Energy-Efficient Scheduling Algorithms for
Real-Time Data Reporting in 4G LTE
Machine-to-Machine Communication Networks
Po-Chun Shen and Shun-Ren Yang
Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Inst. of Commun. Eng.
National Tsing Hua University
Hsinchu, Taiwan
sryang@cs.nthu.edu.tw
Abstract—Machine-to-machine (M2M) communications pro-
tocols, e.g., Machine Type Communications (MTC) in 3GPP LTE,
support a variety of Machine to Machine (M2M) applications,
which requires real-time data reporting. Many uplink scheduling
algorithms are primarily designed for human-to-human applica-
tions rather than for M2M applications. These scheduling algo-
rithms typically are based on the fact that the machines in MTC
are battery-powered and aim to reduce the energy consumption.
We notice that the current literature considers either the problem
of sleep-time maximization or transmission power minimization,
but not both. In this paper, we systematically consider all energy-
consumption factors of M2M real-time reporting. Using MTC in
LTE as an example for M2M communications, in this paper, we
propose two energy-efficient scheduling algorithms to minimize
the total energy consumption of machines for M2M communica-
tions. The two proposed algorithms utilize the distance between
a machine and the serving eNB (i.e., base station in LTE). Our
performance study shows that our algorithms have performance
enhancement in terms of energy consumption compared to other
algorithms in the previous works. Furthermore, our algorithms
can maintain high scheduling success ratio and fairness.
Keywords—Energy efficiency, LTE, machine-to-machine
(M2M), real-time data reporting
I. I NTRODUCTION
Machine-to-machine (M2M) communications enables net-
worked machines to exchange information and exercise with-
out human intervention. Examples of M2M applications in-
clude the remote monitoring, e.g., environment monitoring, e-
health, smart grid, public surveillance, and positive train con-
trol. Real-time data reporting is one of the major functionalities
in M2M applications, where more than one type of sensing
data (e.g., temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind
speed, direction, etc.) are reported during a predefined time
period. The sensing data is usually time-sensitive, i.e., if the
data cannot be received by the M2M application server on
time, it becomes useless.
One of the M2M communication protocols is the 4G long-
term evolution (LTE) Machine Type Communications (MTC)
that satisfies the requirements for M2M real-time reporting
applications. In LTE MTC, machines transmit sensing data to a
base station (i.e., eNB) via LTE uplink channels. The previous
works proposed a variety of uplink scheduling algorithms
for 4G LTE; however, the majority of these were designed
978-1-5090-0304-4/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE 1057
Phone Lin
Dept. of Comp. Sci. & Info. Eng.
National Taiwan University
Taipei, Taiwan
plin@csie.ntu.edu.tw
for human-to-human applications. Only a small portion of
LTE uplink scheduling algorithms were designed for M2M
applications [1], [2], [3], and they typically were based on
the fact that the machines are battery-powered (i.e., power
is limited), and aimed to reduce the energy consumption of
machines for M2M communications.
The aforementioned studies of M2M uplink scheduling can
be divided into two categories. The studies [1], [2] aimed
to minimize the active slots of the machines, so that the
sleep mode can be as long as possible. However, they did
not consider the difference in transmission power when dif-
ferent resource blocks (RBs) are utilized to transmit data. The
study [3] aimed at the power allocation problem for a machine
to transmit data over physical channels. Specifically, the RBs
allocated for the data transmission affect the energy con-
sumption of signal transmission, so that the data transmission
should be allocated with the RBs that have optimal channel
quality. We notice that no previous study has considered the
problem of sleep-time maximization and transmission power
minimization at the same time. Therefore, energy efficiency
may not be accurately reflected. In other words, when the
distance between a machine and the serving eNB is long,
the transmission energy consumption accounts for a larger
proportion of total energy consumption. In contrast, sleep-
time maximization is more important for reducing energy
consumption when the distance is short. Therefore, the two
issues should be considered simultaneously.
In this paper, we systematically consider the above energy-
consumption factors (including signal transmissions and ma-
chine operations in different modes/states) for M2M real-time
reporting over 4G LTE as shown in Fig. 1. The corresponding
discussion will be elaborated in subsequent sections. We pro-
pose two energy-efficient scheduling algorithms to minimize
total energy consumption of the machines to transmit the
sensing reports to the eNB via LTE uplink channels. We design
the two algorithms by considering the distance between the
machines and the eNB. The first algorithm is for use when
the distance is long, and it aims to reduce energy consumption
when the machines to transmit their data. When the distance
is longer, a larger proportion of overall energy consumption is
for transmitting data. The first proposed algorithm is proposed
to reduce total energy consumption for this case. The second
proposed algorithm is applied when the distance is short, and it
 energy consumption for B. Channel Model
signal transmissions
resource The present study implemented algorithms in M2M com-
block
munication networks that will have heavy traffic load. In order
allocated RB to maximum transmission efficiency, we assumed that each
sleep mode node transmitted its data with the best MCS. In other words, we
active mode: idle state
chose the modulation coding scheme that mapped to a channel
quality indicator value of 15. Therefore, we could transmit
active mode: transmit state more data when the frequency was limited. Using this MCS,
we could find the number of the RB needed to transmit for
subframe
a node in a reporting period. Node n is allocated a transport
block (TB), which consists of several RBs, of sn bits. For a
energy consumption for given sn and the MCS, the number of RBs can be found as
machine operations at different modes/states  
sn
x= , (1)
Fig. 1. Energy-Consumption Factors of M2M Real-Time Reporting over 4G ε×b
LTE
where ε is equal to the number of symbols in a subframe
multiplied by the number of the subcarriers in an RB, b is the
M2M node n
subframes spectral efficiency of the MCS, and 1 ≤ n ≤ N .
Type 1 sensor N M2M nodes 1 1 1
煑 The block error rate (BLER) is the average failure rate
PUSCH1 2 2 2
Type m sensor of TBs. To our knowledge, there are no analytical solutions
PUSCH2 3 3 3
煑 to compute the BLER. Therefore, a computationally efficient
PUSCH3 RBs
Type Mn sensor 4 4 4 method is called least-squares approximation, which is in
煑 煑 煑 煑 [3]. [3] also proves least-squares approximation which closely
Type m M2M data
PUSCHN K-1 K-1 K-1
eNB approximates the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as
Size: sn,m
K K K
Reporting period: rn, m γn,ef f ≈ ax exp(bx sn ) − γ0,x . (2)

Fig. 2. SC-FDMA Shared Channel
aims to reduce the number of the active slots for the machines.
Note that the second algorithm also determines whether it is
worth for the machine to go into the sleep mode, or just stay in
the idle state of the active mode. The experimental results show
that our algorithms have better performance (i.e., less energy
consumption) than the previous algorithms. Furthermore, our
algorithms can also maintain high scheduling success ratio and
fairness, whose definitions will be elaborated later.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. Simplified SC-FDMA MAC Model
Fig. 2 shows the simplified MAC model of a multiuser
single-carrier frequency-division multiple access (SC-FDMA)
system that was used for uplink in 3GPPs LTE. Each M2M
node has access to a single physical uplink shared channel for
transmission of its uplink data. There are N M2M nodes and
an eNB within a single cell. The cell spectrum consists of K
RBs, each with 12 subcarriers, and 14 symbols in a subframe.
It was assumed that the system operated in frequency division
duplexed mode. For the purpose of the present study, we
also assumed that inter-cell interference was negligible. SC-
FDMA is employed in LTE uplink and in our system model.
Unlike in orthogonal frequency-division multiple access, in
SC-FDMA only adjacent sub-carrier blocks (RBs) can be
allocated to a given station at one time. In addition, the data
relating to individual nodes are further limited, such that the
use a common modulation coding scheme (MCS) mode per
subframe.
The ax , bx and γ0,x are given in [3] for BLER = 10%. Using
the above function, along with channel estimates, it is easy to
obtain the required applied power to achieve a target block
error rate.
C. Power Consumption
When a node transmits the data, it needs to consume power
for the signal transmission. For giving BLER = 10% and [3],
we can calculate now the node’s effective SNR (γn,ef f ) from
Eq. (2). According to Eq. (2), we can translate the unit of
SNR from db to SNR rate as γ. In [4], the power of the signal
transmission would be considered as
N × Lp (D)
P0 = γ × , (3)
|q|2
where P0 is transmission power, q is the channel gain, N is
noise power and Lp (D) is the path loss between the eNB and
the node.
In addition to the nodes signal transmission power, a node
also needs extra power to run. The node can be in awake mode
or sleep mode. Awake mode is divided into two states. The first
of these is transmit state, in which the node transmits data, and
the second is idle state in which the node does not transmit
data. When the node is in sleep state, it will turn off its radio
frequency (RF) and consume less power. We define Pt , Pi ,
Ps to represent a node’s power consumption of transmit state,
idle state and sleep state. In addition, if a node needs to wake
up to transmit the data when it is sleeping, it should power on
all relative modules. Thus, the node will consume more power.
We considered power consumption Pw of a node that transfers
its state from sleep state to transmit state.

1058
 III. E NERGY-E FFICIENCY S CHEDULING P ROBLEM
In this section, we describe the energy consumption prob-
lem when the eNB schedules the data of the M2M nodes, and
we made two assumptions. First, as the size of sensory data is
extremely small and the data must be transmitted immediately,
we ignored the time it takes for the M2M nodes to collect
the data. Second, we assumed that each piece of sensory
data cannot be segmented into smaller segments to avoid data
reassembling overhead.
A. M2M Communication Network Architecture
The M2M communication network architecture is shown in
Fig. 2. N M2M nodes that connect to an eNB. Node n has Mn
data types and data type m has size sn,m and reporting period
rn,m . We define an observation cycle T which represents the
scheduling cycle of the eNB. We set the scheduling observation
cycle as the least common multiple of all of the data’s reporting
periods. In an observation cycle T , the data will be transmitted
several times. We use dn,m,p to represent the pth data of the
data type m collected in the node n.
B. Problem Formulation
The present study proposed a scheduling algorithm to
minimize energy consumption when M2M nodes transmit their
sensory data to eNB. For node n, we defined that E n (f )
represents the energy consumption within subframe f and let
Etn (f ), Ei and Es be the energy consumption when the node
n is in the transmit state, idle state, and sleep state, and let Ew
be the energy consumption of a transition from sleep state to
transmit state. Note that the value of Ei , Es and Ew are fixed
for a node, but the value of Etn (f ) is dynamic. Accordingly, the
energy consumption for node n in subframe f can be expressed
as
E n (f ) = Etn (f )×αnt (f )+Ei ×αni (f )+Es ×αns (f )+Ew ×αnw (f ), (i.e.,
(4) algorithms to reduce the total energy consumption of the
where αnt (f ), αni (f ), αns (f ), and αnw (f ) are the indication nodes. The first was designed for reducing signal transmission
functions. If node n is in transmit state within subframe f ,
n n n
αt (f ) = 1, αi (f ) = 0 and αs (f ) = 0. If node n is in
n n
idle state within subframe f , αi (f ) = 1, αt (f ) = 0 and
αns (f ) = 0. If node n is in sleep state within subframe f ,
n n n
αs (f ) = 1 and αt (f ) = 0 and αi (f ) = 0. In addition,
if node n experiences a state transition (from sleep state to
n
transmit state) from subframe f −1 to subframe f , αw (f ) = 1,
n
otherwise αw (f ) = 0.
Furthermore, Ei = Pi × tf , Es = Ps × tf and Ew =
Pw × tf , where tf is the time of a subframe. In particular,
Etn (f ) consists of the energy consumption of the transmission
state and the energy consumption of the signal transmission.
Therefore, Etn (f ) can be expressed as
K
n
X short transmission deadline first. When the data has the same
Et (f ) = Pt × tf + Pn,k (f ) × tf × βn,k (f ), (5)
k=1
where Pn,k (f ) is the power consumption of node n for signal
transmission when the k th resource block is allocated to node
n within subframe f and its value is according to equation
(3), and βn,k (f ) is a binary indicator to represent if the data
of the node n is allocated in resource block k within subframe
f . The indicator βn,k (f ) is equal to 0 if the resource block is
1059
not allocated to a given node and 1 if it is for transmission.
Based on equation (4) and (5), the objective function can be
formulated as
XT XN
min E n (f ) (6)
f =1 n=1
1) Allocation Constraint: As the frequency is limited, the
number of the RB is stationary in a subframe. Therefore, the
amount of RBs that are allocated to the nodes cannot exceed
the amount of RBs in a subframe. Thus, this constraint can be
formulated as
K
N X
X
βn,k (f ) ≤ K, ∀f ∈ {1, 2, ..., T }. (7)
n=1 k=1
2) Contiguity Constraint: Additionally, SC-FDMA is lim-
ited to RB allocations in contiguity. As a result, we can
formulate the contiguity constraint as
βn,k (f )−βn,k+1 (f )+βn,x (f ) ≤ 1, ∀f ∈ {1, 2, ..., T }, x = k+2, ..., K.
(8)
3) Real-Time Packet Constraint: The sensory data must be
collected before their deadline, otherwise they will be dropped.
Therefore, we formulated the real-time packet constraint as
(p−1)·rn,m < tn,m,p ≤ p·rn,m , ∀n, m, p ∈ {1, 2, ..., (T /rn,m )}.
(9)
IV. S CHEDULING A LGORITHMS
In order to extend the life time of the nodes, we supposed
minimization Eq. (6). Eq. (6) consists of two kinds of energy
consumption:
PK 1) signal transmission energy consumption (i.e.,
P n,k (f )×t f ×βn,k (f )) and 2) state energy consumption
k=1
Pt × tf + Ei + Es + Ew ). We proposed two scheduling
energy consumption. Therefore, Algorithm 1 selects the RB
with the better channel quality. The second algorithm was
designed for reducing the active subframes. Thus, Algorithm 2
allocates the data of the same node to the same subframe, and
more frequently makes the nodes go into sleep or idle state.
Therefore, a node will consume less energy.
A. The First Energy-Efficiency Scheduling Algorithm
1) Concept of Algorithm 1: In order to minimize the energy
PK of the M2M nodes, we propose Algorithm 1 to
consumption
reduce k=1 Pn,k (f ) × tf × βn,k (f ). First, this algorithm
decides the scheduling order, according to the sensory data’s
reporting period and size. Algorithm 1 schedules the data with
transmission deadline, the order of the large data are ordered
before the small data. Therefore, this can not only satisfy
the datas transmission deadline, but also increase the nodes
throughput. Next, Algorithm 1 must choose the specific RB
that consumes less energy for allocating the data. Algorithm
1 will thoroughly search every possible combination of RBs.
When allocating the data, Algorithm 1 should follow some
principles.
 Algorithm 1 Algorithm 2 to illustrate Phase 2 of the Algorithm 1. We assume that
(a) (e) there are only seven RBs in a subframe and allocate
node data type reporting period data size RB node data type reporting period data size RB d1,1,1 to the RBs first. We found the possible options
1 2 subframes 4000 bits 5 RB
1
2 6 subframes 1600 bits 2 RB
1
1
2
2 subframes
6 subframes
6400 bits
1600 bits
8 RB
2 RB
for d1,1,1 , as shown in Fig. 3(c) and allocate d1,1,1 to
2
1 3 subframes 1600 bits 2 RB 1 2 subframes 2400 bits 3 RB an option with less energy. Note that 1) each allocation
2 6 subframes 2400 bits 3 RB 2 2 3 subframes 3200 bits 4 RB
3 1 12 subframes 3200 bits 4 RB 3 6 subframes 2400 bits 3 RB
of the nodes should follow the contiguity constraint, and
2) energy consumption will increase when the allocation
(b) observation cycle=lcm(2,3,6,12)=12 (f) observation cycle=lcm(2,3,6)=6
causes the node to consume the energy of transmit state
(Pt × tf ). Finally, all of the data were allocated, as shown
d1,1,1 d1,1,2 d1,1,3
d2,2,1
d1,1,4 ... d1,1,1 d1,1,2 d1,1,3
in Fig. 3(d).
d2,1,1 d1,2,1 d2,1,2 d2,1,3
d2,1,1 d2,2,1 d2,1,2 d2,2,2 d2,1,3 d2,3,1
2 3 4 6 8 9 2 3 4 6
d1,2,1 Phase 3 “State Deciding”: In this phase, after allocation of
(c) (g) (1) resource block
all of the sensory data, we determined the state of the
resource block
nodes. In Fig. 3(d), for node 2, subframe 2, 6, 7, 9 and 12
d1,1,1 d2,2,1 d1,1,2 d2,2,2 d1,1,3
must be in transmit state because node 2 has to transmit
d2,1,1 d2,1,2 d2,1,3 subframe
data. Node 2 will be in sleep state within the subframes
d2,3,1
that do not transmit the data, and it is worth consuming
(2) d1,2,1 (3)
1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 the switching power (Pw ). In addition, node 2 will be in
subframe d2,3,1 idle state within other subframes. Therefore, subframe 1,
(d)
resource block
d1,1,1 d2,2,1 d1,1,2d2,2,2 d1,1,3 d1,1,1d2,2,1 d1,1,2d2,2,2 d1,1,3
d1,2,1 7, 10, 11 are in idle state and subframe 3, 4, 5 are in
d2,1,3
d2,1,1 d2,1,2 d2,1,3 d2,1,1 d2,1,2 d2,1,3 sleep state.
d2,2,1
d1,1,2 d3,1,1 d1,1,5d1,1,6 (h) resource block
d1,1,4
d2,1,1
d1,1,1
d1,2,1
d1,1,3 d2,2,1
d2,1,3 B. The Second Energy-Efficiency Scheduling Algorithm
d2,1,2 d1,2,1
d1,1,1 d2,2,1 d1,1,2 d2,2,2 d1,1,3

for
node 2 transmit state idle state
Fig. 3. Scheduling Algorithm
1) As the sensory data are renewed after their reporting
period, they should be scheduled before their deadline.
2) The data will be allocated in a subframe that has sufficient
continuous RBs (follow the SC-FDMA requirement that
is used in LTE uplink), otherwise the data cannot be
allocated.
3) Allocate the data in an RB combination that consumes
less energy. The energy consumption includes 1) signal
transmission energy and 2) the transmit state energy
(Pt × Tf ) when the node’s data are allocated to this
combination’s subframe.
Finally, after all of data is allocated, Algorithm 1 decides the
state (transmit state, idle state and sleep state) in each subframe
of the nodes.
2) The Proposed Algorithm 1: This is composed of three
phases. An example from phase 1 to 3 in Fig. 3(a)-(d).
Phase 1 “Data Sorting”: In this phase, the observation cy-
cle is determined, the sensory data are sorted, and the
scheduling order of the data is decided. The sorting rules
are:
1) Sort the sensory data in increasing order of their
transmission deadline.
2) Sort the sensory data with the same transmission
deadline in decreasing order of size.
On the basis of Fig. 3(a), the observation cycle T =
lcm(2, 3, 6, 12) and the sensory data are sorted as
Fig. 3(b).
Phase 2 “Resource Block Choosing”: We take Fig. 3(b),
which has already been sorted by Phase 1, as an example
d2,1,1 d2,1,2
d1,2,1
d2,1,3 subframe
Algorithm 1 was dedicated to allocating the data to RBs
sleep state
for node 1
that consume less energy, and it searches all the possible com-
binations of RBs. Therefore, Algorithm 1 is highly complex. In
addition, the distance between the eNB and the node will affect
the energy consumption of the RB. We proposed a second
algorithm to overcome the issues that are mentioned above
1) Concept of Algorithm 2: From our knowledge and
equation (3), if the distance between the eNB and the node is
long, the node needs more power to transmit the sensory data
to eNB than if the distance is short and vice versa. Therefore,
when the distance between the eNB and the node is short, the
sum of Pt × tf , Ei , Es and Ew accounts for a large proportion
of the total energy consumption in a node. We may accordingly
allocate the data of the same node to the same subframe when
the distance is short. Thus, the node can avoid waking up in
a new subframe and consuming Pt × tf .
We proposed Algorithm 2 to reduce the total state energy
consumption, when the distance between the nodes and the
eNB is short. First, this algorithm sorts the data and decides the
scheduling order. The data with a short transmission deadline
will be scheduled first. When the transmission deadline is
the same, the data of bigger size will be sorted before the
data of smaller size. Second, Algorithm 2 attempts to allocate
the data to a suitable subframe. In order to minimize the
energy consumption of the nodes, Algorithm 2 reduces the total
amount of active subframes. The allocation has the following
two possible scenarios:
Case 1: To reduce the active subframes, Algorithm 2 allocates
dn,m,p to the subframes which node n has been scheduled.
In addition, if there are several subframes which the
node has been scheduled, Algorithm 2 will select the
subframe that has minimum remaining RBs. Thus, we
more efficiently used the RBs.
Case 2: If the subframes in which node n has been sched-
uled do not have sufficient RBs for dn,m,p to allocate,
Algorithm 2 can only select the subframes which node n
has not been scheduled and those subframes are before

1060
 the deadline of dn,m,p . dn,m,p will be allocated to the
subframe that has maximum remaining resource blocks.
Thus, node n has a higher probability of allocating its
other data to that subframe and avoiding transmission of
data in another subframe.
In addition to deciding the subframe to which the data are
allocated, the algorithm must also allocate the data to specific
RBs. Nevertheless, when the distance is short, the gap of the
RB’s energy consumption between great channel quality and
poor channel quality is low. We may allocate the data to the
RBs randomly, not thoroughly. According to the strategies
above, Algorithm 2 is far less complex than Algorithm 1.
Finally, Algorithm 2 decides the state of the subframe for each
node.
2) The Proposed Algorithm 2: This is composed of three
phases. An example from phase 1 to 3 for Algorithm 2 is
shown in Fig. 3(e)-(h).
Phase 1 “Data Sorting”: In this phase, Algorithm 2 is the
same as Algorithm 1.
Phase 2 “Subframe Choosing”: Fig. 3(f), which has already
been sorted by Phase 1, can be taken as an example
to illustrate Phase 2 of Algorithm 2. According to the
strategies above, Algorithm 2 allocates the data to the
same node within the same subframe. Therefore, we can
see the result before d2,3,1 is as shown in Fig. 3(g)-(1).
When deciding the transmission time of d2,3,1 , d2,3,1 may
be allocated within subfames 2, 4, and 6. Furthermore, to
more efficiently use the bandwidth, d2,3,1 was allocated
to the subframe with the minimum remaining RBs, which
was subframe 2 as shown in Fig. 3(g)-(2).
In addition, if the sensory data can not be scheduled
within the subframe which the sensory data’s node has
been scheduled, like d1,2,1 . Algorithm 2 allocates d1,2,1 to
the subframe with the maximum remaining RBs. Finally,
the algorithm allocate d1,2,1 to subframe 6 as shown in
Fig. 3(g)-(3).
Phase 3 “State Deciding”: In this phase, Algorithm 2 is
again the same as Algorithm 1.
V. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
In this section, we discuss the performance evaluation of
our algorithms. Initially, we introduce the scenario of our
algorithms. The simulations were conducted using C. We
consider that 20 M2M nodes (default) transmit their sensory
data to an eNB, via LTE uplink. The average number of M2M
data types collected in each M2M nodes is set as 6. There are
25 kinds of data type for nodes to collect and their size (bits)
can be 800, 1600, 2400, 3200, 4000, and their reporting period
(tf ) can be 6, 7, 9, 14, 18. The other parameters to consider
in the simulation are according to [2] and the parameter of
Equation (3) is according to [4] and [5]. In addition, we
assumed that the channel bandwidth is 10MHz.
We simulate 1) earliest deadline first (EDF) [6] and
2) worst-case fair weighted fair queueing (WF2 Q) [7] 3)
Chen’s Algorithm [1] to compare with our algorithms. EDF
is designed for real-time environment and the data that have
earliest deadline will be scheduled first. Thus, data will be
promised a low delay. WF2 Q is a packet data scheduling
algorithm that provides data with fairness guarantee. Chen’s
1061
Algorithm has the same goal as our algorithms, and minimizes
energy consumption in the M2M network, but it does not
consider signal energy consumption and total state energy
consumption together. In the following subsection, we compare
these algorithms in 1) the impact of the number of nodes and
2) the impact of the distance between the nodes and the eNB.
A. The Impact of Number of Nodes
We discuss the simulation result in four aspects: (1) energy
consumption, (2) scheduling success ratio, and (3) fairness.
With these metrics, we describe the impacts of the number of
M2M nodes transmitting its sensory data to eNB.
1) Energy Consumption: To measure the energy saving
capability, we use Eq. (6) as the total energy consumption of
all nodes. We increase the number of nodes when the distance
between the eNB and the nodes is 800 meters. The result
is shown in Fig. 4(a). Our algorithms and Chen’s Algorithm
aim to reduce energy consumption of the nodes. Thus, the
result shows that our algorithms and Chen’s Algorithm perform
better than EDF, and WF2 Q in terms of energy efficiency.
Moreover, our algorithms consider signal energy consumption
and total state energy consumption together. Therefore, the
performances of our two algorithms are better than that of
Chens Algorithm.
We also observed that when the number of nodes increased,
the energy consumption of all algorithms increased; in particu-
lar, Algorithm 1 was better than Algorithm 2. The reason is that
total state energy consumption accounts for a large proportion
of the total energy consumption in a node when the distance is
800 meters. Therefore, the energy consumption of Algorithm
2, which is dedicated to reducing state energy consumption, is
less than Algorithm 1.
2) Scheduling Success Ratio: It is important to transmit
the sensory data before their deadline for real-time reporting,
otherwise these data will lose their effectiveness and will be
dropped. To measure the freshness of sensory data, we consider
scheduling success ratio Rs defined as
N
1 X
Rs = 1 − zn ,
N n=1
where zn is the percentage of the sensory data collected in
M2M node n within T that are dropped.
The result is shown in Fig. 4(b). We know that EDF trans-
mits the data that have the earliest deadline first. Therefore,
EDF must have a higher scheduling success ratio. Neverthe-
less, we can see that our proposed algorithms have almost the
same scheduling success ratio as EDF in this scenario, indi-
cating that the scheduling success ratio will not be influenced
by our algorithms, which are used for power-saving. However,
we noted that with the limited 10MHz channel bandwidth in
this experiment, our algorithms can support up to 25 nodes
and each node senses six kinds of data type by consuming
less energy while maintaining high scheduling success ratio,
that is, more than 0.95.
3) Fairness: To measure fairness, we use Jain’s Fairness
Index F , which is defined as
PN
( n=1 zn )2
F = ,
N· N
P 2
n=1 zn
 Energy consumption v.s. Number of nodes and WF2 Q. The reason is the same as that which explains the
550
impact of the number of M2M nodes on energy consumption.
450

Energy(J)
WF²Q
350
EDF
Most importantly, we can observe that Algorithm 2 is
250
Chen's an improvement on Algorithm 1 when the distance is below
150 Algo. 1 900 meters and vice versa. This illustrates why we chose
50 Algo. 2
15 20 25 30 35 40 Algorithm 2 to schedule the M2M nodes data when the
Number of nodes
distance was below 900 meters in this scenario, because state
(a) energy consumption accounts for a large proportion of the total
energy consumption in a node. In contrast, in this scenario, we
Scheduling success ratio v.s. Number of nodes chose Algorithm 1 to schedule the M2M nodes data when the
1
distance was beyond 900 meters, because signal transmission
Scheduling success ratio

0.95
0.9
0.85
energy consumption accounts for a large proportion of the total
WF²Q
0.8
0.75 EDF
energy consumption in a node. The energy consumption of
0.7
Chen's Algorithm 2 increases more quickly than that of Algorithm 1,
0.65
0.6 Algo. 1 and the latter will approach other algorithms (except Algorithm
0.55 Algo. 2
0.5 1) when the distance is long.
15 20 25 30 35 40
Number of nodes
VI. C ONCLUSION
(b)
This paper investigated the energy-consumption scheduling
Fairness v.s. Number of nodes
1
problem for M2M real-time reporting over 4G LTE. We con-
0.98 sidered all the energy consumption factors of such reporting,
0.96
Fairness

0.94
WF²Q
for both signal transmissions and machine operations in differ-
EDF
0.92
0.9 Chen's ent modes/states. We proposed two energy-efficient scheduling
0.88 Algo. 1 algorithms to minimize total energy consumption of machines
0.86
15 20 25 30 35 40
Algo. 2
when machines transmit their data to the eNB via LTE uplink
Number of nodes channels. Algorithm 1 is for use when the distance between
a machine and the eNB is long, and Algorithm 2 is for use
(c)
when the distance is short. Our algorithms were compared with
Energy consumption v.s. Distance EDF, WF2 Q, and Chen’s algorithm, and the results showed
550 that our algorithms consumed less energy and also maintained
450
acceptable scheduling success ratios and fairness.
Energy(J)

WF²Q
350
EDF
250
Chen's
150
Algo. 1
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
50 Algo. 2
600 700 800 900 100011001200130014001500 This work was supported in part by the Ministry of Science
Distance(m)
and Technology of Taiwan (MOST) under Contracts 103-2221-
(d) E-007-076-MY2 and 104-3115-E-007-004.

Fig. 4. Simulation Results R EFERENCES

where zn is defined in Sec. V-A2.
Fig. 4(c) shows that WF2 Q resulted in greater fairness
than the other algorithms. This makes sense because WF2 Q
is dedicated to increasing fairness. Our algorithms maintained
a good fairness value above 0.92 when the number of nodes
was increased up to 45. In addition, we noted that EDF was
associated with the worst fairness of all the algorithms. This
is because EDF does not sort the data according to their size.
Thus, the data that are larger will have high a probability of
being dropped under high traffic load.
B. The Impact of the Distance
We have mentioned that the energy consumption relates
to the distance between the nodes and the eNB. Therefore,
we investigated the impact of the distance between the nodes
and the eNB on energy. The result can be seen in Fig. 4(d),
which shows that our two algorithms are an improvement on
other algorithms, and that Chens Algorithm is superior to EDF
[1] Yi-Bei Chen, Shun-Ren Yang, Jenq-Neng Hwang, and Ming-Zoo Wu. An
energy-efficient scheduling algorithm for real-time machine-to-machine
(m2m) data reporting. In 2014 IEEE Global Communications Conference
(GLOBECOM), pages 4442–4447, Dec 2014.
[2] Kuo-Chang Ting, Hwang-Cheng Wang, Chih-Cheng Tseng, and Fang-
Chang Kuo. Energy-efficient drx scheduling for qos traffic in lte
networks. In 2011 IEEE 9th International Symposium on Parallel and
Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA), pages 213–218, May
2011.
[3] D.J. Dechene and A. Shami. Energy-aware resource allocation strategies
for lte uplink with synchronous harq constraints. IEEE Transactions on
Mobile Computing, 13(2):422–433, Feb 2014.
[4] Tze-Ping Low, Man-On Pun, Y.P. Hong, and C.-C.J. Kuo. Optimized
opportunistic multicast scheduling (oms) over wireless cellular networks.
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 9(2):791–801, February
2010.
[5] 3GPP TR 36.931. LTE;Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
(E-UTRA);Radio Frequency (RF) requirements for LTE Pico Node B
(Release 9), v9.0.0 edition, May 2011.
[6] M. Caccamo, L.-Y. Zhang, S. Lui, and G. Buttazzo. An Implicit
Prioritized Access Protocol for Wireless Sensor Networks. IEEE Real-
Time Systems Symposium, pages 39–48, 2002.
[7] J.C.R. Bennett, and H. Zhang. WF2 Q: Worst-Case Fair Weighted Fair
Queueing. Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, 20:120–128, March 1996.

1062