IET Communications

Research Article

Mode selection map-based vertical handover ISSN 1751-8628

Received on 16th November 2018
Revised 6th May 2019
in D2D enabled 5G networks Accepted on 28th May 2019
E-First on 24th July 2019
doi: 10.1049/iet-com.2018.6133
www.ietdl.org

Armin Morattab1 , Zbigniew Dziong1, Kazem Sohraby2

1Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, École de Technologie Supérieure, 1100 Notre-Dame Ouest, Montreal, Canada
2Department of Computer Science, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA
E-mail: armin.morattab.1@ens.etsmtl.ca

Abstract: One of the promising features of 5G networks is device-to-device (D2D) communication that enables direct
transmission between D2D user equipments (UEs). Besides the traditional cellular transmission mode, UEs can select between
the reuse and dedicated modes. In this study the authors consider a scenario where a communicating D2D pair and a cellular
UE that communicates with an evolved Node-B can use the same spectrum. It is assumed that the cellular UE can move in the
network while the D2D UEs are static. The movement of the cellular UE can affect the quality of the communication between the
D2D pair. Therefore, the transmission mode between the D2D UEs might change to keep the best quality. In this study the
authors propose a new mobility management and vertical handover algorithm that handles the transmission mode transition
during the D2D connection to maximise the overall throughput. The algorithm uses distance from the border and critical
direction set as mobility variables that are analytically determined. These variables are calculated using a mode selection map
that is derived analytically when pathloss and fading models are used. Finally, in order to analyse the performance of the
proposed handover algorithm, the authors analytically calculate handover rate and sojourn time metrics.

1 Introduction Thus we adopt the distance-based location update as the candidate

The recent huge growth in the number of mobile devices and their
demand for data has created bandwidth scarcity in the available
frequency spectrum. Relying solely on traditional cellular
networking cannot provide the ever increasing number of users
with an acceptable quality of service (QoS). Therefore, in the last
decade, providers and industrial telecommunication companies
have developed new techniques and designs, such as cognitive
radio [1, 2], femtocells [3, 4], device-to-device (D2D)
communications [5–8] etc. to satisfy demands of their customers.
D2D communication has recently attracted significant attention
from both industry and academia, mainly due to its unique
advantages to offload cellular traffic, improved system throughput,
higher energy efficiency and robustness to infrastructure failures
[1–4]. In D2D communication, user equipments (UEs) are enabled
to communicate with each other using three different transmission
modes (TMs): the reuse, dedicated, and cellular. In the reuse and
dedicated modes, the UEs directly connect to each other while in
the cellular mode the transmission between two UEs is realised via
the evolved Node-B (eNB). In the reuse mode, the same frequency
resource is reused by both D2D UEs and another cellular
transmission in the network, which causes interference at the
receivers. However, in the dedicated and cellular modes, different
resources are dedicated to each D2D and cellular transmission,
hence no interference appears in the receivers. At the beginning of
transmission, D2D UEs would select a single mode [3–10] or
mixed modes [8–11] through resource multiplexing to find the best
policy for their transmission.
The UEs report their measurements of the communication
channels to the eNB periodically, based on time, movement, or
distance options [12]. Relying on this information a specific mode
is selected. Note that the mode can be changed during the
connection due to the mobility of UEs. Switching from one TM to
another, when the moving UE remains inside one cellit is called
vertical handover [13–15]. It has been shown that in the traditional
cellular networks, the distance-based method for the TM update
results in the best performance for the handover mechanism
comparing to the time-based and movement-based methods [16].
for the proposed handover algorithm.
In [17], we presented an analytical approach that defines the
regions in the network where the current UE's TM can be kept if
the moving UE remains in the region. The set of such regions,
together with the borders between them, is defined as the mode
selection map of the network. We propose a handover algorithm
based on this map. It consists of an analytical framework to find
the tangent points, perpendicular points, and intersection points to
the map region borders. These results are applied to find the
distance from the borders and critical direction set that is defined as
the set of all possible directions that if taken, the moving UE
intersects with the borders. The proposed algorithm uses this
distance, together with the direction of movement, to decide the
best time to start the vertical handover procedure. The critical
direction set is employed to analytically determine two
performance metrics used to analyse the efficiency of the proposed
algorithm.
1.1 Related works
The idea of using a mode selection map was implicitly discussed
for the first time in [5] where a mode selection procedure in single
cell and multi-cell environments was proposed. The map was
derived numerically by optimising all possible TMs and selecting
the one that results in the highest throughput for the locations of
the cellular UE. In our previous work, [18], we extended the mode
selection procedure from [5] assuming that UEs and eNB utilise
multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) precoding. We
presented a method to optimally design MIMO precoders and
decoders at each transmitter and receiver respectively, to maximise
overall throughput for different TMs. Our results showed better
gain and efficiency when compared to [5]. Derivation of the mode
selection map using the same point-to-point techniques showed
that by using MIMO a larger area can be covered using dedicated
and reuse modes when compared with single-input-single-output.
The mode selection maps in [5, 18] are derived numerically by
applying a point-to-point procedure which is generally imprecise,
complex, time-consuming, and inefficient. Using such methods
consumes large execution time and systems memory. Since such

IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185 2173

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
methods are point based, the precision of the resulting map is a
function of the distance between two consecutive points where the
mode selection algorithm is applied. To address these issues, we
developed an analytical approach in [17] to derive the mode
selection map of the network when the communication channel is
pathloss. The presented methods provide implicit functions, which
define the mode selection map boundaries. Therefore, it draws
precise borders of different regions with smaller execution time. In
this paper, we extend our framework for mode selection map
derivation to the case where the communication channel between
the network entities is fading. The proposed method uses equi-
average throughput functions to find the map boundaries.
One of the main issues in D2D enabled networks is to design a
handover scheme that could maintain the QoS of a connection
between two D2D UEs and execute the TM change in a seamless
way. Previous research was done in recent years to study this issue
in different applications and scenarios [14, 15, 19–22]. In [14], the
authors present protocols to extend the third Generation
Partnership Project (3GPP) Long Term Evolution-Advanced (LTE-
A) system to incorporate D2D communication, including
establishing and maintaining a D2D call and procedures for
efficient mobility between the traditional cellular mode and a D2D
mode of operation within one cell. This work only provides a time
sequence procedure for the handover mechanism without
presenting specific decision criteria. Moreover, it is not clear
whether the direct D2D is for the reuse or the dedicated mode. In
[19], a handover mechanism is developed. It is based on the
received signal strength (RSS) and is able to minimise the end-to-
end latency and signaling overhead for the communicating D2D
UEs. In [15] the authors consider the same handover scenario as in
[19] with several decision criteria added to find the best time to
start the handover. The handover schemes proposed in [15, 19]
does not provide performance metrics for their algorithm. The
authors in [20] present a handover scheme, where D2D
connectivity helps to improve the migration of users across
different base stations (BS) to enhance the overall link quality
experienced by the UEs. Like [15], in [19] the handover is for the
case when D2D UEs move from one cell to other cells. The
mechanism presented in [20] is able to efficiently offer attractive
energy efficiency, data rate, and packet delivery ratio benefits.
Moreover, the performance metrics of their solution are based on
tools from stochastic geometry, which is an advantage over [15,
19]. In [21], the performance of caching in D2D networks for
different degrees of node mobility is studied. Devices establish
connections with transmitters that have the desired content cached,
however, due to the mobility, the link quality between receivers
and transmitters is affected, which may result in the connection
drops. This work does not propose any handover mechanism and
studies only the performance of the network while UEs move.
Our paper uses the analysis in [22] for D2D mode selection
with user mobility. In that work, the authors define a region in
which the border is computed by equating the RSS of the cellular
and reuse modes. Then the TM between the D2D UEs is changed
whenever one of the D2D UEs exits a specific region. Although the
authors presented an equation to reach the equi-RSS boundaries, no
solution is proposed to derive the mode selection map like we did
in [17] for pathloss channel case and this work for fading channel
case. Only a circular approximation of the equation is applied.
Also, the dedicated mode is not considered in problem modelling
and calculations.
1.2 Contributions
When the cellular UE moves, the selected TM between the D2D
UEs might not remain optimal, depending on the objective
function. This is usually due to the change in the amount of
interference that the cellular UE can cause to the receiving D2D
UE, and vice versa, or due to change in transmission power, noise,
or channel characteristics. To ensure that the UEs continue in an
optimal TM, a vertical handover needs to be applied. Relying on
the mode selection map derived in [17], we develop a distance-
based vertical handover mechanism that takes into account the
direction of the movement. To evaluate the performance of our
2174
algorithm we analytically determine the handover rate and sojourn
time using the methods proposed in [13, 22].
The contributions of this paper are summarised as follows:
• The mode selection map of the network is derived for the case
that communication channel between the network entities is fading.
The proposed analytical approach draws precise borders of
different regions with significantly smaller execution time when
compared with relevant numerical approaches proposed in the
literature.
• New mobility management and vertical handover technique are
proposed based on the distance from the region border and the
direction of the moving cellular UE.
• The proposed vertical handover handles TM transitions among
the reuse, dedicated, and cellular modes for the transmission
between the D2D UEs.
• An analytical approach for determining the distance from the
borders, used in the handover algorithm, and critical direction set
are presented.
• Analytical derivation of the handover rate and sojourn time, used
as the performance metrics of the handover mechanism, are given.
It should be noted that when comparing the proposed handover
algorithm, based on the mode selection map derived off-line by the
operator, with a traditional handover approach, based on
continuous signal power measurements, the network performance
would be similar if the measurements are fast and precise (which
may be costly and not practical). The advantage of the mode
selection map approach is that it simplifies the handover process
and make it fast. Moreover, the proposed analytical model
significantly reduces the execution time and increases the precision
of maps comparing to numerical methods.
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows: in Section
2 the models for transmission (Section 2.1) and mobility of the
cellular UE (Section 2.3) are introduced. The problem formulation
is presented in Section 3. Section 3.2 presents the TM selection
map and formulations of perpendicular, tangent, and intersection
points of the moving cellular UE. In Section 3.3 two performance
metrics of the handover scheme, i.e. handover rate (Section 3.3.1)
and sojourn time (Section 3.3.2) are introduced. In Section 4 we
present our analytical approach to obtain the tangent and
perpendicular points (Section 4.2) as well as the formulation of the
handover rate (Section 4.3) and the sojourn time (Section 4.4). Our
vertical handover algorithm is presented in Section 5. Section 6
presents our simulation results used to illustrate and analyse
performance of the proposed handover algorithm. Finally, the
conclusions are given in Section 7.
2 System model
In this section, we introduce a model for the data D2D enabled
cellular network. Then we discuss the mobility model used to
estimate the behaviour of the moving cellular UE.
2.1 Network model
In this paper, we use the single cell D2D enabled cellular network
model first developed in [17]. As shown in Fig. 1, the model
consists of a pair of D2D enabled UEs, a cellular UE that shares a
spectrum with the D2D pair, and a base station in the center of the
cell, which are denoted as UEs, UEd, UEc, and eNB, respectively.
While the communication from UEs to UEd can be in the reuse,
dedicated, and cellular modes, UEc operates in cellular mode in
UL. It is also assumed that all entities in the network are equipped
with a single antenna. Note that in the considered network there
may be many other users and D2D pairs but they do not influence
the considered UEs performance since their spectrum is disjoint.
2.2 Communication channel model
We consider two types of the communication channel between
every two entities in the sub-network: the pathloss line-of-sight
(LoS) channel and the fading model that is based on a quasi-static
IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 hsd 2Ps
RR1 = log 1 + (7)
hcd 2Pc + N0

hce 2Pc
RR2 = log 1 + (8)
hse 2Ps + N0

1 hsd 2Ps
RD1 = log 1 + (9)
2 N0

Fig. 1  Network model – the coexistence of the D2D pair and the cellular 1 hce 2Pc
RD2 = log 1 + (10)
UE-eNB communications 2 N0

Rayleigh random variable, [23], for which the channel gain is hse 2Ps hed 2Pe
1
given. RC1 = min log 1 + , log 1 + (11)
Let hi j denote the channel gain between transmitter i and 4 N0 N0
receiver j being in distance di j. Then for the pathloss LoS channel
we have 1 hce 2Pc
RC2 = log 1 + (12)
2 N0
K
hi j = (1) It should be noted that in the reuse mode both ce and sd links
diαj
reuse the same frequency resources. However, we assume that for
the dedicated and cellular modes, the ce link uses half of the
where K is a unit-less constant that depends on the antennas
resources while the remaining half is used by the sd and sed links,
characteristics and α is the pathloss exponent. For the fading model 1 1
we have respectively. The 2 in (9), (10), and (12), and 4 in (11), refer to this
fact. It should be noted that for the sed link, it is assumed that the
1
Ki j se and ed links use 4 of total frequency resources and since they
hi j = (2)
diαj are cascaded with encoding at eNB, the total capacity of the sed
link is calculated as the minimum of the capacities of the se and ed
with Ki j defined as links as shown in (11).

2
Ki j = cSi j zi j
where c is the propagation constant, Si j = 10si j /10 is the log-normal
shadow fading variable, where si j is the zero mean Gaussian
random variable with standard deviation σs and zi j is the fast fading
characteristic of the channel that is modelled as a complex
Gaussian random variable with standard deviation σz.
In both equations, (1) and (2), i is either s, c, or e, and j is either
e or d where the subscripts s, c, d, and e stand for UEs, UEc, UEd,
and eNB, respectively.
We assume that in the reuse mode the resources for UEs–UEd
transmission are shared with the UEc–eNB transmission.
Therefore, each of the receivers in the network is affected by the
interference from the transmitters as well as the background noise.
The interference channel is shown in Fig. 1 as red-dotted lines.
However, when the D2D UE are in the dedicated or cellular modes,
half of the resources are assigned to the D2D UE, and the rest is
assigned to UEc–eNB transmission, and hence there is no
interference at the receivers.
Another assumption is that near capacity channel codes are used
at the transmitters, hence the throughput of each transmission is
considered to be equal to the Shannon capacity of the channel
allocated for that transmission. Moreover, the overall throughput of
the sub-network presented in Fig. 1 in the reuse, dedicated, and
cellular modes can be calculated as the sum of the channel
throughputs of the concurrent transmissions for each mode:
RR = RR1 + RR2
RD = RD1 + RD2
RC = RC1 + RC2
where RR1, RR2, RD1, RD2, RC1, and RC2 are the UEs–UEd throughput
in reuse mode, UEc–eNB throughput in reuse mode, UEs–UEd
throughput in dedicated mode, UEc–eNB in dedicated mode, UEs–
eNB–UEd throughput in cellular mode, and UEc-eNB in cellular
mode, respectively. These throughput functions are defined as
(3) 2.3 Mobility model
The mobility model used in this paper is based on the random
waypoint (RWP) model, [13], in which the moving entity randomly
shifts between two points called waypoints. At each waypoint the
mobile node chooses (i) a random direction uniformly distributed
in the range 0, 2π , (ii) a transition length from some distribution,
and (iii) velocity from some distribution. The node may have a
random pause time at each waypoint.
3 Problem formulation
As discussed earlier, the handover process relies on the values of
specific decision variables that are computed based on the
measurements in the network. In this section, we formulate the
decision variables to be used by the handover mechanism. These
variables are: (i) distance from a region border in the mode
selection map, (ii) the critical direction set. The distance variable is
the distance of the moving UEc from a border in the mode selection
map and it is computed as the minimum of the set of all
perpendicular distances from UEc's location to the region border.
This variable can be calculated by determining the tangent lines to
the borders of the map regions from the location of the UEc, which
is discussed later in this work. Fig. 2 shows tangent and
perpendicular points on the mode selection map when the
communication channel is pathloss or fading.
Moreover, for the purpose of analysis, we introduce the
handover rate and sojourn time as performance metrics of the
handover.
(4)
3.1 Mode selection map
(5)
For the pathloss LoS channel scenario, the mode selection map
(6) boundaries are found by equating the overall throughput
expressions in (4)–(6), one by one as follows:
RR = RD (13)
RR = RC (14)

IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185 2175

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 2  Distance and tangent points from the moving UEc to the mode selection map borders
(a) Distance points – pathloss channel, (b) Tangent points – pathloss channel, (c) Distance points – fading channel, (d) Tangent points – fading channel
Fig. 3  Variable distances, X and Y, due to UEc movement
RD = RC
However, for the fading channel the mode selection map
boundaries, are found by equating the expected value of overall
throughput formulations in (4)–(6), one by one as follows:
E RR = E RD
E RR = E RC
E RD = E RC
where E RR , E RD , and E RC are the expected values of the
random variables for overall throughput of the network in reuse,
dedicated, and cellular mode, respectively.
3.2 Decision variables
In this paper, it is assumed that UEc moves, while UEs and UEd are
static. Fig. 3 illustrates the variable distances, X = dcd and Y = dce,
that change due to the UEc's movement.
For each solution pair (X,Y ) that satisfies (13)–(15) for pathloss
channel or (16)–(18) for fading channel, the following equations
are used to calculate (Xc, Y c) coordinates and obtain the mode
selection map
2176
X 2 = Xc − Xd 2 + Y c − Y d 2
(19a)
Y 2 = Xc2 + Y c2; (19b)
where (Xd, Y d) are the coordinates of the static UEd.
Since the mode selection map is derived using the above
equations, we develop our formulations in order to find the
distance from the border as well as the critical direction set. As
shown in Fig. 2, the existing cellular user, i.e. UEc moves in the
network in direction of θ with velocity of v. If UEc moves and
specific conditions are satisfied, a vertical handover is needed for
transmission between UEs and UEd in order to guarantee the
(15) maximum overall throughput. To determine these conditions, the
distance from the border and the direction of the movement are
considered as the decision variables. The handover process is
executed only if the distance from the border is less than a
specified threshold and if the moving direction of UEc belongs to
the set of critical directions.
(16)
For both distance variable and critical direction set, we need to
determine the slope of the tangent line to the border, dY c /dXc,
(17)
where (Xc, Y c) are the coordinates of a point on the map's border.
If (Xi, Y i) is the coordinate of the moving UEc, then the tangent
(18)
line from this point to the map border is
dY c
Yc = X − Xi + Y i (20)
dXc c
and the perpendicular line form is
−1
Yc = ) X − Xi + Y i (21)
(dY c /dXc c
(20) and (21) are used to find the critical direction set and distance
from the border. The solution to the above equations determines
tangent points {(Xtn, Y tn) n = 1, …, Nt} and perpendicular points
{(Xpn, Y pn) n = 1, …, Np} respectively, where Nt and Np denote the
IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
maximum number of possible tangent and perpendicular points
from (Xi, Y i) to the border, respectively. The perpendicular points
are shown in Figs. 2a and c as blue dots. The magenta points in
Figs. 2b and d denote the tangent points to the border, and the cyan
points represent the intersection points of the moving UEc with the
border if it goes in the direction of θ.
The set of perpendicular distance variables are denoted as
H = {dpn n = 1, …, Np} where dpn is computed as follows:
dpn =
2
Xpn − Xi + Y pn − Y i
2
(22)
The distance of the moving UEc from the border is as follows:
dp = min (H) (23)
Now that we calculated the distance from the border, as the
decision variable for the handover algorithm, we follow our
calculations to present some useful variables which will be used in
the next section to derive the performance metrics of the handover
algorithm.
We find the set of tangent directions denoted as
{θtn n = 1, …, Nt} as follows: (see equation below).
We define the following extended set:
Φ = { − π, π} ∪ {θtn n = 1, …, Nt} (25)
We denote the elements of the ordered set Φ as ϕn where
n = 1, …, Nt + 2. Then the set of critical directions, which is also
assumed to be an ordered set, is computed as follows:
Ψ = {ψ n = ϕk, ϕk + 1 fork = 1, …, Nt + 1
(26)
if θ ∈ ψ n, ⇒ UEc intersects whith the border}
The elements of Ψ are denoted as ψ n for n = 1, …, Nd = Ψ as
follows:
ψ n = [αn, βn] (27)
Next, we need to find the intersection points from Xi, Y i and
the border in the direction of movement. This will be used later in
the next section in order to compute performance metrics of the
mobility management method. If we assume that UEc moves in the
direction of θ, the following equation leads to the intersection
points
Y c = tan θ Xc − Xi + Y i (28)
Where (Xc, Y c) are coordinates of a point on the border. Solution
of this equation is obtained by substituting the above Y c, as a
function of Xc, in (19a) and (19b), then converting X and Y to x and
y using (41a) and (41b), and finally substituting x and y in the
boundary function derived in (42). The intersection points are
denoted as {(Xcn, Y cn) n = 1, …, Nc}, where Nc is the maximum
number of intersections. The set of distance values is
{rcn n = 1, …, Nc} in which rcn is the distance between (Xi, Y i) to
(Xcn, Y cn)
2 2
rcn = Xcn − Xi + Y cn − Y i (29)
Y tn − Y i
tan−1 + π, if Xtn < Xi, Y tn > Y i
Xtn − Xi
Y tn − Y i
θtn = tan−1 , if Xtn > Xi
Xtn − Xi
Y tn − Y i
tan−1 − π, if Xtn < Xi, Y tn < Y i
Xtn − Xi
IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
3.3 Performance metrics
Using the RWP mobility model in [13], the movement trace of the
UEc can be described by an infinite sequence of quadruples:
{((Xi, Y i), (Xi + 1, Y i + 1), V i, Si)}i = N, where i is the ith movement
period. During the ith movement period, (Xi, Y i) represents the
starting waypoint, (Xi + 1, Y i + 1) the target waypoint, V i the velocity,
and Si the pause time at waypoint (Xi + 1, Y i + 1). Given the current
waypoint (Xi, Y i), the next waypoint (Xi + 1, Y i + 1) is such that the
angle between the vector (Xi + 1, Y i + 1) − (Xi, Y i) and the abscissa, i.e.
θi, is uniformly distributed in 0, 2π and the transition length
Li = ∥ (Xi + 1, Y i + 1) − (Xi, Y i) ∥ is non-negative. The selection of
waypoint is independent and identical for each movement period.
The transition lengths {L1, L2, . . . } are chosen to be
independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) with cumulative
distribution function
P(L ≤ l) = 1 − exp −λπl2 (30)
The transition lengths are Rayleigh distributed with density λ.
Velocities V i are i.i.d. with distribution PV( . ). Pause times Si are
also i.i.d. with distribution PS( . ). It can be shown that the expected
value of the transition length is
1
E[L] = (31)
2 λ
The period time, i.e. T p, is defined as the sum of transition time,
i.e. T, and the pause time, i.e. S as follows:
Tp = T + S (32)
The transition time denotes the time a node spends during the
movement between two successive waypoints that is formulated as
follows:
T = L/V (33)
where L and V denote transition length and velocity random
variables, respectively.
Two important metrics to evaluate the performance of a
mobility management technique are handover rate and the sojourn
time which are described below
3.3.1 Handover rate.: The handover rate is defined as the ratio of
the expected number of required handovers for the D2D UEs when
UEc moves between two waypoints during one movement period,
over the expected value of the period time, i.e.
E[N]
RH = (34)
E[T p]
Where random variable N is the number of handovers, and T p
represents the period time random variable. The expected number
of handovers during one movement period could be calculated as
∞
E[N] = ∑ n∫C P dA(r, θ) (35)
n=1 n
where Cn is the area such that if UEc enters and moves within one
movement period, the D2D UEs will experience n handovers.
(24a)
(24b)
(24c)
2177
Fig. 4  Different channels' throughput for reuse, dedicated, and cellular modes when UEc moves
(a) UEs–UEd throughput in reuse mode, (b) UEc–eNB throughput in reuse mode, (c) UEc–eNB throughput in dedicated mode, (d) UEc–eNB throughput in cellular mode

P dA(r, θ) is the probability of the moving entity being in the area KPc
dA(r, θ) after one movement from the origin. a4 = (40e)
N0
The expected value of period time can be computed by first
determining E[T] and E[S]. KPs KPe
a5 = min 1 + α
,1 + α (40f)
dse N0 ded N0
3.3.2 Sojourn time.: Sojourn time is defined as the expected time
duration that the mobile UEc movement would not result in a TM and x and y are defined as follows
change for the D2D UEs. Assuming that the mobile node does not
have the pause time with a constant velocity, i.e. V ≡ v, the sojourn 1
time in any coverage area C0 can be determined as x= (41a)
Xα

ST = E[T] . ∫ C0
P dA(r, θ) (36) y=
1
(41b)
Yα

4 Solution In the above equations, di j is the distance between transmitter i

In this section, we provide analytical solutions for the tangent and
perpendicular points as well as the relationship for the handover
rate and sojourn time as performance metrics.
4.1 Mode selection map boundaries
The overall throughput of the network for the reuse, dedicated, and
cellular modes, are used to define mode selection map of the
network. For the case where the communication channel is fading,
the average throughput is used.
4.1.1 Pathloss channel.: When the communication channel is
pathloss, the throughput equations in (4)–(6) can be defined as
and receiver j and Pi is the transmitter i's power, where i = s, c, e,
and j = e, d. The subscripts s, c, d, and e describe the type of
entity, such as UEs, UEc, and UEd, and eNB, respectively. N0
denotes the spectral density of the Gaussian noise, K is a unitless
constant that depends on the antennas characteristics, and α is the
path loss exponent.
Analysing (40a)–(40f), the equation RD = RC has no solution
for a5 ≠ a′21. Moreover, the RR = RC is the general form of RR = RD,
since by substituting a5 by a1′2 in the former equation, the later is
derived. Therefore, in the subsequent discussion we only develop
results for the case RR = RC. This equation can be simplified as
follows:

a1 f x, y = a x y2 + b x y + c x = 0 (42)
RR = log2 1 + 1 + a3y (37)
1 + a2 x
where
1
RD = log2 a1′ 1 + a4y (38) a(x) = a32 a1′ + a2 x 2
(43a)
2

1 1 b(x) = 2a3 a1′ + a2 x 2 − a4 a5 1 + a2 x 2

(43b)
RC = log2 a5 + log2 1 + a4y (39)
4 2
c(x) = a1′ + a2 x 2 − a5 1 + a2 x 2
(43c)
where
4.1.2 Fading channel.: When the communication channel is
KPs fading, equations (16)–(18) are used to get the mode selection map
a1 = α (40a)
dsd N0 boundaries. To solve these equations, E[RR1], E[RR2], E[RD1],
E[RD2], E[RC1], and E[RC2] are calculated numerically where X and
a1′ = 1 + a1 (40b) Y are the variables. The results are shown in Fig. 4. Using (19a)
and (19b), (Xc, Y c) coordinates are calculated to determine the equi-
KPc average-rate boundaries.
a2 = (40c)
N0 Referring to (9) and (11), E[RD1] and E[RC1] are constant since
hsd, hse, and hed are constant for different values of (X,Y ).
KPc
a3 = KPs (40d) 4.2 Tangent and perpendicular points
dce α + N0
dse
As discussed earlier in Section 3.2, the mobility management
technique is relying on the direction of the UEc's movement and its

2178 IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 5  Derivation of the channels' throughputs when UEc moves
(a) UEs-UEd throughput derivation in reuse mode, (b) UEc-eNB throughput derivation in reuse mode, (c) UEc-eNB throughput derivation in dedicated mode, (d) UEc-eNB
throughput derivation in cellular mode

distance from the border. We found the critical direction set in (26) For the fading channel and equation (17), dy/dx is calculated as
as well as the perpendicular distance using (23). We computed follows:
these variables with the assumption that the tangent and
perpendicular points are given. These can be found using (20) and dRR1
dy E dx
(21). = − (50)
Dividing the derivation of (19a) and (19b) we have dx E
dRR2
−E
dRC2
dy dy

dY dY
dXc X Xc + Y c dXc while for (16), it is calculated as follows:
c
= . (44)
dX Y X −X + Y −Y dY c
dXc c d c d dXc dRR1
dy E dx
= − (51)
The left-hand side of (44) can also be calculated using (41a) and dx E
dRR2
−E
dRD2
dy dy
(41b)
dY
To determine dy/dx in (50) and (51), we have calculated
dXc Y x dy E[RR1 /dx], E[RR2 /dy], E[RD2 /dy], and E[RC2 /dy] numerically as
= . . (45) shown in Fig. 5. As discussed before E[RD1] and E[RC1] are
dX X y dx
dXc constant, so we have
Equating (44) and (45) results in dRD1 dRD1
E =E =0 (52a)
dY
dx dy
X Xc + Y c dXc Y x dy
c
. = . . (46) dRC1 dRC1
Y X −X + Y −Y dY c X y dx E =E =0 (52b)
c d c d dXc dx dy

dY c /dXc can be determined using the above equation as follows: Because of the non-linearity and irreversibility of the equations
in (48a) and (48b), we use a numerical method to find the tangent
Y2 x dy and perpendicular points, denoted as {(Xtn, Y tn) n = 1, …, Nt} and
dY c Xc − . y . dx . (Xc − Xd)
X2 {(Xpn, Y pn) n = 1, …, Np}, respectively.
= − (47)
dXc Y2 x dy Having the tangent and perpendicular points, the distance from
Yc − 2 . y . dx . (Y c − Y d)
X the map and critical direction variables can easily be determined
using the formulas presented in Section 3.2.
Substituting dY c /dXc from (47) in (20) and (21), results in the
tangent and perpendicular points relationships respectively, as 4.3 Handover rate
follows:
The general procedure to find the handover rate was presented in
Y2 x dy 3.3.1. In this part, we present an analytical approach for finding the
Yc − Yi Xc − 2 . y . dx . (Xc − Xd)
= −
X
(48a) handover rate for D2D enabled network. As shown in (34), to
Xc − Xi Y2 x dy calculate RH, E[N] and E[T p] should be determined first.
Yc − . y . dx . (Y c − Y d)
X2 Based on the mode selection map derived for RR = RD and
RR = RC in pathloss channel case and E[RR] = E[RD] and
Y2 x dy
Yc − Yi Yc − . y . dx . (Y c − Y d) E[RR] = E[RC] in fading channel case, Fig. 6 shows the Cn zones
X2
= (48b) with different colors. Cn defines the region where if UEc moves
Xc − Xi Y2 x dy
Xc − 2 . y . dx . (Xc − Xd) from its current location to Cn, then TM for communication
X
between the D2D UEs changes n times. We note that depending on
dy/dx in above equations is calculated for the pathloss channel the UEc's location, the direction of movement, the transition length,
using (42) as follows: and the mode selection map's shape, the number of handovers for
D2D caused by UEc's movement, is different.
dy a′(x)y2 + b′(x)y + c′(x) As shown in Figs. 6a–d, as UEc moves in the direction shown
= − (49)
dx 2a(x)y + b(x) by the arrow, the maximum number of handovers are 4, 2, 3, and 4,
respectively. This depends on the transition length between two
where a′(x), b′(x), and c′(x) denote as derivation of (43a)–(43c), waypoints. In order to determine Cn, we need to compute the
respectively. intersection points of the moving UEc, as it moves from waypoint

IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185 2179

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 6  n handover regions
(a) RR = RD, (b) RR = RC, (c) E[RR] = E[RD], (d) E[RR] = E[RC]

(Xi, Y i) in the direction of θ, with the border shown for the two Using (53a)–(53c), the expected number of handovers for the
cases (two equations per case). For example for Fig. 6a, the part of movement from (Xi, Y i) in the direction of θ, as shown in (35) is
the line between the third and fourth intersection points, belongs to reformulated as
the C3.
Determining the Cn zones analytically is complex, therefore we Nc(θ)

use the fact that for a specific direction of movement, i.e. θ, for E[Nθ] = ∑ n . PC (θ)
n
(54)
n=1
UEc located in waypoint (Xi, Y i), depending on the transition
length, l, in one movement period, the next waypoint could be To compute the expected number of handovers for UEc located
located in any of Cns. Knowing (Xi, Y i) and θ, we can find the
in Xi, Y i we determine E[Nθ] over θ which is a random variable
intersection points with the border using (28). The set of
intersection points is {(Xcn(θ), Y cn(θ))}n = 1, …, Nc(θ), where Nc(θ) is the with uniform distribution over [0, 2π]. Presenting a close form for
PC0(θ), PCn(θ) for n = 1, …, Nc(θ) − 1, and PCNc(θ)(θ) as a function
maximum number of intersections when UEc moves in the
direction of θ. Then using (29), we find {rcn(θ)}n = 1, …, Nc(θ), i.e. the of θ is very complex, since it first requires calculation of
intersection points {(Xtn(θ), Y tn(θ)) n = 1, …, Nt(θ)}, which can not
distance of intersection points from (Xi, Y i). We assume that rcn(θ)s
be determined analytically. Therefore, to find the expected number
are ordered, that is for n, m ∈ {1, …, Nc(θ)} if n < m then
of handovers, we use discrete values of θ. We only apply the values
rcn(θ) < rcm(θ). The probability of UEc, being in Cn, in one of θ for which, if UEc takes those values as the direction of
movement period in direction of θ is denoted as PCn(θ) and is movement, it will intersect with the border. In other words for
calculated using (30) as follows: θ ∈ ∪n = 1, …, Nd ψ n, which ψ n is defined in (27). The discrete value
of θ is denoted as θkl and it is defined as
PC0(θ) = P(l < rc1(θ))
(53a)
= 1 − exp −λπrc21(θ) βl − αl
θkl = αl + k , k = 1, …, K and l = 1, …, Nd (55)
K+1
PCn(θ) = P(rcn(θ) < l < rc(n + 1)(θ))
n = 1, …, Nc(θ) − 1 where αl and βl are lower and upper bounds of ψ n in (27), and K is
2
= exp −λπrcn (θ) (53b) denoted as the total number of discrete directions in each
−exp −λπrc2(n + 1)(θ) ψ l = [αl, βl] interval.
It should be noted that for the values of
PCNc(θ)(θ) = P(rcNc(θ)(θ) < l) θ ∈ {[0, 2π] ∖ ∪n = 1, …, Nd ψ n}, E[Nθ] = 0, since UEc will not
2
(53c) intersect with the border and PCn(θ)n = 1, …, Nc(θ) = 0.
= exp −λπrcN c(θ)(θ)
The following probabilities are used later for developing
equations to find the expected number of handovers and sojourn
time:

2180 IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 βn − αn
P(θ ∈ ψ n) = (56a) ST = E[T] ⋅ P(θ ∈ {[0, 2π] ∪ ψ n})
2π n = 1, …, Nd
× PC0(θ θ ∈ {[0, 2π] ∪ ψ n})
P(θ ∈ {[0, 2π] ∪ ψ n}) = P(θ ∉ ∪ ψ n) n = 1, …, Nd (61a)
n = 1, …, Nd n = 1, …, Nd
Nd K
(56b)
+ ∑ P(θ ∈ ψ l) . ∑ P(θ = θkl) . PC (θkl)
N
∑n d= 1 βn − αn
=1− l=1 k=1
0
2π
N
Finally the expected number of handovers for UEc located in ∑n d= 1 βn − αn
= E[T] ⋅ 1 −
(Xi, Y i) is determined as 2π
Nd
(61b)
K
Nd K βl − αl 1
+∑ ⋅ ∑ PC0(θkl)
E[N] = ∑ P(θ ∈ ψ l) ⋅ ∑ P(θ = θkl) ⋅ E[Nθ ] kl l=1
2π k=1
K
l=1 k=1
Nd Nc(θkl)
(57)
K
βl − αl 1
= ∑ 2π
⋅ ∑ ⋅
K ∑ n . PCn(θkl) 5 Handover algorithm
l=1 k=1 n=1
In this section, we present a distance-based vertical handover
algorithm relying on results in Section 3.2. As discussed earlier the
where E[Nθkl] is substituted by (54). mode selection map specifies the geometrical borders where the
Another term that should be calculated to determine the overall throughput of the network in two different TMs are equal.
handover rate, is the expected value of the time period as defined in When UEc moves in the network it might pass the borders of the
(32). We assume that S ≡ 0 and UEc moves with a constant mode selection map. This is equivalent to the change in the TM for
velocity, V ≡ vc. Using (31)–(33), E[T p] is calculated as the D2D UEs. Such a transition should be determined by a
handover mechanism that could track the behaviour of UEc and
E[T p] = E[T] when executes the handover process.
= E[L/V] Our handover algorithm is summarised in Fig. 7. In this
flowchart, there is a predefined process that calculates the mode
=
1
2 λ Vv
1
∫
dPV(v) (58) selection map and periodically obtains the location updates, and
direction of movement denoted as (Xi, Y i) and θ, respectively.
1 These parameters are used to calculate the perpendicular points and
=
2vc λ intersection points by the algorithm. Moreover, there is another
process that estimates the processing time of handover as well as
Now the handover rate in (34) can be calculated using (57) and the velocity of UEc which are denoted as μ and V, respectively.
(58). These two parameters are used to calculate the distance threshold
We later perform a simulation for our test network presented in from the border, i.e. dpT = μ ⋅ V, and the running delay of the
Fig. 3 to find the handover rate for specific locations of UEc. algorithm, i.e. T d < μ.

4.4 Sojourn time

To find the sojourn time as defined in Section 3.3.2, we use (36).
The expected value of transition time, E[T] has already been
determined in (58). However, the second term in (36) denotes the
cumulative probability of UEc moving from the first waypoint
(Xi, Y i) to the second waypoint without a handover. If we assume
that UEc moves in the direction of θ, this probability is equal to
PC0(θ) as defined in (53a). The sojourn time in the direction of θ
then is derived from (36) as follows:

STθ = E[T] ⋅ PC0(θ) (59)

To compute the average sojourn time in (Xi, Y i), we should find

the expected value of STθ over all possible values of θ. For the
direction of movement of θ ∈ {[0, 2π] ∖ ∪n = 1, …, Nd ψ n}, as ψ n
presented in (27), UEc does not intersect with the border. Hence for
these values of θ, we can substitute rc1(θ) = ∞ in (53a) for PC0(θ)

PC0(θ θ ∈ {[0, 2π] ∪ ψ n}) = P(L < ∞)

n = 1, …, Nd (60a)
=1

For any θ that θ ∈ ∪n = 1, …, Nd ψ n, there exists at least one

intersection with the border. Again due to the complexity of finding
a close form expression for PC0(θ) as a function of θ, discrete
values of θ, i.e. θkl as defined in (55) are used. To determine
PC0(θkl), (53a) is used. Finally, the sojourn time for UEc located in
(Xi, Y i) is as follows:

Fig. 7  Distance-based handover mechanism

IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185 2181

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Table 1 Simulation parameters
Parameter
cell radius (rC)
UEs's position (Xs, Y s)
UEd's position (Xd, Y d)
UE's maximum power (Pc, Ps, Pd)
eNB's maximum power (Pe)
Pathloss exponent (α)
Processing time ( μ)
Velocity (V )
Average transition length (E[L])
Number of steps
σs2
σz2
Fig. 8  Handover for the moving UEc when the TM to be selected is either the reuse or cellular
(a) Mobility of UEc and handover, (b) Zoom on handover area
The algorithm is executed periodically every T d units of time.
Provided the mode selection map and (Xi, Y i), the algorithm starts
by first finding the perpendicular points, i.e. {(Xpn, Y pn)}n = 1, …, Np by
solving (48b). Then the resulting coordinates are substituted in (22)
to determine the distance set, H. Then the distance of UEc from the
map, i.e. dp, is computed using (23). The algorithm then checks if
dp < dpT. This condition checks the proximity of the moving UEc
with respect to the borders of the mode selection map. If the
condition is satisfied then, the mobility management entity checks
if the moving UEc intersects with the border when it moves in the
direction of θ by solving (28) and finding the solutions as
{(Xcn(θ), Y cn(θ))}n = 1, …, Nc(θ). The handover starts only when this
equation has at least one solution, i.e. Nc(θ) > 0, meaning UEc
intersects with the border. The last condition ensures that even if
the moving UEc is close to the border of the map, the handover
would not be applied until an intersection with a border is seen. If
any of the two conditions are not satisfied, the algorithm is
repeated in T d units of time.
6 Numerical results
In this section we present first our simulation results for using the
handover algorithm presented in Section 5. Then we evaluate the
performance of the algorithm using the performance metrics
defined in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. We assume that UEs an UEd are
static. Moreover the transmission power of UEs and eNB is
considered to be constant.
First, we apply the handover algorithm in two different
scenarios where TM is selected between the (i) reuse or cellular
2182
Value
3 Km
(250, 250)
(0, 300)
23 dBm
46 dBm
3 (for urban areas)
1 s
5 m/s
50 m
10
7 dB (for fading channel)
1 dB (for fading channel)
modes, and (ii) reuse or dedicated modes. For both scenarios we
apply the parameters presented in Table 1.
We assume that UEc starts moving from (Xc, Y c) = (1, 1) and
takes 10 steps using the RWP model as described in Section 2.3
and 3.3 with E[L] = 50m. We also assume that UEc velocity is
constant, V = 5m/s. The simulation results for scenarios 1 and 2,
are shown in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively. Based on the parameter
values in Table 1, the distance threshold is calculated to be
dpT = μ ⋅ V = (1 s) . (5 m/s) = 5m.
Fig. 8a, shows simulation result of the handover algorithm
when the movement of the UEc causes TM changes between the
reuse and cellular for the D2D UEs. As observed in this scenario
UEc intersects with the borders of mode selection map in several
points. A larger view of the intersection part is shown in Fig. 8b.
The dashed lines show the distance between the UEc locations and
the border when it is less than the threshold (dp < dpT). For each of
these UEc locations, the algorithm checks if during the next T d
units of time, UEc intersects with the border. If there is at least one
intersection the handover is applied. In the figure, these handovers
are indicated by the cyan color of the UEc trajectory. If the
handover is not performed, the trajectory color remains black.
The same explanation stands for the simulation results
presented in Figs. 9a and b. In this scenario, the mode selection is
between the reuse and dedicated modes. Considering the same
movement pattern as applied in the previous case, the moving UEc
causes only one handover, i.e. it intersects with the border in one
point.
To evaluate the performance of our handover algorithm we use
the metrics presented in Sections 4.3 and 4.4. The handover rate
and sojourn time are location-based functions with values
IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 9  Handover for the moving UEc when the TM to be selected is either the reuse or dedicated
(a) Mobility of UEc and handover, (b) Zoom on handover area

Fig. 10  Waypoints and their distance from the border

(a) Mode selection map and the first waypoint of the moving UEc – pathloss channel, (b) Distance of the waypoint from the map – pathloss channel, (c) Mode selection map and the
first waypoint of the moving UEc – fading channel, (d) Distance of the waypoint from the map – fading channel

dependent on the first waypoint. For simplicity, we consider a
simulation scenario where UEc's first waypoint could be any point
on y-axis between 0 and 250 m. This is shown in Figs. 10a and c
for pathloss and fading channels, respectively, where the blue line
represents the set of locations for first waypoint. Figs. 10b and d
shows the distance of each waypoint from the border for the two
cases where channel is pathloss or fading.
Having mode selection map defined, for each waypoint on y-
axis, denoted as Y c0, with its value changing between 0 and 250,
the handover rate is calculated using (34), (57), and (58). For
sojourn time (61b) is used. We take K = 30 discrete values of
θ ∈ ψ n. All other initialisation parameters remain the same as in
Table 1. The simulation results corresponding to the performance
metrics of the algorithm are shown in Fig. 11.
As can be seen from Fig. 11a, for the curve related to RR = RC,
the handover rate increases with a low slope until Y c0 ≃ 80.
Referring to Fig. 10b, we realise that this is the point where the
distance from the border, dp is minimum. For Y c0 > 80, the
handover rate decreases, and limYc0 → ∞ RH = 0. For the curve
related to RR = RD, the handover rate increases slightly until
Y c0 ≃ 25. This is close to the first intersection point of the blue line
in Fig. 10a with the border which corresponds to dp ≃ 0. After this
point, the handover rate decreases sharply until it reaches a local
minimum at Y c0 ≃ 100. Then again the handover rate increases
until Y c0 ≃ 210 where dp ≃ 0 and the blue line intersects with the
border. Between these two intersections dp starts from zero and
after reaching a maximum arrives at zero again at the other
intersection, as seen in Fig. 10a. Finally when Y c0 exceeds 210, the
handover rate declines sharply. One difference between the two
handover curves for RR = RC and RR = RD, is that the latter comes
with sharp changes and higher values for handover rate, however
the former changes smoothly. This is due to the fact that the
waypoint line in the latter intersects with the border, which causes

IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185 2183

© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 11  Performance metrics of the handover algorithm
(a) Handover rate – pathloss channel, (b) Sojourn time – pathloss channel, (c) Handover rate – fading channel, (d) Sojourn time – fading channel
the handover rate to abruptly inrease as one get closer to border
points. The same explanation is valid for handover rate derived for
the fading case shown in Fig. 11c.
Fig. 11b shows the sojourn time as the other performance
metric of the handover algorithm. By comparing curves in Fig. 11b
with the results in Fig. 11a, it is seen that the changes in sojourn
time follow the opposite changes in handover rate. In other words,
when the handover rate increases the sojourn time decreases and
vice versa. This behaviour can be explained also from Fig. 10b.
When dp decreases it means that the waypoint gets closer to the
border, therefore the handover rate increases but the sojourn time
decreases since the average time that UEc moves without TM
change to the D2D UEs is reduced. However, when dp increases,
the handover rate decreases and the sojourn time increases. This is
because with higher distance from the border, when the velocity is
constant, UEc moves further without intersecting with the border.
The same explanation is valid for sojourn time derived for the
fading case shown in Fig. 11d.
To validate our analytical calculation of the handover rate and
sojourn time, for each specific point on the blue line in Fig. 10a,
we place UEc there and we generate a random direction, θ, and
transition distance, L, based on their distribution and the
probabilistic characteristics as summarised in Table 1. Then using
(28) we calculate the intersection points and their total number.
Having these values, the handover rate and sojourn time are
calculated using (34) and (36), respectively. We iterate this
procedure for the current location 106 times and then we average
out over the resulted values for handover rate and sojourn time. By
applying these steps for all points on the blue line, we obtained the
simulation results shown in Figs. 11a–d. These results validate the
analytical results.
7 Conclusion
In this paper, we address the problem of vertical handover in D2D
enabled 5G networks. Due to cellular UE's movement, the optimal
TM between the D2D UEs may be changed in order to maximise
the overall network throughput. We generate the mode selection
map of a D2D enabled network and use the distance between the
cellular UE and its trajectory intersection with the region border as
a decision parameter in the handover algorithm. Using this
parameter, we develop a vertical handover algorithm. Then to
2184
evaluate the performance of the handover, we analytically derive
handover rate and sojourn time for a D2D enabled network. We
consider a scenario where the first waypoint of the moving cellular
UE is located on the y-axis and present the performance metrics
when the first waypoint changes. We noticed that the handover rate
increases as the first waypoint gets closer to the border and
decreases as the first waypoint gets farther from the border. The
behaviour of the sojourn time is opposite of the handover rate and
has a direct relation to the distance of the waypoint from the map.
The proposed analytical approach provides precise borders of
different regions with significantly smaller execution time when
compared with relevant numerical approaches proposed in the
literature.
8 References
[1] Asadi, A., Wang, Q., Mancuso, V.: ‘A survey on device-to-device
communication in cellular networks’, IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor., 2014, 16,
(4), pp. 1801–1819
[2] Mumtaz, S., Rodriguez, J.: ‘Smart device to Smart device communication’
(Springer, United States, 2014)
[3] Song, L., Niyato, D., Han, Z., et al.: ‘Wireless device-to-device
communications and networks’ (Cambridge University Press, United States,
2015), Cambridge Books Online.
[4] Panagopoulos, A.D.: ‘Handbook of research on next generation mobile
communication systems’ (IGI Global, United States, 2015)
[5] Doppler, K., Yu, C., Ribeiro, C.B., et al.: ‘Mode selection for device-to-device
communication underlaying an LTE-Advanced network’. 2010 IEEE Wireless
Communication and Networking Conference, Sydney, NSW, 2010, pp. 1–6
[6] Liu, Z., Peng, T., Xiang, S., et al.: ‘Mode selection for device-to-device (d2d)
communication under LTE-advanced networks’. 2012 IEEE Int. Conf. on in
Communications (ICC), Ottawa, ON, June 2012, pp. 5563–5567
[7] ElSawy, H., Hossain, E., Alouini, M.S.: ‘Analytical modeling of mode
selection and power control for underlay d2d communication in cellular
networks’, IEEE Trans. Commun., 2014, 62, (11), pp. 4147–4161
[8] Feng, D., Yu, G., Xiong, C., et al.: ‘Mode switching for energy-efficient
device-to-device communications in cellular networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel.
Commun., 2015, 14, (12), pp. 6993–7003
[9] Wang, L., Tang, H.: ‘Device-to-device communications in cellular networks’
(Springer, United States, 2016)
[10] Huang, Y., Nasir, A.A., Durrani, S., et al.: ‘Mode selection, resource
allocation, and power control for D2D-enabled two-tier cellular network’,
IEEE Trans. Commun., 2016, 64, (8), pp. 3534–3547
[11] Tang, H., Ding, Z.: ‘Mixed mode transmission and resource allocation for
D2D communication’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2016, 15, (1), pp. 162–
175
[12] Akyildiz, I.F., McNair, J., Ho, J.S.M., et al.: ‘Mobility management in next-
generation wireless systems’, Proc. IEEE, 1999, 87, (8), pp. 1347–1384
IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
[13] Lin, X., Ganti, R.K., Fleming, P.J., et al.: ‘Towards understanding the
fundamentals of mobility in cellular networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun.,
2013, 12, (4), pp. 1686–1698
[14] Raghothaman, B., Deng, E., Pragada, R., et al.: ‘Architecture and protocols
for lte-based device to device communication’. 2013 Int. Conf. Computing,
Networking, and Communications (ICNC), San Diego, CA, January 2013, pp.
895–899
[15] Chen, H.Y., Shih, M.J., Wei, H.Y.: ‘Handover mechanism for device-to-device
communication’. 2015 IEEE Conf. on Standards for Communications and
Networking (CSCN), Tokyo, October 2015, pp. 72–77
[16] Bar-Noy, A., Kessler, I., Sidi, M.: ‘Mobile users: to update or not to update?’.
13th Proc. IEEE Networking for Global Communications (INFOCOM '94),
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, June 1994, vol. 2, pp. 570–576
[17] Morattab, A., Dziong, Z., Sohraby, K., et al.: ‘Mobility impact on mode
selection map in d2d networks - an analytical approach’. 2016 IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conference, Doha, 2016, pp. 1–6
[18] Morattab, A., Dziong, Z., Sohraby, K., et al.: ‘An optimal MIMO mode
selection method for d2d transmission in cellular networks’. 2015 IEEE 11th
Int. Conf. on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and
Communications (WiMob), Abu Dhabi, October 2015, pp. 392–398
IET Commun., 2019, Vol. 13 Iss. 14, pp. 2173-2185
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
[19] Yilmaz, O.N.C., Li, Z., Valkealahti, K., et al.: ‘Smart mobility management
for D2D communications in 5G networks’. 2014 IEEE Wireless
Communications and Networking Conf. Workshops (WCNCW), Istanbul,
April 2014, pp. 219–223
[20] Orsino, A., Gapeyenko, M., Militano, L., et al.: ‘Assisted handover based on
device-to-device communications in 3GPP LTE systems’. 2015 IEEE
Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), San Diego, CA, December 2015, pp. 1–
6
[21] Jarray, C., Giovanidis, A.: ‘The effects of mobility on the hit performance of
cached d2d networks’. 2016 14th Int. Symp. on Modeling and Optimization in
Mobile, Ad Hoc, and Wireless Networks (WiOpt), Tempe, AZ, May 2016, pp.
1–8
[22] Xu, X., Zhang, Y., Sun, Z., et al.: ‘Analytical modeling of mode selection for
moving d2d-enabled cellular networks’, IEEE Commun. Lett., 2016, 20, (6),
pp. 1203–1206
[23] Sklar, B.: ‘Rayleigh fading channels in mobile digital communication
systems. I. characterization’, IEEE Commun. Mag., 1997, 35, (9), pp. 136–
146
2185