## 6 Simulation Results  
The results obtained from the simulations show the performances of the two spectrum management schemes using two different packet scheduling algorithms (MLWDF and CAQDB). As shown in Figure 3, the throughput of IoRT devices traffic is much better using a shared spectrum management scheme as compared to dedicated spectrum management. Though, as the number of IoRT devices increases, the throughput performance of the shared spectrum management drops but the performance of the shared spectrum management is still at least approximately 4 Mbps better than that of the dedicated spectrum management. The two schedulers (MLWDF and CAQDB) produces a similar performance for both dedicated and shared spectrum management schemes, though, the proposed CAQDB scheduler edges the MLWDF when using shared spectrum management scheme. The drop in throughput performance using shared spectrum management scheme as the number of IoRT devices increase is a result of more demand from the video streaming traffic and limited spectrum. However, with more spectrum of 15 MHz in scenario B, as shown in Figure 4, using the proposed CAQDB scheduler, the throughput performance of the shared spectrum management scheme is consistently above 6 Mbps even as the number of IoRT devices increase. This cannot be said of the MLWDF scheduler due to drop in throughput performance from IoRT devices of 200 and above. The CAQDB scheduler can be said to produce this performance because unlike MLWDF it does not only considers closeness of the packet's delay to the delay deadline, but also the state of the queue. By only considering the delay disadvantages the IoRT traffic, as they are mostly less delay sensitive traffic. As shown in Figure 5, the average delay performances of the shared spectrum management scheme for both schedulers are better than the dedicated spectrum management across the varying number of IoRT devices. Both schedulers have a similar delay performance for both spectrum management schemes in scenario A. However, as shown in Figure 6, in scenario B, both spectrum management schemes produce a very close average delay performance up to 150 IoRT devices for both schedulers. But, as the number of IoRT increases from 150, the shared spectrum management for both schedulers produces a better average delay performance up till 250 IoRT devices. From 250 to 300 IoRT devices, the average delay performance of shared spectrum management scheme using MLWDF becomes increasingly poorer until it reaches the same level of performance as the dedicated spectrum management scheme but the proposed CAQDB scheduler is able to maintain a better average delay performance. The average delay performance results also confirm the impact of packet scheduler on the performance of spectrum management schemes. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Value** \\ \hline
**Simulation Time** & 500 seconds \\ \hline
**CQI Reporting Interval** & 100 TTI \\ \hline
**Channel Model** & **4 state Markov model** \\ \hline
**UE Speed** & 3 km/h \\ \hline
**IoRT Traffic Model** & Constant Bit Rate \\ \hline Video Traffic Model & Trace-based @ 242 kbps \\ \hline
**Scheduler** & MLWDF \& CAQDB \\ \hline
**Scenario A** & IoRT (3 MHz) \& Mixed (10 MHz) \\ \hline
**Scenario B** & IoRT (5 MHz) \& Mixed (15 MHz) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Simulation parameters. The fairness index performances for both scenarios A and B are presented in Figures 7 and 8, respectively. In scenario A as shown in Figure 7, though, all the spectrum management schemes have the same fairness index for 50 IoRT devices but as the IoRT devices increase, the shared spectrum management scheme for both schedulers performed better than the dedicated spectrum management scheme. In addition, the CAQDB scheduler performed better than MLWDF scheduler for both shared and dedicated spectrum management scheme.