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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
Efficient 5G Small Cell Planning with eMBMS for
Optimal Demand Response in Smart Grids
Navrati Saxena, Member, IEEE, Abhishek Roy, Member IEEE and HanSeok Kim
AbstractSmart Grids (SGs) are emerging cyber-physical sys-
tems, equipped with sophisticated communication and informa-
tion technologies, for efficient and large-scale power supply and
management. SGs demand advanced communication technologies
between energy providers and consumers, for enabling a control-
feedback loop, by using time-dependent pricing. In this paper,
we propose an efficient planning of 5G small cells, with evolved
Multimedia Broadcast and Multicast (eMBMS) communication,
between aggregators (small cells) and SG consumers, for ef-
ficient Demand-Response (DR) programs. After pointing out
that optimal multicast scheduling and Radio Resource Manage-
ment (RRM) problem is NP-complete, we propose two different
solutions, based on Dynamic Programming (DP) and greedy
heuristics, for minimizing the energy cost for DR customers.
We also analyze the performance of SG user capacity for 5G
single cell multicast and Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency
Network (MBSFN). Extensive OPNET simulation results, over
actual energy data and real wireless trace, demonstrate that
our proposed 5G small cell planning and multicast solutions are
capable of reducing energy production cost by 30%, with up to
35% shift in peak energy load, low latency and packet drop.
Index Terms5G, eMBMS, MBSFN, smart grids, demand
response, RRM, NP-complete, dynamic programming, greedy.
I. I NTRODUCTION
E LECTRIC utility companies in the power industry are re-
sponsible for electrical power generation and distribution,
using energy grids. Smart Grids (SGs) [1] are cyber-physical
systems, equipped with seamless integration of energy grids
and communication technologies, for efficient and sustainable
electricity production and management. It involves bidirec-
tional communication, where electricity and information are
exchanged between energy grids and consumer devices. Tech-
nology Roadmap for Smart Grids1 , made by International En-
ergy Agency (IEA), mentions that building an energy system
to satisfy occasional peak demand requires investments, which
would not be needed if the demand curves are flatter. Smart
grids can reduce peak demand by providing information and
incentives to consumers and encouraging them to participate in
Demand Response (DR) programs. This results in shifting the
energy consumption away from periods of peak demands and
make the demand flatter. On the other hand, from an electricity
consumers point of view, with dynamic pricing (e.g. quadratic
electricity cost), a flatter consumer demand also results in
lower electricity consumption cost [1].
N. Saxena is with Department of Software, Sungkyunkwan University,
Korea. e-mail: navrati@skku.edu
A. Roy and HS. Kim are with System Design Lab, Network Division,
Samsung Electronics, e-mail: {abhishek.roy, hs365.kim}@samsung.com
Manuscript received on (date, month, year)
1 [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/publications/.../smartgrids roadmap.pdf 2 [Online]. Available: http://smartgrid.epri.com/IntelliGrid.aspx/
1551-3203 (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.
Distributed Internet and Core
Energy Network
Generators DR Engine (BMS, GW)
Data
Collection and
Load Forecast
Aggregator
Energy
SG Utility (5G Small cell BS)
Consumers
Unicast/Multicast
2-way communication
with 5G wireless
Fig. 1. Conceptual DR Programs in SG Communications
Figure 1 illustrates overall architecture of DR process,
along with the wireless base stations (BS), where the BSs
act as aggregators between the SGs utility and the energy
consumers. The utility companies in SGs contains DR engine,
required for consumers energy data collection and load fore-
cast. Energy consumers residences are equipped with smart
meters, which provide the power information to the utility
by using the wireless BSs. This real-time data, received from
smart meters, is used by the utility to shape the demand load
through Time Dependent Pricing (TDP) [1]. The DR engine,
in utility, executes DR programs in response to consumers
energy usage patterns. The results of these DR programs (e.g.
recommended energy reduction or shifting in energy usage)
are then transmitted back to the aggregators, which inform the
consumers about the recommended actions. This mutual infor-
mation exchange between the utility and the energy consumers
requires efficient wireless network systems. We argue that the
wireless BSs should use the results of the DR programs to
selectively inform the set of energy consumers. Depending on
the current energy demand, consumers energy consumption
and response factor, the wireless BSs should select the energy
consumers, such that the energy consumption is minimized
during the peak demand. The importance of SGs is reflected by
the large number of research projects [1], e.g. Information &
Communication Technology Program or IntelliGrid2 , created
by Electric Power Research Institute.
Recent research surveys [2] have recommended efficient
communication technologies with (1) a maximum allowed
access network latency of 12-20ms and (2) an estimated
packet error rate of 6% for real-time sensing and metering
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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

purposes. Advances in broadband wireless access networks negligible effects on existing multimedia throughput.
play a major role in SG communications [3]. Massive SG This results in up to 35% shift in peak energy load and
deployment requires a faster and more secure communication 30% reduction in SG energy production cost.
medium in the long run [4]. This is because the existing The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
3G/4G wireless networks were originally not developed for reviews the major existing works in DR and 3GPP eMBMS.
flexible spectrum usage, critical tasks and massive Internet- Efficient 5G small cell planning for smart grids DR is intro-
of-Things (IoT). 3GPP and 5G-PPP consortium has already duced in Section III. In Section IV, we formulate the optimal
assessed the needs of the energy sectors, and expects a win- 5G multicast scheduling and RRM problem. Two different
win situation for successful adoption of 5G wireless in SG3 . solutions based on DP and greedy heuristics are discussed in
Robustness and reliability of SG traffic in the 5G wireless Section V. Subsequently, we analyze the multicast capacity
could be achieved from data and control plane isolation [5]. and discuss the extensions of our solutions to incorporate
Flexible network resources to different services lead to 5G MBSFN in Section VI. Simulation results in Section VII
network slicing, where a slice corresponds to a collection of demonstrate the efficiency of our proposed framework. Finally,
interconnected logical network functions. Since the assets in a section VIII concludes our paper.
SG network currently have a little or no communication, 5G
wireless is expected to provide economically viable wireless II. R ELATED W ORKS IN S MART G RIDS AND M ULTICAST
solutions, decentralizing the energy networks with increased C OMMUNICATIONS
resilience, when compared to existing wireless networks. Re-
cent researches in 5G have shown the efficiency of small cells
(a) 5G Wireless HetNets
in directional transmissions of narrow mmWave beams for
reducing interference and increasing spatial multiplexing [6].
Interestingly, Remote Radio Heads (RRH) of such small cells,
are already deployed in dense urban areas of Japan and
Korea [7] for better performance.
On the other hand, multicast wireless communications are
gradually coming up as efficient group communications (one-
to-many) by effectively sharing physical OFDMA radio re-
sources [8]. As DR programs typically involve information
exchange with multiple energy consumers, multicast commu-
nication holds the key to improve the underlying efficacy. Optical fronthaul cables

This motivates us to explore emerging 5G evolved Multimedia

Broadcast and Multicast Services (eMBMS) [9] for designing
an efficient wireless communication framework between the Centralized BBUs in Cloud
aggregator and the energy customers. More specifically, our
contributions are: Macro Cell RRH Pico Cell Femto Cell

1) We first introduce an optimal 5G small cell RRH plan- (b) 5G eMBMS for Smart Grids DR Programs
ning for efficient smart grid DR programs. 5G small cell
RRHs work as aggregators in smart grids DR programs. DR
2) Next we formulate 5G multicast scheduling and Radio Gateway (Utility)
BMS
Resource Management (RRM) problem for optimal DR eMBMS DR device
Multicast (eMBMS)
programs and show that the problem is NP-complete. Unicast DR device connection
Unicast (Point-to-
3) Subsequently, we propose two different solutions, based point) connection
on Dynamic Programming (DP) and greedy heuristics. (c) eMBMS Frame Structure
Both the solutions attempt to reduce the expected energy OFDMA Frame

cost for DR customers through efficient scheduling of SF0 SF1 SF2 SF3 SF4 SF5 SF6 SF7 SF8 SF9

5G OFDMA radio resources.

One Subframe
4) We analyze the multicast capacity by estimating the 5G Unicast
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
cell performance measures and extend our solution to eMBMS
include emerging Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency
Network (MBSFN). Fig. 2. 5G Multicast for Cyber Physical Smart Grids with Frame Structure
5) Our OPNET simulation results, over actual energy data
from our national power corporation, demonstrate that
the proposed 5G small cell planning with eMBMS (sin- As there exists a huge variety of works in both smart
gle cell) and MBSFN solutions are capable of supporting grids DR and multicast communications, we briefly discuss
low latency ( 12 ms) and packet loss ( 5%), with the major existing works related to our context. The authors
in [10] propose a centralized and a decentralized framework
3 5G and Energy, version 1.0, [Online]. Available: https://5g-ppp.eu, [Oct- for optimality and fairness. In [11], the authors use game
22-2016] theory to optimize the energy consumption. The work in [12]

1551-3203 (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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

proposes an agent-based energy management for power trading

among microgrids. Similarly, authors in [13] propose a layered
architecture for admission control, load balancing, and DR
management. [14] proposes a DR strategy for load shaping
using day-ahead time-dependent pricing. Other major works
include two-level game theoretic approach [15] for optimal
DR program design and management.
Major existing surveys [2], [3] have already pointed out the
role of emerging broadband wireless networks as part of the
SG communication system. The concept of next generation
5G wireless communications [7], with mmWave spectrum
and sub-millisecond latency, are emerging for satisfying the
Actual residence of

Optimal Cell
massive connectivity and growing data rate demands in current

Planning
DR customers
cellular networks. Figure 2(a) illustrates an example hetero-
geneous 5G wireless network, where different heterogeneous
(pico, micro) Remote Radio Heads (RRH) are connected with

Centralized BBUs in
cloud-based remote Base Band Units (BBU), by gigabit optical

Optical Fronthaul
front-haul cables. Exploiting the new mmWave spectrum and
advanced radio techniques, like Massive MIMO and sub-

millisecond MAC Transmission Time Interval (TTI), 5G wire-
less are expected to achieve manifold improvement in data
rates and latency. Figure 2(b) shows a typical communication
network, where smart grids are connected with the 5G wireless
RRHs, via Broadcast Multicast Switch (BMS), gateways and
centralized cloud-based BBUs. It points out that exploring
multicast or eMBMS (represented as green color beams),
DR packets could be sent together, by efficiently using the
same OFDMA radio resources. As shown in Figure 2(c), an
OFDMA 5G radio frame typically consists of ten subframes
with reduced TTI [5]. In every TTI, the downlink (DL) radio
scheduler allocates OFDMA Resource Blocks (RB) depending
on channel bandwidth and radio conditions. Current 3GPP
standards allow a minimum 1 and a maximum 6 subframes
(subframe #: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) [8] for multicast commu-
nications in every 10 TTI. The work in [9] provides a good
survey of scheduling and RRM techniques for DL multicast
communication in OFDMA-based systems. Major existing
multicast research works include low-complexity modula-
tion [16], two-stage cooperative scheduling framework [17],
multi-user diversity with user sub-grouping [18], associated
energy optimization [19] and mobile television services [20].
As smart grids DR programs are inherently designed for a
group of energy consumers, multicast wireless communication
over holds the key for its efficiency. The recent works on
multicast routing [21] and cost efficient architecture for SG
applications [22] point towards these emerging research issues.
These works motivate us to look into the efficient 5G small
cell RRH planning and multicast techniques for optimal DR.
III. O PTIMAL 5G S MALL C ELL P LANNING
As cell planning is typically the basis for deploying cellular
wireless networks, the first step for enabling efficient DR
programs lies in designing an optimal 5G small cell planning.
We now formulate the optimal 5G small cell RRH planning
problem as selecting the small cell RRHs locations, with
directional antennas, such that the number of small cell RRHs
required for providing coverage to the entire smart grids DR
cloud
Clustered residences of
5G small cell
DR customers, with 5G Small Cells (aggregator)
Fig. 3. An Example of 5G Small Cell Planning (17 small cells))
customers is minimized, while guaranteeing certain service
quality, like average and cell-edge Signal to Interference
Noise Ratio (SINR). We consider the actual distributions of
DR customers residences for obtaining the SINR distribution
for each cell. Based on this SINR distribution, the average
(mean) and cell-edge (lowest 5%) SINR is selected. The entire
procedure is enumerated as follows:
1) Iteratively partition the entire set of DR users into
multiple clusters. Calculate the distance of DR customer
residences from the centroid of the cluster.
2) Use 5G channel models [24], power control, path loss
and shadowing [24] for estimating the received power.
3) Assign each DR customers residence to the directional
5G antenna, for which the attenuation of signal power
is the lowest among all the antennas. Check if all the
cells have at least one DR customer residence. If not,
go back to Step 1.
4) Considering all the clusters, and every DR customer
residence in every cluster, calculate the downlink SINR.
The DR customers residence is assigned to the cluster,
for which the downlink SINR is the maximum.
5) Repeat the steps 1-4 until the average and cell edge
SINR (lowest 5%) are satisfied.
The algorithm essentially partitions the SG customers into
multiple clusters or regions, such that each residence belongs
to the cluster with the nearest centroid, serving as a representa-
tive of the cluster. We select these cluster-heads as the suitable

1551-3203 (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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

location of 5G small cell RRHs. The process terminates for ensure that the amount of shifted usage does not exceed the
the minimum number of clusters, when both the average and actual usage and is the customers patience index, repre-
cell-edge SINR are satisfied. For a set of n SG customers, k senting the willingness to respond to actions recommended in
clusters and i iterations, the algorithm has a time complexity of DR programs. A higher value of indicates a more impatient
O(nki) [23]. Figure 3 depicts an example clustering of 10, 000 user, who is less willing to shift his or her usage or a time-
DR customers residences into 17 clusters and a centralized sensitive device, whose usage is more difficult to shift. With
BBU-cloud, across a dense, urban area in our country. increasing
h values
i of , the demand shift and hence P r[Di (h)]
and E D(h) reduces exponentially.
IV. O PTIMAL D EMAND R ESPONSE IN S MART G RIDS
In this section, we first introduce the energy generation B. 5G eMBMS for Cyber Physical Smart Grids
cost and consumers behavior modeling. Subsequently, we Using inter-cell interference model [16], at a given


formulate the optimal resource allocation problem for 5G sub-channel, the probability of having a vector I =
eMBMS in SGs and discuss the complexity associated with {I0 , I1 , . . . , In } of collisions could be written as:
it. Table I lists major notations used in this paper.  (nPnk=1 Ik )
( n
P
~
P r[I|L] = L k=1 I k )
1L (3)
A. Energy Cost and User Behavior Modeling where each element Ik = 1, for a collision with k th cell and
Assuming E(h) =
PN Ik = 0 otherwise; and L is interfering cell load. For a user
i=1 Ei (h) represents the total
hourly power demand across all N DR customers, h located at a given point of a cell, characterized by the vector
H = {1, . . . , 24}, we use a quadratic cost function [15]: of distances ~r = {r0 , ..., rn } from the different 5G small cell
Ch (E(h)) = E 2 + E + c for cost estimation of hourly RRHs (aggregators) in the network, we can estimate the SINR
energy generation, where , and c are constants. The model for a subcarrier as:
satisfies monotonic increasing and strictly convex properties, ~ ~r) = P P/q0
(I, n , where (4)

i.e. E(h)
> 0, E(h)
> 0, (0, 1). If E(h)
and E(h) P
i=1 Ii ( qi ) + 0
represent energy demand before and after DR adjustments
qi = ri 10i /10
respectively, the resulting cost Ch will be:
    where P , qi , 0 and i represent 5G small cell RRHs DL

Ch E(h) < Ch E(h)
, E(h)
< E(h) (1) power, pathloss between RRH i and DR customer, noise and
shadowing variable from RRH i respectively, and [2, 4] is
a constant. The 5G small cell RRH use this SINR to estimate
User Behavior Model: Periodically, the utility (DR-engine) the MCS, such that target SINR (T ) for this MCS is less than
provides this energy cost information to the 5G cellular the corresponding SINR (I, ~ ~r) derived from Equation (4).
Base Stations (BSs). If Ch (Ei (h)) and Ch (E(h))
respectively ~
Let, the function = f ((I, ~r)) represent the SINR to MCS
represent the hourly energy costs associated with customer i mapping. However, interestingly for multicasting, the MCS is
before and after the demand
h shift, i the corresponding expected restricted to the user with the worst radio quality.
energy cost reduction E D(h) is given by:
C. Complexity of Optimal Resource Allocation
N h
h i X i The objective of our 5G eMBMS hfor SGs i is optimizing
E D(h) = Di (h) P r[Di (h)] , (2)
i=1
the expected energy cost reduction E D(h) across all DR
  customers by adjusting their power consumption through DR
Di (h) = Ch (Ei (h)) Ch (Ei (h))
programs. This helps in selecting the DR customers and auto-
i matically shifting the energy demand of the participating home
i X i,j
P r[Di (h)] = i = i,j j , or office appliances. To achieve this optimization, we define
(ti + 1)i (ti,j + 1)i,j
j=1 the constrained Radio Resource Management (RRM) problem
(P rob) in 5G eMBMS as: Find the OFDMA multicast resource
where P r[Di (h)] represents customer is sensitivity towards (RB) allocation, such that the overall expected energy cost is
responding to the DR programs and i is the maximum minimized, orh in other
i words, the overall expected energy cost
devices of customer i. We have used different patience index reduction E D(h) is maximized, subject to radio resource
for different customers, as well as for different devices [14]. and channel constraints. Mathematically, we can state that:
The overall sensitivity of a particular customer is the weighted " #
sum of sensitivities associated with the individual devices of
h i
P rob max E D(h) , such that (5)
that customer. The weight factor j represents the proportion
of energy consumption due to that device. Energy providers P/q0
provide rewards to the consumers, to encourage them in ~ ~r) = P
(I, ~ ~r)),
, i = fi ((I,
n P
shifting their energy consumption during the time lower energy i=1 Ii ( qi ) + 0
N
demand. The usage shifts are calculated by estimating each X
consumers probability of shifting the devices by the amount min = min{0 , . . . , N }, <i < F <max ,
i=1
of time ti , given the reward i . is a normalization constant to

1551-3203 (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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

where <i represents the number of OFDMA RBs actually 2) Overlapping Subproblems - meaning the presence of
allocated by the DL 5G scheduler to DR customer i, <max is many recurring instances of each small subproblem.
the maximum number of RBs available in the given bandwidth, 3) Bottom-Up Solution - meaning a table of solved subprob-
and F is the maximum fraction of total OFDMA resources lems could be used to solve larger ones. In otherhwords,i
kept for multicast services. the optimal expected energy cost reduction E D(h)
could be obtained by obtaining the cost reduction of
TABLE I a single user and the optimal expected energy cost
M AJOR S YMBOLS AND ACRONYMS U SED
reduction for the set of remaining users.
Sym.
E
Description
Energy demand
Acronym
SG
Expansion
Smart Grid
Such a near-optimal solution
h iof P rob can be efficiently
D Energy cost difference DR Demand Response achieved using DP. If E D(h) represents the optimal
I Interfering Collision RRM Radio Resource Management (j,Y )
L Interfering cell Load DP Dynamic Programming expected energy cost reduction, achieved with
h ji users by
r RRH to user distance enhanced Multimedia using up to Y OFDMA resources, then E D(h) and
eMBMS
SINR Broadcast & Multicast (j,Y )
P RRHs DL power SFN Single Frequency Network
" #
h i
0 Noise power BS Base Station
q Pathloss component QoS Quality of Service max E D(h) could be recursively estimated as:
Shadowing variable TDP Time Dependent Pricing
Incentive or rewards IoT Internet-of-Things " #
Normalization constant RRH Remote Radio Head i h h i
Customers patience RB Resource Block max E D(h) = E D(h) (7)
(N ,F <max )
< RBs allocated TTI Transmit Time Interval h i
Fraction of Resource BMSC Broadcast Multicast Switch
F
for Multicast DL Down Link E D(h)
, if <j Y

" (j1,Y )
device usage proportion Signal to Interference


SINR h i h i
D(h) D(h)

, , c constant Noise Ratio max E , P r[D(h)]
h i
E D(h) = (j1,Y )
(j,Y )
#

h i
In order to show the complexity of the above problem, we

+E D(h) , otherwise
(j1,Y <j )

first reduce the problem P rob to a simplified problem P rob , h i h i
composed ofhsimplei linear functions. Assuming expected cost E D(h) = 0, E D(h) =0
(0,Y ) (Y,0)
reduction E D(h) and number of RBs allocated < to be
h i P
N The above recursive equation states that the best subset
linear functions, i.e., E D(h) = i=1 A1 xi , < = B1 xi , the " #
simplified problem P rob is represented as:
h i
of max E D(h) with a total resource constraint Y ,
" N
#
h i X (j,Y )
P rob max E D(h) = A1 xi , such that(6) either contains j or not. When <j Y , j can not be part of
i=1 the solution, as it violates the total resource constraint. When
N
X N
X <j < Y , then j could be in the solution where the higher cost
<i = B1 xi F <max , reduction
h is selected.
i Tabulating theh set ofi intermediate results
i=1 i=1 from E D(h) up through E D(h) helps to
(0,0) (N ,F <max )
achieve the optimal solution. Since the calculation involves
where A1 and B1 are constants. Following a similar approach,
examining N users, and there are F<max number of OFDMA
as illustrated in [19], P rob could be easily mapped to Knap-
resources to allocate, the time complexity of the DP solution
sack problem a popular problem, which is NP-complete.
is O(N F<max ).
Given a limit on the maximum total weight of the selected
items, Knapsack problem selects the items, such that the total
value of the selected items is maximized. We can map P rob B. Greedy Approximation Heuristics
to Knapsack problem, by mapping the 1/x to the items; cost The optimal RRM problem P rob could also be solved by
Ch (E(h)) (a linear function of x) to value of the items and using a Greedy choice - i.e. making a choice that seems best
RB allocation constraint (another linear function of x) to the at the current moment and then solving the subproblems that
maximum weight limit. Now, as P rob is NP-complete, P rob arise later. The choice made by a greedy algorithm depends
a generalized version of P rob should also be NP-complete. on choices made so far, but not on the future choices. Rather,
it iteratively makes one greedy choice after another, reducing
V. DYNAMIC P ROGRAMMING AND G REEDY H EURISTICS each given problem into a smaller one. The steps in our greedy
We propose two solutions using DP and greedy heuristics. heuristic are mentioned below:
1) For every customer, estimate the expected energy reduc-
A. Solution using Dynamic Programming (DP) tion per OFDMA resource assigned as:
A close look into the optimal RRM problem P rob reveals
h i
Gi = Di (h) P r[Di (h)] /<i , (8)
that it exhibits the following three major properties:
1) Optimal Substructure - meaning that the optimal solu- where P r[Di (h)] is customer is sensitivity towards the
tions of small subproblems could be recursively used to DR program. It estimates customer is probability of
find the optimal solution of the overall problem; shifting the power usage by time t in lieu of incentive

1551-3203 (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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
. Now, P r[Di (h)] is estimated using Equation (2). The
higher this value is, the higher is the customers patience
(i.e. higher willingness to respond).
2) Sort all the customers in decreasing horder iof Gi .
3) Maximize expected cost reduction E D(h) by schedul-
ing customers with higher Gi first.
4) Continue scheduling until all SG customers have been
scheduled or remaining RBs become lesser than the
required resource for the immediate next allocation.
5) Repeat steps 1-4 until the system reaches the minimum
energy production costs achievable.
Once all SG customers are assigned (in step 4), the remaining
OFDMA resources are allocated to multimedia multicast users,
such that DL multicast data rate is maximized. For N users,
using efficient algorithms, the sorting could be performed in
O(N log2 N ) time. The rest of the algorithm requires only
O(N ) time. Thus, the overall time complexity is bounded by
O(N log2 N ).
VI. M ULTICAST C APACITY A NALYSIS
Given the SINR, as estimated in Equation (4), the peak
throughput (T (~r, L)) could be derived by obtaining link-level
curves (), using the optimal MCS and the corresponding
Block Error Rate (BLER). Mathematically, we can state that:
 
X
T (~r, L) = ~
P r[I|L] (I,~ ~r) , where (9)
~
I
 
() = 1 BLER()
Typically, the fraction of resources allocated to a channel
depends on the DR customer with the worst channel condi-
tions. We estimate this amount, by defining the probability of
selecting any multicast channel as p = 1/, for equally
likely multicast channels. Now, if M represents average
multicast session arrival rate with Poisson distribution, and tM
represents average multicast communication time, the proba-
bility of x multicast channels being occupied is expressed by
P
x
(x)
% = x=0 x eM tM / 1 eM tM /


. If there is
at least one such user in the farthest region (i.e. numbered
N ), the throughput will be: T (rN , L), with the fraction of
occupied resources B/T (rN, L). This occurs with probability
p M tM
(1 e N ) [20]. Otherwise, the throughput follows the
radio condition of the next worst user in regions (N 1),
. . ., 2, 1. Then, recursively, we can derive the  equation:
p M tM   p M tM
= (i) = T (rBi ,L) 1 e N + e N = (i 1).
If p(x) represents a fraction of the timefrequency resources
is available for unicast transmission, such that the cell offers
 
a throughput of 1 x= (N ) B(r, L) at distance r, we can
estimate the 5G cell performance for unicast services as:
C M tM
x  M tM
(x)
% =
X
p(x)
C 
e 1e
x=0
x associated with the j th path. Comparing the resulting value
where B is eMBMS data rate, and = (0) = 0. Assuming a
cell radius R, average DL file size F , and unicast data users
with arrival rate d , using multi-Erlang Processor Sharing
model [20], the load caused by unicast data users, located
within a distance of R is estimated by integrating the rel-
ative load caused by users located between distance r and
1551-3203 (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.
Transactions on Industrial Informatics
RR
(r + dr). The resulting load will be d F 0 R22rdrT (r,L) . Now,
each multicast channel occupies a proportion of the resources
of B/T (d, L), where d is the distance, within which 95% of
the users are located. The load associated with all multicast
M tM /
channels will be (1eT (d,L) )B . Hence, the total load is now
estimated as:
" #
(1 eM tM / )B R
Z
2rdr
L min + d F ,1 (11)
T (d, L) 0 R2 T (r, L)
A. Capacity in Multicast Broadcast Single Frequency Network
As shown in Figure 4(a), MBSFN enables the neighboring
5G small cell RRHs (aggregators) to synchronize their signal
transmission for the surrounding DR customers devices. Fig-
ure 4(b) shows an example of the resulting received MBSFN
signal. This resolves the shortcomings of single-cell multicast
by combining simultaneously received signals from different
5G small cells. As a result, we can use the different signals to
transform the destructive interference into constructive gain.
Let us first consider MBSFN signals originating from a given
cell i, located at a distance ri from the target user. Given the
propagation delay of i = ri r V , the weight function of the
0
constructive MBSFN signal is estimated as:
0, if < u
2
(1 + u ) , if u < 0
w() = 1, if 0 < CP (12)
CP 2
(1 u ) , if CP < CP + u
0, otherwise
where u , CP and V represents the single frame length,
cyclic prefix length, and light velocity respectively. Note that,
as the echo delay is progressively increased beyond the guard
interval, the useful contribution decreases and the interference
increases with a quadratic law4 .
Besides propagation delay, multipath also plays a crucial
role in producing the constructive MBSFN signal. This is
due to fast fading, which results in multiple copies of the
signal reaching the receiver. Therefore, the weight function
in Equation (12) needs to consider the delay of fast fading.
With n interfering cells, whose signals received by P different
paths, we can estimate the average SINR as:
Pn PP
i=0 j=1 w(i + j )(Pi /qi )
SF N (~r) = Pn PP ,
i=1 j=1 (1 w(i + j )(Pj /qi )) + 0
(13)
where j is the additional delay introduced by path j, qi
, (10)
is the path loss from RRH i and Pj is the average power
with the SINR in Equation (4), it is clear that the SINR derived
from Equation (13) is higher, as a result of transforming the
destructive interference into gain. For a set of C DR and other
eMBMS channels, 5G small cell RRHs find the best MCS that
4 R. Brugger and D. Hemingway, OFDM receivers impact on coverage of
inter-symbol interference and FFT window positioning, European Broadcast-
ing Union Technical Review, July 2003.
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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

Edge Cells in
1) We develop our 5G eMBMS simulator using OPNET5 to
multiple MBSFN model a dense, urban 7 km 7 km 5G network, with 100
Synchronized areas Synchronized
data data
RRHs spanning over a set of 10 smart micro grids. The
simulator includes 5G multicast scheduling and RRM
for single-cell eMBMS, as well as MBSFN, spanning
across multiple RRHs.
2) The energy producers, utilities, and BMS are modeled
as separate nodes, where the energy production cost is
periodically estimated using the quadratic cost function.
This energy production cost is then provided to the
MBSFN Area 1 MBSFN Area 2
5G BSs as input. The 5G BSs use this energy cost to
(a) Synchronous Transmission in MBSFN
estimate optimal DL multicast scheduling, such that the
energy reduction is maximized (Equation (2)). Based on
this scheduling, the BSs communicate with the energy
consumers by requesting them to reduce their respective
energy demands. The responses of the energy consumers
are propagated back to the utility. Consumer devices are
simulated by varying the values of [14], with very
high values for time sensitive devices, like
(b) Signal Gain in MBSFN lights. As , following Equation (2), probability
P r[Di (h)] 0. The values for other time-insensitive
Fig. 4. Signal Synchronization and Combination in 5G MBSFN devices are varied in the range of 0.5 - 5.0, with higher
values of , reflecting more time-sensitiveness for the
corresponding device of the consumer.
ensure service for a high percentage of users (typically 95% 3) The actual information about DR customer residences
is used as an industrial benchmark). Generally, the strategy are collected from one of the most popular, dense, urban
starts with the lowest MCS and estimates SINR for each DR metropolis of our country. An average of 400 users
user in the 5G small cell RRH according to Equation (13). across 100 residences in the coverage of every RRH.
This is used to find the corresponding throughput for 95% We have collected a month-long, hourly energy demand
of the users. If the estimated throughput is higher than the from our national power corporations smart grids. The
multicast data rate, the evaluated MCS is used. Otherwise, the DR packets are set to be of size 128 bytes [2] and initial
next higher MCS is checked, and the same steps are repeated multicast group size is 5% of the total DR customers.
until the network achieves the desired target performance. For 4) We have also collected a month-long, actual multicast
a unicast load of L, the peak cell throughput at distance r and unicast traffic traces from our countrys major
from RRH is estimated as: wireless operator. The collected real wireless traffic trace
is statistically modeled and provided as input to our 5G
 
B
TSF N (r, L) = 1 C T (r, L), (14) simulator. Statistics reveal around 25% of total wireless
TM
subscribers use video multicast and the rest are mostly
where T (r, L) is estimated using Equation (9). unicast data subscribers.
5) We have used dense Urban 5G channel model and
VII. S IMULATION E XPERIMENTS AND R ESULTS RF parameters [24], which mention 520 MHz channel
In this section, we mention actual data collection, OPNET- bandwidth, 27.925 GHz carrier frequency, 200 m small
based 5G eMBMS simulator, and our simulation results. cell radius, 1 Watt small cell transmitting power, 9 dBi
small cell antenna gain, 1 mW DR-devices transmitting
power, 9 dB device noise, 4 dBi device antenna gain
A. Simulation Framework and Log-normal shadowing of 8 dB. Table II shows the
major simulation parameters used.
TABLE II 6) Apart from the DR traffic, each multicast user downloads
5G R ADIO AND S YSTEM PARAMETERS
2.7 Mbps HTTP Live Streaming (HLS) video traffic with
5G Related Parameters [24] Device and SG Parameters 15 minutes inter-download time. On the other hand, each
Frequency 27.925 GHz Number of SGs 10 unicast user downloads an average of 3 MB file, with 3
Channel Band 520 MHz Antenna gain 4 dBi minutes inter-download time.
Channel Model Dense Urban Device power 1 mW
Cell Radius 200 m Area 7 km 7 km
7) The user mobility is simulated using popular random
Antenna gain 9 dBi Packet size 128 byte [2] waypoint mobility model [26]. For performance com-
Penetration 20 dB Backhaul and 5 ms [25] parison, we have used the DR method proposed in [10].
Path Loss 3.8 Core delay
Cells Tx power 1 Watt Small cells 100
Shadowing 8 dB Device Noise 9 dB 5 [Online]. Available: www.riverbed.com/products/steelcentral/opnet.html
[Oct-22-2016]

1551-3203 (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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

B. Simulation results Figure 6 demonstrates the dynamics of average 5G network

latency with increasing network cell load. The figure shows
1
that at a high cell load of 0.6, the MBSFN DP and greedy
0.9
heuristics achieve a latency 9 ms and 10 ms respectively.
0.8 On the other hand, the point-to-multipoint eMBMS (single
0.7 cell) scheduling with DP, greedy solutions, and unicast ser-
Latency CDF

0.6 vices achieve a latency of 15 ms, 17 ms and 21 ms respectively.

0.5 Figure 7 delineates the packet loss in the 5G radio network
0.4 for different unicast and multicast strategies. MBSFN DP and
0.3 MBSFNDP greedy solutions achieve a very low packet loss of 5%,
0.2 MBSFNGreedy while unicast suffers from the worst performance of 10%
eMBMSDP
0.1 eMBMSGreedy packet loss. The difference is attributed to the constructive
0
Unicast
interference of MBSFN, which helps in increasing the signal
0 3 6 9 12 15
Average Latency (ms) gain. On the other hand, the point-to-multipoint (single cell)
eMBMS DP and greedy solutions achieve a packet loss of
Fig. 5. Radio Network Latency 8% and 9% respectively. The results also point out
that our proposed MBSFN-DP and MBSFN-Greedy strategies
satisfy the maximum allowed access network latency [2] of
21
MBSFNDP 12 ms and packet error rate of 6%.
18
MBSFNGreedy
eMBMSDP
Figure 8 illustrates that with the increase in traffic load,
eMBMSGreedy the performance of unicast services degrades sharply from 2.5
Network Latency (ms)

15 Unicast
Mbps to almost 0.5 Mbps. On the other hand, both MBSFN
12 DP and greedy heuristics suffer very little and eventually
maintain a throughput of 2 Mbps. The reason lies in the
9
fact that MBSFN requires relatively less resources, as it can
6 achieve large gain from combining SFN signals and producing
constructive interference. The regular eMBMS DP and greedy
3
solutions provide a user throughput of 1 Mbps.
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
3
Cell Load
MBSFNDP
MBSFNGreedy
Fig. 6. Latency Dynamics with Network Load eMBMSDP
Average Throughput (Mbps)

2.5
eMBMSGreedy
Unicast

2
1

0.9
1.5
0.8

0.7
1
0.6
Loss CDF

0.5
0.5
0 6 12 18 24 30 36
0.4 Network Load (Erlangs)
0.3
MBSFNDP
0.2 MBSFNGreedy Fig. 8. User Throughput Dynamics with 5G Traffic Load
eMBMSDP
0.1 eMBMSGreedy
Unicast
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Figure 9 points out that our multicast-based DR schemes are
Packet Loss capable of significant peak energy load reduction, by pushing
the load curve to a flatter shape. As expected, the MBSFN DP
Fig. 7. Packet Loss Experienced
solution results in the maximum peak load reduction (up to
35%), followed by MBSN greedy heuristics, eMBMS (single
The CDF plot, in Figure 5, shows that MBSFN with DP cell) DP approach and eMBMS greedy heuristics. This aids
solution performs the best, achieving a latency always lower the SGs to avoid the power outage during peak loads. Note
than 8 ms. The corresponding maximum latency of MBSFN that the demand curve is not fully flat because of time-sensitive
greedy heuristics, eMBMS (single-cell) with DP and greedy devices, like lights.
solutions are 9 ms, 11 ms and 13 ms respectively. On the other Figure 10 delineates that the incentives (discounts) range
hand, unicast services perform the worst with significantly from as high as 17% during the off-peak periods to zero
higher radio network latency of 20 ms, i.e. more than twice (i.e. no incentive) during peak hours. The similar pattern of
that of MBSFN DP solutions. This shows the effectiveness of the incentives is observed daily over the entire simulation
MBSFN and 5G multicast in transmitting DR messages. period. As energy production in SGs typically involves time-

1551-3203 (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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

5.5
Before Multicast DR
MBSFN Greedy Heuristics MBSFN DP
50

Running Time Overhead (microsec)

5 with MBSFNDP DR
Energy Consumption (MWHr)
with MBSFNGreedy DR
with eMBMSDP DR
4.5 40
with eMBMSGreedy

4
30

3.5
20
3

10
2.5

2 0
0 5 10 15 20 100 200 300 400 500
Time of the Day (Hrs) Number of Users

Fig. 9. Energy Consumption Dynamics with SG Demand Response Fig. 12. Running Time Overhead of DP and Greedy Solutions

18
MBSFNDP DR Finally, it should be noted that the optimal performance of
16 MBSFNGreedy DR
eMBMSDP DR both the DP and greedy heuristics is achieved at the cost of
14 eMBMSGreedy DR
additional computational time and storage overhead. Figure 12
12
depicts the comparative running time (in microseconds) be-
Incentive (%)

10 tween DP and greedy solutions, in a typical 5G RRH, with 2

8 GHz CPU (e.g. Octeon), for 100 500 users. It points out
6 that while DP solutions incur a running time of up to 50 s,
4
the greedy heuristic typically requires only a couple of s.
Moreover, the DP solution also demands additional storage
2
of a few MBytes for storing the intermediate solutions. Thus,
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 while DP provides a better solution, the greedy heuristic offers
Time of the Day (Hrs)
a much faster alternative, useful for practical implementation.
Fig. 10. Average Daily Reward Dynamics
Root Cause Analysis (RCA): Both of our DP-solution
and greedy heuristics explore 5Gs advanced characteristics,
like low latency, higher bandwidth, with eMBMS to optimize
40
Our Proposed Work ( = 1) the multicast RRM, mentioned in Equation (5). This results
35 Our Proposed Work ( = 2) in lower delay and packet loss. Moreover, DP and greedy
Our Proposed Work ( = 4)
30 Fair and Optimal DR by Baharlouei [10] solutions attempt to find the optimal solution of our multicast
RRM problem, which considers DR customers and devices
Cost Reduction (%)

25
patience index, to minimize the overall energy cost.
20

15
10
5
0
0.1 0.2 0.3
Incentive ()
Fig. 11. Energy Cost Reduction with Incentive () and Patience Factor ()
dependent pricing, the cost of energy production is gener-
ally non-linear [14]. Figure 11 demonstrates the energy cost
reduction, achieved by the time-dependent quadratic pricing
with MBSFN DP based DR programs and existing fair cost
reduction, proposed in [10], for different patience index ()
and incentives (). Smaller indicates higher patience. As
increases, energy production costs are also reduced up to 30%.
However, for less patient customers, with higher values,
the energy cost reduction is much lower at 17%. The
figure clearly points out our proposed scheme outperforms the
existing works [10] for a wide range of rewards .
VIII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we propose the use of emerging 5G small cell
planning and eMBMS for effective DR management. After
proving the NP-completeness of multicast RRM problem, we
0.4
provide DP and greedy heuristics solutions for achieving the
(near) optimal scheduling of DR programs. Our multicast
capacity analysis for eMBMS channels and SFN and OPNET
Simulation results demonstrate that our solutions are capable
of reducing energy production cost by 30%, with a significant
shift in peak energy load, low latency and packet drop.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research is supported by Basic Science Research
Program through the National Research Foundation of Ko-
rea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-
2016R1D1A1B03935633).
R EFERENCES
[1] J. Vardakas, N. Zorba, C. Verikoukis, Survey on Demand Response
Programs in Smart Grids: Pricing Methods and Optimization Algorithms,
IEEE Comm. Surveys & Tutorials, Vol.17, No.1, pp. 152-178, 2015.

1551-3203 (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/TII.2017.2681105, IEEE
Transactions on Industrial Informatics

10

[2] Y. Yan, Y. Qian, H. Sharif, and D. Tipper, A Survey on Smart Grid Com- N avrati Saxena (S03-M09) is an associate profes-
munication Infrastructures: Motivations, Requirements and Challenges, sor and director of Mobile Ubiquitous System In-
IEEE Comm. Surveys & Tutorials, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 5-20, 2013. formation Center (MUSIC) in Software Department,
[3] R. Ma, H-H. Chen, Y-R Huang, and W. Meng, Smart Grid Communi- Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), South Korea.
cation: Its Challenges and Opportunities, IEEE Trans. On Smart Grid, She was an assistant professor in Amity University
Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 36-46, 2013. India and a visiting researcher in University of Texas
[4] J. Rifkin, The Third Industrial Revolution. How lateral power is trans- at Arlington, USA. She completed her PhD from the
forming energy, the economy, and the world?, Palgrave McMillan Department of Information and Telecommunication,
Publishers, ISBN 9780230115217, 2011. University of Trento, Italy. Her research interests
[5] G. Wunder, 5GNOW: Non-Orthogonal, Asynchronous Waveforms for involve 4G/5G wireless, IoT and smart grids. She
Future Mobile Applications, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 52, serves in guest editorial and technical program com-
No. 2, pp. 97-105, 2014. mittee of international journals and conferences. She has co-authored one book
[6] T. S. Rappaport et. al., Broadband millimeter wave propagation mea- (Taylor & Francis) and published more than 50 international journals.
surements and models using adaptive beam antennas for outdoor urban
cellular communications, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propagation, Vol. 61,
No. 4, pp: 1850-1859, 2013.
[7] J. G. Andrews, et. al., What will 5G be?, IEEE Journal on Selected
Areas In Communications, Vol. 32, No. 6, pp: 1065-1082, 2014.
[8] UMTS-Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS), 3GPP ETSI
TS 26.346.
[9] R. Afolabi, A. Dadlani, and K. Kim, Multicast Scheduling and Resource
Allocation Algorithms for OFDMA-based systems: A Survey, IEEE
Comm. Surveys and Tutorials, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 240-254, 2013.
[10] Z. Baharlouei, M. Hashemi, H. Narimani, H. Mohsenian-Rad, Achiev-
ing Optimality and Fairness in Autonomous Demand Response: Bench-
marks and Billing Mechanisms, IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid, Vol. 4, No.
2, pp. 968-975, 2013.
[11] I. Atzeni et. al., Demand-Side Management via Distributed Energy
Generation and Storage Optimization, IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid, Vol. A bhishek Roy (S03-M09) is currently working
4, No. 3, pp. 866-876, 2013. as Principal Engineer in System Design Lab, Net-
[12] H. Nunna, and S. Doolla, Demand Response in Smart Distribution works Division, Samsung Electronics, South Korea.
System With Multiple Microgrids, IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid, Vol. 3, He received his PhD in 2010 from Sungkyunkwan
No. 4, pp. 1641-1649, 2012. University, MS in 2002 from the University of Texas
[13] G. Costanzo, G. Zhu, M. Anjos, and G. Savard, A System Architecture at Arlington, USA. His research interests include
for Autonomous Demand Side Load Management in Smart Buildings, traffic modeling, resource and energy management
IEEE Trans. on Smart Grid, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 2157-2165, 2012. in 4G/5G wireless systems, IoT, social networking
[14] C. Joe-Wong, S. Sen, S. Ha, and M. Chiang, Optimized Day-Ahead and smart grids. He serves in guest editorial and
Pricing for Smart Grids with Device-Specific Scheduling Flexibility, technical program committee of many international
IEEE Journal On Selected Areas in Comm., Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 1075- journals and conferences. He has co-authored one
1085, 2012. book (Taylor & Francis) and published more than 50 international journals.
[15] B. Chai, J. Chen, Z. Yang, and Y. Zhang, Demand response manage-
ment with multiple utility companies: A two-level game approach,, IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 722-731, 2014.
[16] G. Araniti et. al., A Low-Complexity Resource Allocation Algorithm
for Multicast Service Delivery in OFDMA Networks, IEEE Trans. on
Broadcasting, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 358-369, 2014.
[17] Y. Zhou, H. Liu, Z. Pan, L. Tian, and J. Shi, Spectral- and Energy-
Efficient Two-Stage Cooperative Multicast for LTE-Advanced and Be-
yond, IEEE Wireless Comm., Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 34-41, Apr. 2014.
[18] M. Condoluci, G. Araniti, A. Molinaro, and A. Iera, Multicast Resource
Allocation Enhanced by Channel State Feedbacks for Multiple Scalable
Video Coding Streams in LTE Networks, IEEE Trans. on Vehicular
Technology, Vol. 65, No. 5, pp. 2907-2921, 2016.
[19] S. Almowuena et. al., Energy-Aware and Bandwidth-Efficient Hybrid
Video Streaming Over Mobile Networks, IEEE Trans. on Multimedia, H anSeok Kim received his BS and MS degrees
Vol. 18, pp. 102-115, 2016. in Electronics engineering at Seoul National Uni-
[20] L. Rong, S. E. Elayoubi and O. B. Haddada, Performance Evaluation versity, Korea, in 1990 and 1992, respectively, and
of Cellular Networks Offering TV Services, IEEE Transactions on received his PhD degree in Electrical and Computer
Vehicular Technology, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 644-655, 2011. engineering at Purdue University, USA, in 2003.
[21] H. Li, L. Lai and H. Poor, Multicast Routing for Decentralized Control He worked for LG Electronics developing office
of Cyber Physical Systems with an Application in Smart Grid, IEEE automation products from 1992 to 1997. In 2003, he
Journal on Selected Areas in Comm., Vol.30, No. 6, pp. 1097-1107, 2012. joined Samsung Electronics, where he is presently
[22] H. Silva, A. Neto and E. Cerqueira, SAMbA: A Session Aware a Samsung Master in the Network Division. His
Multicast based Architecture for cost-efficient Smart Grid applications, research interests include traffic modelling, flow con-
IEEE Int. Conf. on Communications (ICC), pp. 226-231, 2015. trol, resource management, and performance analy-
[23] A. Fahad, et al., A Survey of Clustering Algorithms for Big Data: sis in wireless networks.
Taxonomy and Empirical Analysis, IEEE Transactions on Emerging
Topics in Computing, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 267-279, 2014.
[24] W. Roh, et. al., Millimeter-wave Beamforming as an Enabling Tech-
nology for 5G Cellular Communications: Theoretical Feasibility and
Prototype Results, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp.
106-113, 2014.
[25] NGMN Optimized Backhaul Requirements, A Requirement Specifi-
cation by the NGMN Alliance, 2008.
[26] E. Hyytia, J. Virtamo, Random Waypoint Mobility Model in Cellular
Networks, Springer Wireless Networks, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 177-188,
2006.

1551-3203 (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.