0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

2 просмотров6 страницTraffic-aware resource allocation and base station
(BS) sleep control are key methods for energy saving in cellular
networks. In this paper, first, we consider the control problem of
how to adapt transmit power according to flow-level traffic variations,
which leverages the tradeoff between energy consumption
and delay performance. Based on different time scales of traffic
variations, two power adaptation strategies are investigated: loadaware
and queue-aware. The two strategies adapt transmit power
according to flow arrival rate and instantaneous number of
flows, respectively. Optimal solutions are given for both strategies.
Since the optimal solution of the queue-aware strategy has no
explicit form, tight bounds are derived as an approximation.
Simulation results show that the two strategies perform closely
in terms of energy consumption and average delay, while the
queue-aware strategy is better in the tail distribution of delay
and is more robust to system parameter variations. Secondly,
for the load-aware strategy, with more practical concerns like
the total BS energy consumption and BS sleep control taken
into account, the relationship between energy consumption and
delay is explored and energy-optimal rate can be obtained under
certain conditions. Two threshold-based BS sleep strategies are
investigated where the optimal threshold and rate are derived
respectively.
In this article, we have studied traffic-aware power adaptation
and base station sleep control with flow-level traffic
dynamics in green cellular networks. We formulate a total
cost minimization problem that allows for a flexible tradeoff
between energy consumption and flow-level delay performance.
Load-aware and queue-aware power adaptation strategies
are proposed. Especially for the queue-aware strategy,
tight bounds of the optimal solution are given. Simulation
results show that the two strategies perform closely in terms
of energy consumption and average delay, while the queueaware
strategy is better in the tail distribution of delay and
the robustness to system parameter variations. For the power
adaptation with BS sleep, the explicit tradeoff relationships
between energy and delay are investigated. We find that
sacrificing delay performance cannot always be traded for
energy saving, and there exists energy-optimal rate under
certain conditions. Two threshold-based BS sleep strategies
are analyzed and the optimal threshold and rate are derived
respectively, which are amenable to energy efficient power
adaptation and BS sleep control design. Further analysis and
implementation issues for these sleep strategies are left for the
future work.

Jul 01, 2015

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Traffic-aware resource allocation and base station
(BS) sleep control are key methods for energy saving in cellular
networks. In this paper, first, we consider the control problem of
how to adapt transmit power according to flow-level traffic variations,
which leverages the tradeoff between energy consumption
and delay performance. Based on different time scales of traffic
variations, two power adaptation strategies are investigated: loadaware
and queue-aware. The two strategies adapt transmit power
according to flow arrival rate and instantaneous number of
flows, respectively. Optimal solutions are given for both strategies.
Since the optimal solution of the queue-aware strategy has no
explicit form, tight bounds are derived as an approximation.
Simulation results show that the two strategies perform closely
in terms of energy consumption and average delay, while the
queue-aware strategy is better in the tail distribution of delay
and is more robust to system parameter variations. Secondly,
for the load-aware strategy, with more practical concerns like
the total BS energy consumption and BS sleep control taken
into account, the relationship between energy consumption and
delay is explored and energy-optimal rate can be obtained under
certain conditions. Two threshold-based BS sleep strategies are
investigated where the optimal threshold and rate are derived
respectively.
In this article, we have studied traffic-aware power adaptation
and base station sleep control with flow-level traffic
dynamics in green cellular networks. We formulate a total
cost minimization problem that allows for a flexible tradeoff
between energy consumption and flow-level delay performance.
Load-aware and queue-aware power adaptation strategies
are proposed. Especially for the queue-aware strategy,
tight bounds of the optimal solution are given. Simulation
results show that the two strategies perform closely in terms
of energy consumption and average delay, while the queueaware
strategy is better in the tail distribution of delay and
the robustness to system parameter variations. For the power
adaptation with BS sleep, the explicit tradeoff relationships
between energy and delay are investigated. We find that
sacrificing delay performance cannot always be traded for
energy saving, and there exists energy-optimal rate under
certain conditions. Two threshold-based BS sleep strategies
are analyzed and the optimal threshold and rate are derived
respectively, which are amenable to energy efficient power
adaptation and BS sleep control design. Further analysis and
implementation issues for these sleep strategies are left for the
future work.

© All Rights Reserved

0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)

2 просмотров6 страницTraffic-aware resource allocation and base station
(BS) sleep control are key methods for energy saving in cellular
networks. In this paper, first, we consider the control problem of
how to adapt transmit power according to flow-level traffic variations,
which leverages the tradeoff between energy consumption
and delay performance. Based on different time scales of traffic
variations, two power adaptation strategies are investigated: loadaware
and queue-aware. The two strategies adapt transmit power
according to flow arrival rate and instantaneous number of
flows, respectively. Optimal solutions are given for both strategies.
Since the optimal solution of the queue-aware strategy has no
explicit form, tight bounds are derived as an approximation.
Simulation results show that the two strategies perform closely
in terms of energy consumption and average delay, while the
queue-aware strategy is better in the tail distribution of delay
and is more robust to system parameter variations. Secondly,
for the load-aware strategy, with more practical concerns like
the total BS energy consumption and BS sleep control taken
into account, the relationship between energy consumption and
delay is explored and energy-optimal rate can be obtained under
certain conditions. Two threshold-based BS sleep strategies are
investigated where the optimal threshold and rate are derived
respectively.
In this article, we have studied traffic-aware power adaptation
and base station sleep control with flow-level traffic
dynamics in green cellular networks. We formulate a total
cost minimization problem that allows for a flexible tradeoff
between energy consumption and flow-level delay performance.
Load-aware and queue-aware power adaptation strategies
are proposed. Especially for the queue-aware strategy,
tight bounds of the optimal solution are given. Simulation
results show that the two strategies perform closely in terms
of energy consumption and average delay, while the queueaware
strategy is better in the tail distribution of delay and
the robustness to system parameter variations. For the power
adaptation with BS sleep, the explicit tradeoff relationships
between energy and delay are investigated. We find that
sacrificing delay performance cannot always be traded for
energy saving, and there exists energy-optimal rate under
certain conditions. Two threshold-based BS sleep strategies
are analyzed and the optimal threshold and rate are derived
respectively, which are amenable to energy efficient power
adaptation and BS sleep control design. Further analysis and
implementation issues for these sleep strategies are left for the
future work.

© All Rights Reserved

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Sleep Control for Energy-Delay Tradeoffs in Green

Cellular Networks

Jian Wu, Yiqun Wu, Sheng Zhou, Zhisheng Niu

Tsinghua National Laboratory for Information Science and Technology

Dept. of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, P.R. China

I. I NTRODUCTION

The next generation wireless networks are expected to

provide ubiquitous and broadband access to the Internet. The

majority of traffic in wireless networks has been shifting

from mobile voice to mobile data due to the popularity of

the smartphones. The exponentially growing data traffic and

access requirement have triggered vast expansion of network

infrastructures, resulting in dramatically increased energy consumption. It is urgent to focus on the energy-efficient design in

wireless networks from both the environmental and economic

viewpoint.

To deal with the green evolution of wireless networks, many

international research projects have sprung up like EARTH [1]

and GreenTouch [2]. There are also some initial research

efforts that reveal the opportunities and fundamental issues

of green communication. The author in [3] shows there exist

traffic dynamics in cellular networks both in time and spatial

This work was supported in part by the National Basic Research Program of

China (973 Program: No. 2012CB316001) and the Nature Science Foundation

of China (No. 61021001, No.60925002).

User 1

2

User 2

1

0

BS

User n

Queue length

Flow

arrivals

W(x)

(BS) sleep control are key methods for energy saving in cellular

networks. In this paper, first, we consider the control problem of

how to adapt transmit power according to flow-level traffic variations, which leverages the tradeoff between energy consumption

and delay performance. Based on different time scales of traffic

variations, two power adaptation strategies are investigated: loadaware and queue-aware. The two strategies adapt transmit power

according to flow arrival rate and instantaneous number of

flows, respectively. Optimal solutions are given for both strategies.

Since the optimal solution of the queue-aware strategy has no

explicit form, tight bounds are derived as an approximation.

Simulation results show that the two strategies perform closely

in terms of energy consumption and average delay, while the

queue-aware strategy is better in the tail distribution of delay

and is more robust to system parameter variations. Secondly,

for the load-aware strategy, with more practical concerns like

the total BS energy consumption and BS sleep control taken

into account, the relationship between energy consumption and

delay is explored and energy-optimal rate can be obtained under

certain conditions. Two threshold-based BS sleep strategies are

investigated where the optimal threshold and rate are derived

respectively.

(1/e,1)

PS

Service rate

Flow

departures

3

4

1

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. (a) Flow-level model for downlink transmission with traffic dynamics.

One user corresponds to one flow. (b) Lambert W function.

traffic variation and adapt the radio resources in a cell or

the whole cellular networks to it, a great amount of energy

can be saved. Four fundamental trade-offs regarding different

metrics for designing wireless networks are investigated in [4],

which work as a guideline for the green design. Many other

research for the migration to green radio have also been

proposed [5] [6]. In this paper, we study dynamic traffic-aware

power adaptation and BS sleep control, and explore the energy

delay tradeoffs.

Earlier research on power adaptation mainly focus on compensating for the channel fading and controlling interference

rather than reducing energy consumption [7] [8]. Energyefficient power control was first explored in [9] where lazy

scheduling was proposed which schedules packet transmissions as slowly as possible to minimize energy consumption

with packet delay constraints. Here we first focus on how

to adapt transmit power according to flow level traffic variations to achieve energy-saving. Two classes of traffic-aware

power adaptation strategies based on the time scale of traffic

variations are proposed. The load-aware strategy bases its

decisions on the flow arrival rate which captures the first-order

statistic characteristics of the traffic load. While the queueaware strategy takes into account the fluctuation of the queue

length, which is the amount of flows/users in the system in our

problem. Optimal solutions are given for both strategies, and

especially for the queue-aware strategy which is formulated

3171

are derived as an approximation.

Besides the transmit power adaptation, BS sleep is incorporated to save its load-independent static part energy consumption. As pointed out in [10], when we take practical concerns

such as static energy consumption into consideration, the

trade-off relation between energy and delay usually deviates

from the simple monotonic curve [11]. It is important to know

when and how to trade tolerable delay for energy. We explore

this relationship with flow-level dynamics and BS sleep control

taken into account and find the energy-optimal rate when certain conditions are satisfied. When sleep mode and switching

cost are taken into account, it has been proved that the optimal

sleep strategy has hysteretic structure [12] [13]. Accordingly,

we study two threshold-based sleep strategies that waiting

for deterministic number of users and deterministic period

of vacation time respectively before waking from sleep and

explore their optimal threshold and rate respectively.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows: In Section II

we describe the system model. Section III gives the load-aware

and queue-aware power adaptation strategies. In Section IV,

with BS sleep taken into account, the relationship between

energy and delay is studied, and two threshold-based sleep

strategies are also analyzed. We conclude the whole work in

Section V.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL

We focus on dynamic user populations in a cellular system

where new flows, e.g., file transfers, are initiated at random

and leave the system after being served, which are referred to

as flow-level dynamics [14] as shown in Fig. 1(a), and one

user corresponds to one flow. Assume the total bandwidth is

w. Users arrive according to a Poisson process with rate ,

and each user requires a random amount of service L with

average length E(L) = l.

A. Processor-Sharing Model

The M/G/1 processor-sharing (PS) model is used here [14]

[15]. Given n users in the system, assume the BS can provide

service at a rate of xn > 0 units of service per unit time,

and it divides the service rate equally among all users in the

system. That is, when n > 0, each will receive service at a

rate of xn /n per unit time and users depart the system at rate

= xn /l. The system framework is shown in Fig. 1(a).

B. Energy-Consumption Model

The BS energy-consumption model proposed in [1] [2] is

adopted. The BS has two modes: active mode and sleep mode.

When BS is in active mode, it consumes the static power

Ps and the dynamic part that is proportional to the output

transmit power Pt ; while in sleep mode, the BS only consumes

Psleep which is much less than Ps . Specially, when there is a

mode transition, assume a switching energy cost Esw will be

incurred to avoid frequent mode transitions.

{

Ps + Pt P active mode

Pin =

(1)

Psleep

sleep mode.

In this section, we focus on the dynamic part in the BS

energy consumption model: the transmit power Pt .

Using the M/G/1 PS model, the queue length evolves as a

birth-and-death process with arrival rate and state dependent

service rate xn that can be chosen from a closed subset A of

[0, ). In the problem we described we take

xn = w log2 (1 + Pt (n)), =

g

.

N0 w

(2)

Our objective is to minimize average cost over an infinite

planning horizon, where cost has two elements: energy cost

that increases with the power level or service rate chosen, and

delay cost that increases with queue length. For the energy cost

c(xn ), it is related to the transmit power needed to induce the

rate xn . For the delay cost dn , we take dn = n for simplicity.

Due to Littles Law, we know that the delay cost can just

reflect the delay performance.

A policy is defined as a vector x = (x0 , x1 , x2 , . . .)

with xn A for all n, and the stationary distribution

associated with an ergodic policy x is denoted by p(x) =

(p0 (x), p1 (x), . . .). Then the long-run average system cost is

Pt (xn )

z(x) = pn (x)[c(xn ) + dn ] = pn (x)[

+ n].

n=0

n=0

(3)

cost and delay cost.

Recall the Lambert W function that will be used later. It is

defined as [16]

W(z)eW(z) = z,

(4)

To get a foundational comparison results of the two strategies, we make the idealized assumption that in both cases the

rate can be chosen from A = [0, ).

A. Load-Aware Adaptation Strategy

In the load-aware adaptation strategy, if the flow arrival rate

is given, the service rate does not change with the user number,

that is, x0 = 0 and xn = x, n > 0. Using the results for the

l

M/G/1 PS queue [17], the average queue length E[n] = xl

and the busy probability 1 p0 = l

x . The system cost turns to

z=

x

l 1

l

+

(2 w 1).

x l

x

(5)

dz

= 0. The optimal

To minimize the objective, we take dx

W(

x

1

ln 2

( s )2 ) =

x 1.

e xs l

e

w s

(6)

1 We first study the basic case: users experience homogeneous channels with

gain g. When heterogeneous channel conditions are considered, the multi-class

PS model can be used, which will be discussed in our future work.

3172

below.

7.5

l

l 1 xs

+

(2 w 1).

xs l xs

x

s

(7)

lower bound

upper bound

queueaware

loadaware

7

6.5

x

s

l

> 0,

> 0 and

> 0, which means that the optimal load-aware rate xs

is increasing with the traffic load and the channel gain.

x

s

x 10

rate x(n)

zs =

8.5

6

5.5

5

0

10

12

User number

(a)

7

1

v0 = (z)+v1 ,

(8)

{ 1

vn+1 xl vn1 }

vn = inf

+

, n 1. (9)

x [c(x)+nz]+

xA +

+ xl

+ xl

l

Then define the relative cost differences un = (vn vn1 ),

the optimality equation will be re-expressed as

u1 = z, un+1 = sup {z n c(x) +

xA

x

un }.

l

(10)

in [18], the two functions in our problem are given below,

where (u) is the minimum value of x that achieves the

maximum in (u).

x

uw

1

uw

u c(x)} =

log2

+

, (11)

l

l

el

ln

2

xA

x

uw

(u) = min{x : u c(x) = (u)} = w log2

. (12)

l

l ln 2

(u) = sup {

x 10

8.5

8

rate x(n)

will be a function of queue length n. We use the theory of

MDP to formulate this problem. For the dynamic service rate

control problem, a good solution is provided in [18] and we

will use its algorithm to solve our problem here. First we will

recall this algorithm specialized to the case we considered.

Then based on this approach, we give the upper and lower

bound of the optimal control rate to provide some insight into

its structure.

1) Optimal dynamic rate: Using the standard optimality

equation, or Hamilton-Jacobi-Bellman equation for a semiMarkov decision process with average-cost criterion, the optimality equation in this problem is written as follows, where

vn is the minimum expected cost incurred until the next entry

into an arbitrary reference state m 0, starting in state n,

under a certain revised cost structure, and z is a guess at the

minimum average cost rate z .

7.5

lower bound

upper bound

queueaware

loadaware

7

6.5

6

5.5

5

0

10

15

User number

(b)

Fig. 2. Comparison between the optimal rate of the two strategies and

the bounds of the queue-aware optimal rate, = 1, l = 2M B, w =

10M Hz, N0 = 109 , g = 1. (a) = 0.5flows/sec, (b) = 1flows/sec.

the optimal dynamic control policy numerically, we want to

provide some insight into the structure of the optimal dynamic

rate.

1: The optimal service )rate xn in state n satisfies

( Theorem

(

l )

W ((n zs ) + 1) 1e 2 w + 1 lnw2 + l xn

{

( ( n+ 1 2 l

l ln 2

))

w (e1+(n) 1)

w

min w log2

+ (1+(n))

,

2

1+(n)

( ( n+ 1 2 l

)}

w (2t 1) l )

w log2 ln

+tw 2

, where in the lower bound

2

t

n zs +

((

) 1)

1 l

w 1

1) 1e ), and t satisfies W l

2

wt

e =

1

(1

l

w

W((n2

t ln 21.

Its proof is omitted due to space limitations. It can be

observed that both the upper and lower bound are related to

the system load parameters and the user number in the system.

We can see the performance of the bounds from Fig. 2. They

give a good approximation of the optimal rate and is much

tighter when the traffic load is lower. Actually, in the upper

bound the first part which has explicit form plays an important

role.

u1 = z, un+1 = (un ) n + z.

(13)

optimal value of z, then un can be get recursively. The optimal

service rate in state n will be obtained through

xn = (un ).

(14)

In the section, the comparison between the load-aware and

queue-aware adaptation strategies is given.

Besides the bound performance, Fig. 2 also gives the

optimal rate of the load-aware strategy. Although it widely

differs from the optimal queue-aware rate, it can be observed

later that it still achieves relatively good performance.

3173

14

10

queueaware,=0.5

queueaware,=1

queueaware,=2

queueaware,=3

queueaware,=4

loadaware,=0.5

loadaware,=1

loadaware,=2

loadaware,=3

loadaware,=4

Power

10

8

6

4

loadaware

queueaware

10

P(Delay t)

12

10

10

10

2

10

0

0

10

15

Power

20

0

1

loadaware,=1

queueaware,=1

loadaware,=5

queueaware,=5

loadaware,=0.1

queueaware,=0.1

queueaware

loadaware

16

Delay

loadaware,=1

queueaware,=1

loadaware,=5

queueaware,=5

loadaware,=0.1

queueaware,=0.1

60

40

30

18

10

0

1

25

(a)

(a)

20

Delay

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Estimated

(b)

(b)

the average delay and transmit power consumption, (b) Comparison of the

average delay and transmit power respectively of the two strategies.

Fig. 4. (a) The tail distribution of delay, = 3flows/sec. (b) The robustness

comparison: the real = 3flows/sec, and the control rate is solved using the

estimated arrival rate.

transmit power and delay. By calculating the optimal loadaware and queue-aware rate at different value of , the

tradeoff between the average delay and transmit power is given

in Fig. 3(a). It is surprising that the load-aware adaptation

strategy almost performs the same as the queue-aware strategy.

For more specific comparison in Fig. 3(b), the queue-aware

strategy has advantages in energy-saving and average delay

performance over the load-aware strategy only when the traffic

load is relatively heavy.

Fig. 4(a) gives the tail distribution of delay. It shows the

probability that delay is greater than a given value. It can

be seen that the queue-aware strategy is better in the tail

distribution of delay than the load-aware strategy. In Fig. 4(b),

we compare the robustness to system parameter variations of

the two strategies. The real arrival rate is = 3flows/sec,

when the arrival rate is over-estimated or under-estimated, the

optimal control rate will be calculated according to the misestimated arrival rate. From this figure, it can be seen that the

load-aware strategy greatly deviates from the optimal value,

and the queue-aware strategy has much better robustness.

IV. T RAFFIC - AWARE POWER ADAPTATION WITH BS

SLEEP

In this section, we will take practical concerns into consideration and use the energy model given in section II-B with

both BS sleep and switching cost taken into account. Since the

performance of the load-aware strategy is almost the same as

the queue-aware strategy from foregoing analysis, in order to

characterize our problem explicitly, we will restrict attention

to load-aware analysis in this part.

equation (15). The first part is the power consumption in active

mode, the second part is the sleep mode power consumption,

and the last part gives the switching energy cost per unit time.

P tot= pactive (Ps +P Pt )+psleep Psleep +2Esw /E(Tc ), (15)

pactive and psleep is the fraction of time being in active

mode and sleep mode respectively. For the simplicity of the

demonstration later, random variable Tc is defined as the cycle

time to be the sum of two consecutive active period Ta and

sleep period Ts .

First we illuminate the basic strategy extended from section III-A, then combining the load-aware power adaptation

we analyze two threshold-based BS sleep strategies, N-based

and V-based strategies, which correspond to waiting for N

users and waiting V deterministic period of vacation time

before waking from sleep respectively.

A. Basic Strategy

In the basic strategy, assume the BS goes to sleep when

there is no user in the system and returns to active mode as

soon as there is a user arrival. In this situation, Ta is the busy

period and Ts is the idle period with E{Ta } = 1/(x/l )

and E{Ts } = 1/ respectively. We can get E{Tc } = 1/[(1

l/x)]. The average delay Db and total power consumption

Pbtot is given below.

3174

l

,

(16)

x l

l

l 1 x

l

Pbtot= ( (2 w 1)P +Ps)+(1 )Psleep+2Esw(1 ). (17)

x

x

x

Db=

140

120

100

1

1

130

110

=2,l=2MB

=1,l=2MB

=1,l=8MB

Fig. 6.

1

1

The 2-D state transition graph for the N-based sleep strategy.

90

80 1

10

10

10

average delay[sec]

and average delay, Ps = 100W, Psleep = 30W, Esw = 25J, P = 7 [1].

Exploring the relationship between the total power consumption and the average delay, we get the following proposition, and the proof is omitted due to space limitations.

Proposition 1: 1. The total power consumption Pbtot (Db )

is monotonously decreasing with the average delay Db , when

either one of the following

( (conditions is satisfied.

) )

PsPsleep

w

i) < 2Esw , l ln 2 W P e (PsPsleep2Esw ) 1e +1 .

P P

ii) s2Esleep

.

sw

2. There exists the energy-optimal rate xe when the following

condition is satisfied, ( (

) )

P P

w

1

i) < s2Esleep

,

l

<

W

(P

P

2E

)

s

sleep

sw

ln 2

P e

e +1 .

sw

And the the

energy-optimal

rate

is

( (

) )

xe = lnw2 W P e (Ps Psleep 2Esw ) 1e +1 .

3. In both of the upper two cases, as delay goes to infinity, the

l

total power consumption is bounded by 1 (2 w 1)P + Ps .

Remark: The property of the tradeoff line between the

total power consumption and the average delay depends on

the relationship of traffic parameters, system parameters and

power consumption parameters. For the case there exists the

energy-optimal transmit rate, only in the rate region [xe , ),

delay can be traded off with energy, otherwise, increasing

delay will only cause bad energy performance. Interestingly,

xe is an increasing function of , so transmitting faster

when channels are good indeed saves energy. In addition, fast

transmission are beneficial when the gap between static power

consumption Ps and sleep mode power consumption Psleep

is high; otherwise large busy probability will consume too

much static energy. As the delay goes to infinity, the bound is

the total power consumption when the system will always be

in active mode with system utilization l

x goes to 1. Fig. 5

shows one example of Proposition 1 where the green and

blue line corresponds to 1.(i) and 1.(ii) respectively and the

red line shows case 2 with energy-optimal rate. The energy

consumption parameters of a micro BS in [1] are adopted.

B. Threshold-Based BS Sleep Strategies

1) N-based sleep strategy: Assume the BS goes to sleep

when there is no user in the system and returns to active mode

until the user number increases to N from zero. Using an

extended-Markov-chain given in Fig. 6, the static probability

space {(i, j) : i = 0, j = 0, 1, . . . , N 1; i = 1, j = 1, 2, . . .}

such that if i = 0 then j denotes the number of users in the

system when its in sleep mode, and if i = 1 then j counts

the number of users in the system when its in active mode.

xl

if i = 0;

Nx

l

l j

P (i, j)= N x (1 ( x ) )

if i = 1, 1 j N ;

l l jN

l j

( x ) ) if i = 1, j > N .

N x (( x )

(18)

j=N1

The fraction of time in sleep mode is j=0 P (i=0, j)=1l

x,

which is the same with the idle probability in the basic case.

Ts starts at the moment the BS goes to sleep and last

until N users have assembled. The average assembling time

is E{Ts } = N/. At the beginning of Ta there are N users

in the system, thus E{Ta } = N/(x/l ). Then we get the

average delay DN and total power consumption PNtot .

1

l

N 1

N 1

DN = (

+

)>

,

(19)

x l

2

2

l 1 x

l

l

PNtot= ( (2 w1)P +Ps)+(1 )Psleep+2Esw(1 ) . (20)

x

x

x N

To minimize the objective zN = DN + PNtot /, we get

N

the optimal rate x and threshold N by taking z

x = 0 and

zN

(

x 2

2Esw 1) ln 2

W

(

)+

(PsPsleep

) =

x 1,

P e x l

P e

N

e

w

(21)

( 4Esw

l )1/2

N =

(1 )

.

(22)

x

It can be seen from equation (22) that the optimal threshold

N is related to the switching cost and the system idle

probability in a square root form, which is consistent with

the result derived by Heymen [12] because N only affects the

average delay and the switching power cost in the objective.

The optimal threshold should be an integer, and is the one

chosen from {N , N } which minimizes zN . Actually,

the basic strategy is a special case of N=1. For PNtot (DN ),

similar results of Proposition 1 can be obtained.

2) V-based sleep strategy: In practical operation, waiting a

deterministic period of time is preferred due to the convenience

of operation. Assume that once the BS goes to sleep, it will

be asleep for a period of time and then wake up no matter

whether there are users in the system or not. Using the vacation

model given in [19], assume that the vacation duration V is

a random variable. When deterministic vacation is applied,

E(V ) = v, E(V 2 ) = v 2 . The fraction of time the BS spends on

v

vacation is pv = (1 l

x ) v+ev . The average cycle time is

3175

140

system cost: zv

system cost: zN

120

100

80

60

40

10

120

100

80

60

40

15

10

5

threshold N

5

0 0

rate

10

10

7

threshold V

x 10

0 0

x 10

rate

Fig. 7. The system cost of the two threshold-based sleep strategies varying

with the rate and threshold. = 0.5flows/sec, = 1, Ps = 100W, Psleep =

30W, Esw = 25J, P = 7 [1].

v

1

E(Tc )=( 1l/x

)( e +v). Then the total power consumption

Pvtot and delay Dv are obtained as follows.

1 l

2 v 2

v 2

Dv= (

+

)>

,

(23)

v

xl 2(v+e

)

2(v+ev )

1 x

l 2Esw

Pvtot=(1pv)( (2 w 1)P +Ps)+pvPsleep+(1 ) v

. (24)

x e +v

To minimize the objective zv = Dv + Pvtot /, we get

v

the optimal rate x and threshold v by taking z

x = 0 and

zv

assumes its minimum in the interval (0, ).

l )

l

1(1 x

zv |v0

+

(2 w 1)P +Ps +2Esw (1 ) ,

xl

x

l

1 x

zv

|v=0= (1 )(Psleep (2 w 1)P Ps)< 0, zv|v,

v

zero and goes to infinity as v . Hence, there must exist

at least one point v (0, ) for which zv (v ) is minimum.

Actually, v can be calculated numerically easily by solving

the following equation (25). Similarly x can also be got which

is omitted here.

(v )

(v )

(A1)v (AB) = ev (B

), (25)

2

2

x

2Esw

1

w

where A= 1 (1l

(1

x )( (2 1)P +PsPsleep ) and B=

l

).

x

Fig. 7 gives an example of the two threshold-based sleep

strategies where the system cost varying with the rate and

threshold. Practically, based on our analysis of different strategies above such as their total power consumption and delay

performance, with different objectives concerned, different

operation parameters can be designed accordingly.

V. C ONCLUSION

In this article, we have studied traffic-aware power adaptation and base station sleep control with flow-level traffic

dynamics in green cellular networks. We formulate a total

cost minimization problem that allows for a flexible tradeoff

between energy consumption and flow-level delay performance. Load-aware and queue-aware power adaptation strategies are proposed. Especially for the queue-aware strategy,

results show that the two strategies perform closely in terms

of energy consumption and average delay, while the queueaware strategy is better in the tail distribution of delay and

the robustness to system parameter variations. For the power

adaptation with BS sleep, the explicit tradeoff relationships

between energy and delay are investigated. We find that

sacrificing delay performance cannot always be traded for

energy saving, and there exists energy-optimal rate under

certain conditions. Two threshold-based BS sleep strategies

are analyzed and the optimal threshold and rate are derived

respectively, which are amenable to energy efficient power

adaptation and BS sleep control design. Further analysis and

implementation issues for these sleep strategies are left for the

future work.

R EFERENCES

[1] https://www.ict-earth.eu/default.html

[2] http://www.greentouch.org/

[3] Z. Niu, TANGO: Traffic-Aware Network Planning and Green Operation, IEEE Wireless Communication Magazine., vol. 18, no. 5, pp.

25-29, Oct. 2011.

[4] Y. Chen, S. Zhang, S. Xu, and G. Y. Li, Fundamental tradeoffs on

green wireless networks, IEEE Communications Magazine., vol. 49,

no. 6, pp. 30-37, June 2011.

[5] K. Son, H. Kim, Y. Yi, and B. Krishnamachari, Base station operation

and user association mechanisms for energy-delay tradeoffs in green

cellular networks, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 29, no. 8, Sep.

2011.

[6] J. Wu, Z. Yang, S. Zhou, and Z. Niu, A Traffic-Aware Dynamic EnergySaving Scheme for Cellular Networks with Heterogeneous Traffic, in

Proc. IEEE ICCT, Beijing, China, Sept. 2011, pp. 357-361.

[7] G. J. Foschini and Z. Miljanic, A simple distributed autonomous power

control algorithm and its convergence, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol.

42, no. 4, pp. 641-646, Nov. 1993.

[8] R. Yates, A framework for uplink power control in cellular radio

systems, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1341-1347,

Sep. 1995.

[9] Uysal-Biyikoglu, E., B. Prabhakar, A. El Gamal, Energy-efficient

packet transmission over a wireless link, IEEE/ACM Trans. Networking,

vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 487-499, 2002.

[10] G. Miao, N. Himayat, Y. Li, and A. Swami, Cross-layer optimization

for energy-efficient wireless communications: a survey, Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 529-542, 2009.

[11] Berry, R., R. Gallager, Communication over fading channels with delay

constraints, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 48,no. 5, pp. 1135-1149,

2002.

[12] D.P. Heyman, Optimal operating policies for M/G/1 queueing systems,

Operations Research., vol. 16, pp. 362-382, 1968.

[13] I. Kamitsos, L. Andrew, H. Kim and M. Chiang, Optimal sleep patterns

for serving delay-tolerant jobs, Proc. International Conference on

Energy-Efficient Computing and Networking, 2010.

[14] S. Borst, User-level performance of channel-aware scheduling algorithms in wireless data networks, in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, 2003, vol.

1, pp. 321-331.

[15] I. E. Telatar and R. G. Gallager, Combining queueing theory with

information theory for multi-access, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun.,

vol. 13, pp. 963-969, 1995.

[16] R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. E. Knuth, and D. J.

Jeffrey, On the Lambert W function, Adv. Computat. Math., vol. 5,

pp. 329-359, 1996.

[17] F. P. Kelly, Reversibility and Stochastic Networks. Wiley, 1979.

[18] J. M. George and J. M. Harrison, Dynamic control of a queue with

adjustable service rate, Oper. Res., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 720-731, 2001.

[19] Yonatan Levy and Uri Yechiali, Utilization of idle time in an M/G/1

queueing system, Informs, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 202-201, 1975.

[20] A. Wierman, L. L. H. Andrew, and A. Tang, Power-aware speed scaling

in processor sharing systems, in Proc. IEEE INFOCOM, Rio de Janeiro,

Brazil, Apr. 2009, pp. 2007-2015.

3176