## 7 Simulation Results
This result is because the cell-edge users suffered from more ICI and CCI that led to more losses and lowered the channel quality indicator (CQI) value, which caused an ambiguous received signal and low throughput rate. The average cell throughput depended on the number of active users present in the coverage of users in the cell. Figure 9 illustrates the outcome of average cell throughput for a varied number of users. As discussed in Figures 7 and 8, the CI-FOS V-V predicted the best network performance among all the different model configurations. Consequently, the average cell throughput for CI-LOS V-V forecasted the highest value which was up to 70 Mbps for 10 users and reached a maximum of 90 Mbps  
Figure 7: Average user throughput vs number of users. for 50 users. The FI-LOS V-V arrangement forecasted decent performance as well, and reached 65 and 77 Mbps for 10 and 50 users, respectively. Furthermore, FI-LOS V-H also predicted a significant throughput at 65 Mbps for the minimum case of 10 users, and increased up to 13% at an estimated 78 Mbps for a maximum number of 50 users. Moreover, CI-LOS V-H and CI-NLOS V-V achieved moderate values of cell-edge data rate ranging from 30 to 40 Mbps for minimum and maximum cases. On the other hand, FI-NLOS V-V suffered from the minimum data rate, while overall throughput ranged from 5 to 12 Mbps for the minimum to maximum number of users, respectively. Besides, it has been clearly stated that the FI-NLOS case experienced distress from more signal losses with respect to distance and obstacle, which resulted in less average cell throughput. To calculate the fairness index that shared the RBs with proper fairness among active users the proportional fair scheduling (PFS) algorithm was applied [83; 84]. Figure 10 illustrates the results of the fairness index for the varied number of users. The fairness index for LOS V-V for both CI and FI models hit up to 90%, which clearly displays better CQI with fair RBs distributions. Additionally, the CI-LOS V-H estimated greater fairness for a smaller number of users, but also when a greater number of users were present in a cell. Moreover, in CI-NLOS V-V case, the fairness index was on a slightly lower end, when compared to the CI-LOS V-H case. The NLOS users for V-V case of FI model received a minimum fairness of 13 to 30%, along with the lowest to a higher number of users, respectively. This is due to unfair resource sharing because of poor receiving signal quality caused by the position of NLOS channel between Tx and Rx. Figure 8: Cell-edge user throughput vs number of users. Figure 9: Average cell throughput vs number of users. It was possible to achieve spectrum efficiency by increasing the number of users to a maximum limit in a cell while keeping the QoS at an acceptable level. In precise, the given bandwidth was used effectively if maximum information can be transmitted over it [85]. Figure 11 illustrates the outcomes for spectral efficiency for the varied numbers of users. As noted, CI-LOS V-V displayed the highest spectral efficiency between 2.20 and 2.60 b/s/Hz for both minimum and maximum number of users, respectively. This showed the better utilization of given available spectrum by the CI-LOS V-V approach than the other all models. However, FI-LOS V-V also predicted the decent spectrum efficiency of 1.80 b/s/Hz when the number of users was 10, while 2.20 b/s/Hz for 50 users. Additionally, FI-LOS V-H, CI-LOS V-H, and CI-NLOS V-V gave correlated values for both minimum and maximum number of users. For instance, FI-LOS V-H values ranged from 1.50 to 1.75 b/s/Hz, CI-LOS V-H values changed from 1.35 to 1.65 b/s/Hz, and CI-NLOS V-V gave a variation of 30% from 1.20 to 1.60 b/s/Hz for minimum and maximum number of users. Lastly, FI-NLOS V-V estimated the least efficient results i.e., 0.55 b/s/Hz and 1.15 b/s/Hz for 10 and 50 users, respectively.