communi-
cations, October 2011, pp. 17–24.
[13] Y. Li, K. Ying, P. Cheng, H. Yu, and H. Luo, “Cooperative data
dissemination in cellular-VANET heterogeneous wireless networks,”
in Proceedings of the 4th IEEE International High Speed Intelligent
Communication Forum, May 2012, pp. 1–4.
[14] S. Kato, M. Hiltunen, K. Joshi, and R. Schlichting, “Enabling vehicular
safety applications over LTE networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE
International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo, December
2013, pp. 747–752.
[15] O. Tonguz and W. Viriyasitavat, “Cars as roadside units: A self-
organizing network solution,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 51,
no. 12, pp. 112–120, December 2013.
[16] 3GPP, TS 36.440, “General aspects and principles for interfaces sup-
porting Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) within E-
UTRAN,” 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Tech. Rep., September
2012.
[17] S. Namal, J. Pellikka, and A. Gurtov, “Secure and multihomed vehicular
femtocells,” in Proceedings of the 75th IEEE Vehicular Technology
Conference, May 2012, pp. 1–5.
[18] M. H. Qutqut, F. M. Al-Turjman, and H. S. Hassanein, “Hof: A history-
based offloading framework for LTE networks using mobile small cells
and Wi-Fi,” in Proceedings of the 38th IEEE Conference on Local
Computer Networks Workshops, October 2013, pp. 77–83.
[19] A. Abdrabou and W. Zhuang, “Probabilistic delay control and road
side unit placement for vehicular ad hoc networks with disrupted
connectivity,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications,
vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 129–139, January 2011.
[20] T. Elkourdi and O. Simeone, “Femtocell as a relay: An outage analysis,”
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,, vol. 10, no. 12, pp.
4204–4213, December 2011.
[21] T. S. Rappaport, S. Sun, R. Mayzus, H. Zhao, Y. Azar, K. Wang, G. N.
Wong, J. K. Schulz, M. Samimi, and F. Gutierrez, “Millimeter wave
mobile communications for 5G cellular: It will work!” IEEE Access,
vol. 1, pp. 335–349, May 2013.
[22] M. R. Akdeniz, Y. Liu, M. K. Samimi, S. Sun, S. Rangan, T. S.
Rappaport, and E. Erkip, “Millimeter wave channel modeling and
cellular capacity evaluation,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Com-
munications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1164–1179, June 2014.
[23] P. Tian, H. Tian, J. Zhu, L. Chen, and X. She, “An adaptive bias
configuration strategy for range extension in LTE-Advanced heteroge-
neous networks,” in Proceedings of the IET International Conference on
Communication Technology and Application, October 2011, pp. 336–
340.
[24] V. Chandrasekhar, J. Andrews, and A. Gatherer, “Femtocell networks:
A survey,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 59–67,
September 2008.
[25] J. Andrews, R. Ganti, M. Haenggi, N. Jindal, and S. Weber, “A
primer on spatial modeling and analysis in wireless networks,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 156–163, November
2010.
[26] E. Cherry, “A history of the theory of information,” Proceedings of the
IEE - Part III: Radio and Communication Engineering, vol. 98, no. 55,
pp. 383–393, September 1951.
[27] I. Ashraf, F. Boccardi, and L. Ho, “SLEEP mode techniques for small
cell deployments,” IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 8, pp.
72–79, August 2011.
[28] O. Arnold, F. Richter, G. Fettweis, and O. Blume, “Power consumption
modeling of different base station types in heterogeneous cellular
networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Future Network and Mobile
Summit, June 2010, pp. 1–8.
[29] J. Markendahl and O. Makitalo, “A comparative study of deployment
options, capacity and cost structure for macrocellular and femtocell
networks,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Per-
sonal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications Workshops, September
2010, pp. 145–150.
[30] X. Kang, H. K. Garg, Y.-C. Liang, and R. Zhang, “Power allocation
for OFDM-based cognitive radio systems with hybrid protection to
primary users,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommunications
Conference, November 2009, pp. 1–6.
[31] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004.
[32] X. Kang, H. Garg, Y.-C. Liang, and R. Zhang, “Optimal power allocation
for OFDM-based cognitive radio with new primary transmission protec-
0018-9545 (c) 2016 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
10
tion criteria,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 9,
no. 6, pp. 2066–2075, June 2010.
[33] W. Yu and R. Lui, “Dual methods for nonconvex spectrum optimiza-
tion of multicarrier systems,” IEEE Transactions on Communications,
vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 1310–1322, July 2006.
[34] D. Palomar and M. Chiang, “A tutorial on decomposition methods
for network utility maximization,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1439–1451, August 2006.
[35] H. Fernandez, L. Rubio, V. Rodrigo-Penarrocha, and J. Reig, “Path
loss characterization for vehicular communications at 700 MHz and 5.9
GHz under LOS and NLOS conditions,” IEEE Antennas and Wireless
Propagation Letters, vol. 13, pp. 931–934, May 2014.
[36] R. Thakur, A. Sengupta, and C. Siva Ram Murthy, “Improving capacity
and energy efficiency of femtocell based cellular network through cell
biasing,” in Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Symposium on
Modeling & Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc & Wireless Networks, May
2013, pp. 436–443.
[37] T.-J. Wu, W. Liao, and C.-J. Chang, “A cost-effective strategy for
road-side unit placement in vehicular networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Communications, vol. 60, no. 8, pp. 2295–2303, August 2012.
[38] V. Chandrasekhar and J. G. Andrews, “Uplink capacity and interfer-
ence avoidance for two-tier femtocell networks,” IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3498–3509, July 2009.
[39] J. Deng, B. Liang, and P. Varshney, “Tuning the carrier sensing range
of IEEE 802.11 MAC,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Global Telecommu-
nications Conference, vol. 5, November 2004, pp. 2987–2991.
Moumita Patra Moumita Patra is currently a PhD
student in the High Performance Computing and
Networking Lab at Indian Institute of Technology
Madras, India. She received the Bachelors degree
(B.Tech) in Computer Science and Engineering from
West Bengal University of Technology, West Bengal,
India and Masters degree (M.Tech) in Computer
Science and Engineering from University of Hy-
derabad, Telangana, India. Her research interests in-
clude performance analysis and efficient information
dissemination techniques in vehicular networks.
Rahul Thakur Rahul Thakur is currently pursuing
his PhD at Department of Computer Science and
Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras.
He did his Bachelor of Engineering (BE) in Com-
puter Science from Barkatullah University in 2010.
His main research interests include green cellular
networks and small cell communication, with focus
on energy efficiency and self organizing networks.
C. Siva Ram Murthy C. Siva Ram Murthy (F’12)
received the Ph.D. degree in computer science from
the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India, in
1988. Since September 1988, he has been with the
Department of Computer Science and Engineering at
the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai,
where he is currently the Richard Karp Institute
Chair Professor of Computer Science and Engineer-
ing. He is an elected Fellow of Indian National
Science Academy.