## 7 Analysis and Results  
To analyze the performance of narrowband IoT for deployment in standalone and in-band systems, we considered a bandwidth of 150 KHz for a general LTE cell. The framework consists of a tri-sector plot with a distance of 1600 m. Narrowband IoT for in-band communication is placed in the LTE system using a separate resource block. Narrowband IoT is placed in every cell using a similar resource block; the considered synchronized network and other considered parameters are shown in Table 3 for simulation. The 150 KHz bandwidth consists of 10 subcarriers with 15 KHz spacing among uplink and downlink; compared to a single tone in uplink, this configuration achieves worse performance, i.e., 15 KHz or 3.74 KHz, and the achieved result in our case provides a lower jump compared to a single-tone IoT-based system. Therefore, we found it more practical to analyze narrowband IoT behavior. The rate of the data (\(RD_{j,n}\)) for \(n^{th}\) resource block and node \(j\) is:  
\[RD_{j,n}=Bandwidth\big{(}1+SIN.RD_{j,n}\big{)} \tag{1}\]  
where \(SIN\) is the signal to noise plus interference and is expressed as:  
\[SIN.RD_{j,n}=\frac{T_{p}C_{j,n}}{Inter_{j,n}+N(0)} \tag{2}\]  
where \(T_{p}\) denotes the transmitted power, \(C_{j,n}\) is the gain of channel between the base station and node \(j\)' of the resource block, \(Inter_{j,n}\) is the interference noticed by \(j\)' and considered to be minimum and \(N(0)\) is power spectrum of noise volume. Depending on the SIN, the comparable coupling loss is calculated as:  
\[\text{Marked SIN}=164+\text{Power transmitted}-\text{Noise Margin}-\text{ Bandwidth}10\log_{10}-\text{coupling loss} \tag{3}\]  
For analysis purposes, a combined chase approach is used, which relies on coupling loss so that similar information is renewed 'N' number of times. The renewed values for different coupling loss values are shown in Table 4.  
The incoming duration is scattered in three stages of successive transmissions with equal incoming durations of 10 min, 40 min and 2 h, corresponding to 44.6%, 30.4% and 30.3% of devices, respectively. The mean appearance record per device is evaluated as:  
\[\frac{0.446}{300}+\frac{0.304}{1800}+\frac{0.303}{3600}=1.73\times 10^{-3} \frac{packets}{gadgets}\text{(sec)} \tag{4}\] \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Values** \\ \hline Distance (interarea) & 1600 m \\ \hline Frequency & 800 MHz \\ \hline Cell design & Grid (hexagonal) \\ \hline Transmission power & 28 dB (per 200 KHz) \\ \hline Model for path loss & I = 110.8 for 800 MHz \\ \hline User tools (noise figure) & 2 dB \\ \hline Base station (noise figure) & 4 dB \\ \hline Cell–area correlation & 0.6 \\ \hline Cell–location correlation & 1.0 \\ \hline Standard deviation & 6 dB \\ \hline Spectral volume & (\(-164\text{ dBm}/\text{Hz}\)) \\ \hline Antenna gain & 16 dBi \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Parameters for simulation. The network rate (NR) for packets relative to the quantity of devices is evaluated as:  
\[\frac{NR(packet)/cell}{1.73\times 10^{-3}\frac{packets}{gadgets}}=712\times NRgadget /cell \tag{5}\]  
The general sensor types, along with their size, data coverage and duration of transmission, are shown in Table 5.  
The performance of the system level for narrowband IoT is analyzed using the Matlab tool for supporting devices, effective throughputs and delay. Considering the parameters mentioned in Tables 3 and 4, a simulation was conducted for both standalone and in-band communication for 600 random samples.