## 7 Simulation Results
This was because the simulation results based on the FI model displayed greater dependence on the number of users and distance parameter that seemed inefficient for this case, while NLOS path failed to deliver the required data rate, hence resulting in poor achieved spectral efficiency. Figure 11: Spectral efficiency vs number of users. Figure 10: Fairness index vs number of user. In high-density mmWave network, users tend to face several issues, such as interferences and fading, which minimizes the overall network performance. Currently, several varying techniques are in progress to overcome this issue. The use of a multiple antenna approach is an efficient way to resolve this issue, which not only helps to increase each user throughput, but also enhances the overall network performance [86; 87]. For our study, Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the overall network performance of the CI and FI models at various antenna configurations, respectively. We compared the yields for fairness index, spectral efficiency, cell-edge user throughput, average user throughput, peak user throughput, and average cell throughput with respect to varying MIMO antenna configurations. The same CI and FI path loss models, as defined in Equations (1) and (7), were used to calculate the path losses. All other experimental parameters were similar to those specified in Table 4, except for the number of users which had been fixed at 30 and used the LOS V-V formation, which meant PLE = 3.0990 for CI path loss model, as stated in Table 2, whereas \(\beta\) was 2.3401 and \(\alpha\) was 75.1359 for the FI path loss model, as outlined in Table 3. Figure 12 portrays the CI propagation path loss model performance, where the \(2\times 2\) antenna configuration obtained the minimum and the \(8\times 2\) antenna setting attained the maximum overall system performance. In Figure 12a, the fairness indices for all cases were quite correlated, while \(2\times 4\), \(4\times 2\), and \(8\times 2\) delivered better performances of 5, 7, and 9%, when compared to \(2\times 2\), \(4\times 4\), and \(8\times 4\) antenna array settings, respectively. The amount of cell-edge user throughput increment was also observed in Figure 12a with respect to more antenna array settings. However, the cell-edge user throughput improved by almost 100% (i.e., 4.11 to 8.24 Mbps) if we changed from the \(2\times 2\) antenna setting to the \(8\times 4\) antenna setting. The analysis of the spectral efficiency improved exponentially by approximately 40% from the minimum antenna setting to the maximum antenna array pattern. In Figure 12b, the peak user throughput is also presented, in which the \(8\times 4\) MIMO condition obtained 60% more data rate, when compared to the minimum \(2\times 2\) antenna settings. Moreover, the average user throughput comparison is illustrated, which gave a minimum value of 8.44 Mbps at the \(2\times 2\) antenna array and an increase of 80% to a maximum value of 14.25 Mbps at the \(8\times 4\) antenna array setting. Similarly, for average cell throughput, the maximum performance was achieved for the \(8\times 4\) configuration (i.e., 142.46 Mbps), which achieved almost 82% higher average cell throughput, as compared with the \(2\times 2\) configuration (i.e., 84.42 Mbps). In contrast to earlier findings for the CI model, the overall network performance for FI-LOS V-V case was as illustrated in Figure 13. In Figure 13a, the fairness index was calculated for various MIMO antenna array conditions. The results ranged from a minimum of 0.8348 for \(2\times 2\) to a maximum 0.9403 for \(8\times 2\) antenna settings. The use of the PFS algorithm displayed similar time, hence allowing all users  
Figure 12: Overall network performance for CI model at various antenna configurations. at least a minimum QoS, however, due to its limitation on the number of users, the fairness index value fluctuated with the number of users. The cell-edge user throughput is also illustrated in Figure 12(a), which showed a similar response to that described in Figure 11(a).