Infrastructure-Based Wireless Multihop, Relay, Mesh Networks. Halim Yanikomeroglu [email protected] www.sce.carleton.ca/faculty/yanikomeroglu.html. Broadband Communications & Wireless Systems (BCWS) Centre Department of Systems & Computer Engineering Carleton University Ottawa. D. R. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 1 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Relaying…
Relaying: great interest in academia and industry* great interest does not necessarily mean successful realization* new network architecture network problem
physical layer: just one elementMAC, networking, protocols: important
* time to realization:TX diversity (Alamouti), turbo codes: 4-5 yearCDMA: 15 yearsad hoc networks: ∞relaying: will take some time, but will become a reality
single-hop
multihop
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 5 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Relaying: Comprehensive Investigation Required
Simple example:
Relaying: links (hops) with less path-loss
higher spectral efficiency in each link
Relay: cannot receive and transmit at the same channel (half-dublex)
2-hop link 2 channels (time or frequency)
n-hop link 2 to n channels
Capacity gain or loss?
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 6 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Infrastructure-based vs Infrastructure-less Multihop Networks
infrastructure-based multihop network
BS/AP common source or sink
infrastructure-less multihop network
systems & networking layers: many differences
physical layer: many similarities
cellular
WiFi
WiMax
(sensor)
ad hoc
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 7 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
OutlinePart I: Relaying for cost-effective ubiquitous high data rate coverage Capacity limited vs coverage limited networks Relaying: promising solution for coverage limited networks
Part II: Possibilities Analog relaying vs digital relaying Fixed relaying vs terminal relaying Homogeneous relaying (single air interface) vs heterogeneous relaying (dual air
interface)
Part III: Further exploitation of the relay/multihop/mesh architecture Cooperative relaying Novel diversity schemes Intelligent routing and scheduling
Diversity- and AMC (Adaptive Modulation and Coding)-aware routing in infrastructure-based TDMA multihop networks
BS-relay coordination Dynamic frequency hopping in cellular relay networks
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 8 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Expectations for 4G Wireless Networks
WWRF (World Wireless Research Forum) & mITF predictions: mobile: up to 100 Mbps stationary/nomadic: up to 1Gbps !!!
More bandwidth more rates: it does not scale necessarily!
High bandwidth & high carrier frequency Tremendous stress on link budget
But how?
More bandwidth is needed
around 3 or 5 GHz band (World Radio Conference, Nov 2007)
advanced antenna technologies (MIMO, smart) advanced signal processing (modulation, coding, equalization) advanced radio resource management techniques
necessary but not sufficient
A fundamental upgrade in the network architecture is needed
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 9 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
QoS Eb
R: Data Rate = Pr
Pt
Pathloss
Propagation Conditions
Cell Size
BW
PHY
Cell Capacity
Low Data Rate
I)
II)
High Data Rate
Cellular Design Fundamentals
R.Eb
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 10 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
available capacity / cell < capacity demand
capacity limited
Capacity-Limited Networks
Solution: cell splitting
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 11 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
available capacity / cell > capacity demand
coverage limited
Coverage-Limited Networks
Solution: range extension
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 12 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Capacity-Limited vs Coverage-Limited Networks
1G
2G
(3G)
4G
Capacity limited network grows as needed
great success
Ubiquitous high data rate coverage limited
very high deployment cost from the beginning
great challenge
WLAN: low deployment cost great success
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 13 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
R32
Coverage Extension through Digital Fixed Relays
Same high data rate coverage
• Low cost digital fixed relays located at strategic locations
No wired internet connection at relays
• Different from conventional fixed relays (selective relaying)
• Different from ad hoc networks (routing is less of an issue)
relay
relayrelay
relay
relayrelay
BS/AP BS/AP
What is a relay?
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 14 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
H. Hu, H. Yanikomeroglu, D.D. Falconer, S. Periyalwar
“Range Extension w/o Capacity Penalty in Cellular
Networks with Fixed Relays”, Globecom 2004
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 15 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
propagation exponent = 3.5
Average spectral efficiency w.r.t. cell size Outage w.r.t. cell size
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 80000
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Cell size (m)
Aver
age
spec
tral e
ffici
ency
per
use
r (in
fo b
its/s
ec/H
z)
w/o relaywith relay
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 80000
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Cell size (m)
Out
age
w/o relayw relay
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 16 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Cost-Efficient Range Extension
Same “average spectral efficiency” and “outage” w.r.t. cell size trends are observed for different values of Propagation exponent Cluster size Shadowing standard deviation BS transmit power
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Base station Antenna
Distributed Antennas
Antenna Remoting / Radio-on-Fiber
Infostations
Other Cost Effective Network Architecture Alternatives
non-ubiquitous coveragewiring cost wiring cost
Microcellular Network
Chinese FuTURE Project(Future Technology for Universal Radio Environment)
www.chinab3g.org/english/futureproject.htm
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 19 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Ο :
• :
Central Node (CN)
Relay
: Wireless Link
•Only CN is connected to the backhaul
•No Tx & Rx on the same channel for a relay
•Nodes have two kinds of antenna
•Direct link with only the neighbor nodes
•Same BW for each primary link
Capacity of Cellular Fixed Relay/Mesh Networks
M: # of root nodes (trees)
N: # of nodes per tree
MN+1: # of nodes per cell
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 20 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
W (Hz)B (Hz)RCCN (bits/sec)RCFRN (bits/sec)RB
MN
: Total available bandwidth for a cell
RCCN = RW : Capacity of CCN is a function of W
RCFRN = (M.N+1)RB ≈ M.N.RB
: Capacity of the Conventional Cellular Network (CCN): Capacity of the Cellular Fixed Relay Network (CFRN): Capacity of a relay: Number of the root nodes: Number of nodes of a tree
B
W
: Available bandwidth for a relay
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 21 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 22 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
• • •
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 23 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
• • •
N
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 24 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
• • •
N
2
1N
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 25 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
• • •
2
1N
N
4
3N
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 26 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Total Number Channel Groups: 12
1/
NNBW
12
1 B
NNW
12
1 BW R
NNR
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 27 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
WCFRN RMN
N
NR .
12
1
) .(1
) .(1 CCNWCFRN RM
p
pRM
p
pR
Previously it is stated that:
Then,
In general, if each node has child nodes:
BCFRN RNMR . .
WCFRN RMR . 3
2
p
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 28 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
q
k
q
kk
k
k
q
kk
k
T pp
p
pNN
p
p
pN
NN2 2
1
1
12
1
1
11
111
1
1
Total number channel groups when all the hop links use orthogonal channel groups:
Then:
WWq
k
q
kk
k
k
NCFRN MR
p
pMR
ppp
pNN
NR
1
11
11lim
2 21
1
1
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 29 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
When every other ‘hop’ links reuse the same channel groups:
When all of the links use orthogonal channel groups:
) .(1)1(log
1CCN
pCFRN RM
NR
Capacity Comparisons
) .(1 CCNCFRN RM
p
pR
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 30 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Bandwidth Allocation to Access and Feeder Systems
Access system
cluster size N = 3Base Station service area
Relay service area
BT: Total BW
BA: total Access BW
BF: total Feeder BW
Ba: access BW for each relay
Bf: feeder BW for each relay
a: spectral efficiency for access
f: spectral efficiency for feeder
nr: number of relays
BT = BA+ BF
BA = NBa
BF = nr Bf
Bf f = Ba a
Each color represents a
frequency group
Florea, Yanikomeroglu
IEEE WCNC’06
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 31 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Bandwidth Allocation to Access and Feeder Systems
a
f
r
T
F
nNB
B
1
1
access, feeder throughput
N = 3 19%, 81% 3.2 BT
N = 1 7%, 93% 3.7 BT
Bandwidth allocation for Bandwidth allocation for ACCESSACCESS
Bandwidth allocation for Bandwidth allocation for FEEDERFEEDER
f
arT
A
NnB
B
1
1
feeder portionaccess portion
Ex: nr = 25, f = 4, a= 2
if nr ∞, then BA/BT 0 and BF /BT 1
far
Taar
nN
BBnT
1
Throughput:
if nr ∞, then T f BT
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 32 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Bandwidth Allocation to Access and Feeder Systems
100 Mbps – only in this small area
67 Mbps – in a much larger area
Why to use relays?
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 33 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Relay Network Microcellular Network
Cost-effective high data rate coverage excellent moderate
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Multiplexing Loss in Multihop Relaying with Orthogonal Channels
When does it make sense to break a single-hop into multiple hops?
Low SNR case
Single-hop with 4 dB SNR ½-rate QPSK: 1 b/s/Hz
Two hops each with 12 dB SNR ¾-rate 16-QAM: 3 b/s/Hz
Net spectral efficiency: 1.5 b/s/Hz use multihop
High SNR case
Single-hop with 26 dB SNR full-rate 64-QAM: 6 b/s/Hz
Two hops each with 34 dB SNR 128-QAM: 7 b/s/Hz
Net spectral efficiency: 3.5 b/s/Hz use single-hop
Rule of thumb: low SNR multi-hop
high SNR single-hopopportunistic relaying
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 36 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Multi-Hop Criterion
If single-hop SNR satisfies
then
[net spectral efficiency]n+1 >
[net spectral efficiency]n
n - number of hops p - path loss exponent
Assumptions:
- all links have same path loss exponent p
- All relays are placed uniformly on a in straight line from source to destination
SNR values under which there exists a SNR values under which there exists a ((n+1)n+1)-hop link -hop link withwith better spectral efficiency better spectral efficiency
compared with an compared with an nn-hop link-hop link
1
1
np
pn
n
n
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20
2 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4 4.4 4.8
Path Loss Exponent
SN
R [
dB]
1->2
2->3
3->4
One-hop region
Two-hop region
Three-hop region
Four(or more) -hop region
Florea, Yanikomeroglu
IEEE Globecom’05
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 37 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Outline
Part II: Possibilities Analog relaying relaying vs digital relaying Fixed relaying vs terminal relaying Homogeneous relaying (single air interface) vs
heterogeneous relaying (dual air interface)
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 38 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Analog Relaying vs Digital Relaying
Digital relaying (router, bridge)Regenerative relayingDecode-and-forward (detect-and-forward) relayingAdaptive (selective) decode-and-forward
Analog relayingNon-regenerative relayingAmplify-and-forward relaying On channel With frequency translation
Analog relaying noise propagationDigital relaying error propagation
Analog relaying may be better than digital relaying in certain scenariosHybrid analog/digital relaying: another possibility
digital relay
DF
CMPth
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 39 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Fixed Relaying vs Terminal/Mobile Relaying
Terminal relaying: rich theoretical area, full of potentials
But, many technical challenges No service guarantee Increased energy consumption (fast battery draining) Increased transmit power (in CDMA) Additional hardware and functionality (higher terminal cost) Security issues Frequent hand-offs (especially in the presence of high mobility)
Terminal relaying: any incentives? Special applications: single team (law-enforcement, military, rescue) Non-battery powered fixed user terminals (802.16a) Cooperative relaying with simultaneous mutual benefits (symmetric cooperation) Personal area networks Commercial applications: business plan needed (air time offers?)
Ad hoc networks (infrastructureless): no internet connection!
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 40 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Fixed Relaying vs Terminal/Mobile Relaying
Routing: easier in infrastructure-based multihop networks than infrastructureless ad hoc multihop networks Nodes with extra complexity and intelligence (BS/AP or fixed relays) Common source or destination
Routing with more demanding goals: possible
Expectations in 4G networks: first, fixed relays then, mobile/terminal relays
Single-hop (infrastructureless) ad hoc networks: possible
Multihop (infrastructureless) ad hoc networks: commercially difficult!
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 41 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Heterogeneous (vs Homogeneous) Relaying
Decoupling of access and backbone networks Access: air interface A Backbone (feeder): air interface B
Customized air interfaces
Easier interference management
License-exempt bands can be utilized
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 42 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Single-hop PC Two-hop PC
Single Air Interface vs Dual Air Interface
New issues emerge
Ex: power control in the reverse-link of two-hop CDMA networks
Walsh, Yanikomeroglu
IEEE CCECE’04
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 43 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Outline
Part III: Further exploitation of the relay/multihop/mesh architecture Novel diversity schemes Advanced cooperative relaying Intelligent routing
Diversity- and AMC (Adaptive Modulation and Coding)-aware routing in infrastructure-based TDMA multihop networks
BS-Relay coordination Dynamic frequency hopping in cellular relay networks
WiMax mesh networks
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 44 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Theoretical Literature on Relay/Mesh/Multihop NetworksVan der Meulen (68,71)El Gamal, Cover, Aref (79,80,82) [Stanford]Willems (83,85)
c) Orthogonal cooperative diversity (slow fading channel)
T4T2
T3T1
Engaging terminals in cooperation
Laneman, Tse, Wornell
IEEE T-IT, Dec’04
Laneman, Wornell
IEEE T-IT, Oct’03
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 50 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Destination
DDSS
Source
Parallel Relays
rel
ay
rel
ay
rel
ay
first slot:
broadcast
second slot: multiple access
orthogonal multiplexing loss
beamforming CSI (overhead)
diversity order: up to R+1
provided that error propagation is prevented
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 51 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Destination
DD
First Hop Second Hop
SS
Source
RlayRlay# R# R
RlayRlay# 1# 1
Adinoyi, Yanikomeroglu
WCNC’06 (IEEE TWireless’07)Multi-Antenna Aspects of Cooperative Fixed Relays
use few relays with multi-antennas
(even with selection combining)
instead of many relays with single antennas
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 52 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Adinoyi, Yanikomeroglu
WWRF15, VTC’S06
Practical Cooperative Communication Schemes Through Fixed Relays
D
RelayProcessing
RelayProcessing
R1
R2
(a)
S2
S1
S1 (d1) ---> R1S2 (d2) ---> R2
R1 (d1) ---> D and R2
R2 (d2) ---> D and R1
R1(d2) ---> DR2 (d1) ---> D
(b)no need for incentives for cooperation
no security risk
no complexity incurred in terminals
complexity: moved to network
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 53 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Practical Cooperative Communication Schemes Through Fixed Relays
S1 (d1) ---> R1 , R2S2 (d2) ---> R1 , R2
R1 (d1(1)) ---> D
R2 (d2(2)) ---> D
R1(d2(1)) ---> D
R2 (d1(2)) ---> D
(b)
D
S1
S2
Multi-userdetection
SignalProcessinge.g., DSTC
Relay 1 (R1)
d1(1)
d2(1)
(a)
SignalProcessinge.g., DSTC
Multi-userdetection
Relay 2 (R2)
d1(2)
d2(2)
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 54 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
D
RelayProcessing
RelayProcessing
FRN1
FRN2
S1
S1 (d1) ---> FRN1, FRN2 S2(d2) ---> FRN1, FRN2
FRN1 (d1) ---> DFRN2 (d2) ---> D
FRN1(d2) ---> DFRN2 (d1) ---> D
S2
1
L
1
L
Practical Cooperative Communication Schemes Through Fixed Relays
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 55 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Multihop DiversityAnalysis of multihop channels with diversity Decoded relaying with diversity: intermediate terminals combine, digitally decode
and re-encode the received signal from all preceding terminals Amplified relaying with diversity: intermediate terminals combine and amplify the
received signal from all preceding terminals
Diversity in 2-Hop Links Mazen Hasna, Mohamed-Slim Alouini J. Laneman, Greg Wornell
Diversity in n-Hop Links (for fully connected networks) John Boyer, David D. Falconer, Halim Yanikomeroglu, “Multihop Diversity in
Wireless Relaying Channels,” IEEE Trans. on Communications, Oct. 2004
Main Observations Comparison of relaying and diversity schemes wrt BER Multihop Diversity > Multihop > Singlehop Amplified Relaying > Decoded Relaying DRMD improves when intermediate terminals are closer to the source terminal ARMD improves when intermediate terminals are closer to the destination
terminal
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 56 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Full-Diversity Relays and Destination
Full diversity reception at all receivers
Requires n channels for n relaying hops
Complex relay behavior (diversity combining)
Source Relay1 Relay2 Relay3 Destination
Boyer, Falconer, Yanikomeroglu
IEEE T-COM, Oct. 2004
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 57 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Aggregate SNR of Amplified Relaying Channels
John Boyer, David D. Falconer, Halim Yanikomeroglu, “On the Aggregate SNR of Amplified Relaying Channels”, IEEE Globecom 2004.
Aggregate Signal to Noise Ratio “Aggregate”: inclusion of propagated noise terms in the SNR formulation. Propagated noise terms are generated as amplified relaying terminals amplify
both the information and noise portions of received signals indiscriminately.
Motivated by findings indicating that the performance of amplified relaying can approach and in some cases exceed that of decoded relaying.
Aggregate SNR expressions developed for amplified relaying channels with given source, destination, and relaying terminals, link connectivity, link attenuation, transmit power, and receiver noise.
Aggregate SNR expression developed for following network connectivity: Serial Amplified Relaying Channels (serial node connectivity) Parallel Amplified Relaying Channels (parallel node connectivity) General Amplified Relaying Channels (general node connectivity)
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 58 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Amplified Relaying
Source
terminal
Destination
terminal
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 59 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
ith Amplifying Relay
From
Terminal k:
ikkkkikik zar ,,, )(
ikz ,
iA
)( iiiis
1)(
:ionNormalizat
terminalfrompower trans.
terminalfrom noise propagated
terminalfrom symbol data
22
kk
k
k
k
E
k
k
k
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 60 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Definitions
Aggregate SNR at for : Link SNR at for :
where is the transmitted power is the complex amplitude of the information symbol is propagated noise is distance-dependant attenuation, shadowing, and fading is the variance of the zero-mean Gaussian random variable
This model normalizes the transmit signal such that
iT iT)(iPk TT )(iPk TT
2
,,
2
2
,][ ikikkk
kkik
aNE
2
,,
,
ikik
kik
aN
ii
i
ikN , ikz ,
1][22 ii E
ika ,
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 61 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Some Equations
Serial Amplified Relaying Channels (recursive form)
Serial Amplified Relaying Channels (sum of products form)
Parallel Amplified Relaying Channels
General Amplified Relaying Channels
)(11
),(1,
1),(
1,),( ,)( iPkkkPikkkPikiiP TT
1
,,
1),(
1),(
1),(
,
1),(
1),(
1),(),( ...)(
)()()(
lkj
iRlkj
kj
iRkjiRjTTT
TTTTllPkkPjjP
TTTTT
kkPjjPTT
jjPiiP
)(
,),(
iPk TTikiiP
)(
11),(
1,
1),(
1,),( )(
iPk TTkkPikkkPikiiP
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 62 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Example Channels
s1
r2,3
s3
r3,4
s2
r1,2
T1
T2
T4
T3
s1
s3
r3,4
r2,4s2
r1,2
T1
T2
T4
T3r1,3
s1
r2,3
s3
r3,4
r2,4s2
r1,2
T1
T2
T4
T3
s1
r2,3
s3
r3,4
r2,4s2
r1,2
T1
T2
T4
T3r1,3
s1
r2,3
s3
r3,4
r2,4s2
r1,4
r1,2
T1
T2
T4
T3r1,3
Fig 1. Serial Connected Fig 2. Parallel Connected
(multi-route diversity)
Fig 4. General Connected 2
Fig 3. General Connected
Fig 5. Fully Connected
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 63 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Aggregate SNR vs. Link SNR
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
T
1
T
2s
1
s
3
s
2T
1
T
4
s
1 s
3
s
2
T
2
T
4
T
3
s
1
s
3
s
2T
1
T
2
T
4
T
3
s
1 s
3
s
2T
1
T
2
T
4
T
3
s
1 s
3
s
2T
1
T
2
T
4
T
3
T
3
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 64 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Comparison with a Linear Relation (high order multiplicative termsin formula at bottom of slide 62 removed)
T
1
T
2s
1
s
3
s
2T
1
T
4
s
1 s
3
s
2
T
2
T
4
T
3
s
1 s
3
s
2T
1
T
2
T
4
T
3
T
3
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 5
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 65 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Observations
Serial Amplified Relaying Channels: Allocate relatively more power to weaker links
Parallel Amplified Relaying Channels: Allocate relatively less power to weaker links
General Amplified Relaying Channels: Allocate relatively more power to weak links that are not parallel to strong links and relatively less power to weak links that are parallel to strong links
Maximizing Links in parallel (diversity gains) more important than maximizing links in serial (attenuation gains) for the example simulations.
For strong links in serial the performance is approximately linear with respect to the component link SNRs
For weak links in serial the performance is less than linear with respect to the component link SNRs
Amplified relaying may not be appropriate for very low SNR systems as propagated noise becomes limiting factor.
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 66 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
System Resource Constraints
John Boyer, David D. Falconer, and Halim Yanikomeroglu, ”Impact of System Resource Constraints on the Connectivity of Wireless Relaying Networks”, ICC 2005 (under review in TWireless)System resource constraints have a direct impact on the link connectivity of wireless relaying networks and therefore the possible distributed spatial diversity techniquesConstraints considered Number of Channels Available (NCA): N or 2 available channels Relay Combination (RC): Diversity combining or simple relay Destination Combination (DC): Diversity combining or simple relay Multiple Channel Reception (MCR): Multiple channels or single combined by
receiver Multiple Channel Transmission (MCT): Multiple channels or single transmitted
Possible constraint combinations are analyzed and reducedRelaying types Amplify-and-forward (analog) relaying Decode-and-forward (digital) relaying with error propagation Decode-and-forward (digital) relaying without error propagation
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 67 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Full-Diversity Relays and Destination
Full diversity reception at all receivers
Requires n channels for n relaying hops
Complex relay behavior (diversity combining)
Source Relay1 Relay2 Relay3 Destination
Boyer, Falconer, Yanikomeroglu
IEEE T-COM, Oct. 2004
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 68 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
2-Channel Diversity Relays and Destination
Successive transmitters along multihop path transmit/receive on alternating channels.
Requries 2 channels for n relaying hops.
Complex relay behavior (diversity combining).
Source Relay1 Relay2 Relay3 Destination
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 69 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
2-Channel Diversity Relays w Full Diversity Destination
Alternating channels with full diversity at destination
Requires 2 channels for n relaying hops
Complex relay behavior (diversity combining)
Source Relay1 Relay2 Relay3 Destination
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 70 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Non-Diversity Relays w Full Diversity Destination
Alternating channels with full diversity at dest.
Requries 2 channels for n relaying hops.
Simple relay behavior (no combining).
Source Relay1 Relay2 Relay3 Destination
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 71 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
System Connectivity Models
Models defined by the connectivity of source, relay, destination 1X: Terminal class X connected to one transmitter 2X: Terminal class X connected to the subset of transmitters on one channel FX: Terminal class X connected to all transmitters
Inter-model transitions based on minimum cost constraint sets:
FRFD
1R1D
1RFD
2RFDFS
2RFD
2R2DFS2R2D
1R2D2S1R2D
DC
MCT
MCR
RC
MCT
RC
MCR
MCT
RC MCR NCA
NCA
2R1D 2R1D2S
FR1D
RC DC
MCT
DC NCA
DC
S: Source
R: Relay
D: Destination
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 72 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
System Connectivity Models (Samples)
1R1D
1R2D
1RFD
2R2D
2RFD
FRFD
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
11
1
1
1 1
1
11
1
1
1
1
1
0
00 0
00
0
00
00
01
1
1 11
0 0 0
0
0
1
100
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 73 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Minimum Cost Constraint Sets
Mark of ’X’ indicates that the constraint is lifted the capability described by the corresponding system resource is available
Model NCAN Channels
Available
RCRelay
Combination
DCDestination
Combination
MCRMultiple Channel
Reception
MCTMultiple Channel
Transmission
1R1D
1R2D X
1R2D2S X X
1RFD X X
2R1D X
2R1D2S X X
2R2D X X
2R2DFS X X X
2RFD X X X
2RFDFS X X X X
FR1D X X X
FRFD X X X X
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 74 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Amplified Relaying
1R1D
1R2D
2R2D
1RFD
2RFD
FRFD
1R1D
2R2D
1RFD
2RFD
FRFD
FR1D
Singlehop
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 75 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Decoded Relaying with Error Propagation
1R1D
2R2D2RFD
FRFD
1R2D1RFD
1R1D
FRFD
Singlehop
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 76 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Decoded Relaying without Error Propagation
FRFD2RFD
1RFD
2R2D
1R2D
1R1DSinglehop
1R1D
2R2D
FRFD
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 77 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Observation I
Simulation of connectivity models for amplified relaying, decoded relaying with error propagation, and decoded relaying without error propagation isolates the impact of each constraint
Impact summary of system resource constraints Relaying Method NCA RC DC MCR MCT Amplified Small Small Large Large Small Decoded w Prop Small Medium Medium Small Medium
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Observations II
Diversity order of the system is dependent on the connectivity Amplified relaying Dependent only on destination Decoded relaying w Prop Dependent only on minimally connected relay Decoded relaying w/o Prop Dependent on destination and disjoint paths
Guidance for the order in which the constraints should be lifted Amplified DC, MCR, RC, MCT Decoded w Prop RC, DC, MCT, MCR Decoded w/o Prop DC, MCR, RC, MCT
Impact of lifting NCA contraint when all other constraints are lifted is small Likely will not be implemented in practice since the cost of N orthogonal channels
per information signal transmission is very high with respect to spectral efficiency.
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 79 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Ongoing WorkIncorporation of Interhop Interference Cancellation (IC) as a constraintExplicit separation of Common Channel Combination and Orthogonal Channel Combination as constraintsGeneralization of analysis for arbitrary number of channels available (K<N)Formalization of method for deriving system connectivity modelsMapping of models to cooperative diversity techniques in the literatureInterrelationships between system resource constriantsRelationship of system resource constraints to relay node placement
Grid placement Colinear equidistant between source and destination placement ’Bunched’ nodes placement between source and destination Random placement with varying uniformity of relay density
Practical issues and cost of system resource constraints Common channel combination techniques Cooperative coding Relay block size Spatial reuse of channels Wireless fading models Spectral efficiency
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 80 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Coordination among BSs/APs and Relays
Coordination among BSs Scheduling Interference management Radio resource management Admission control …
Rich literature
Limited usage in practice in conventional cellular networks
May be used in cellular relay networks
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 81 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Each terminal measures path losses to the neighboring bases and transmits this information to its serving base on a regular basis.
Each base communicates to several tiers of its neighbors the information about its own resource utilization (i.e. time slots, frequency hopping patterns and current power levels).
The serving base station calculates the interference level at each available resource, determines the least-interfered time slot and FH pattern pair, and assigns this to the terminal.
i. ii.
iii.
Base Station
Mobile terminal
CLASSICAL DYNAMIC FREQUENCY HOPPING WITH NETWORK ASSISTED RESOURCE ALLOCATION (DFH with NARA) – [AT&T Bell Labs]
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 82 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
MOBILE STATION 1
Measure Pathloss on BCCH for BS 1
Local Copy of FH Patterns For All BS
WIRELESS MEDIUM
Average
Send to BS1
Read and Use Specified FH Pattern
Measure Pathloss on BCCH for BS K
Average
Send to BS1….
Local Copy of Measurements For All MS from All BS
BASE STATION 1
To Other MobilesFrom Other
Mobiles
Manage Frequency Hop Patterns For This BS
Send Orders To MSs with Next FH Patterns
Collect Measurements From All MS in this BS Coverage Area
From Other Base Stations
To Other Base Stations To Other Base
Stations
From Other Base Stations
LANDLINE NETWORK
BLOCK DIAGRAM OF A CELLULAR SYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS DFH WITH NARA FOR DOWNLINK
….
….
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 83 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Base Station
Relay Station
User Equipment
Cell Border
Relay or Base Neighborhood
Inter-relay and Relay-Base Communication
SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE FOR TWO-HOP COMMUNICATIONS
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 84 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
R1
R2
R3
R4
R6
R5
BS
R1: 3 in-cell interferers (R2,R6,BS) and 3 out-of-cell interferers (R3,R4,R5)
UE pathloss info: R1BS
BS already has resource utilization information of the in-cell interferers of R1
BS: decide on DFH pattern based on limited info
BSR1: DFH pattern
DFH with LIMITED INFORMATION (Time Slot 2)
Mubarek, Yanikomeroglu, Periyalwar
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 85 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
First Tier Interferers
Second Tier Interferers
Base Station
Relay Station
User Equipment
Cell Border
Relay or Base Neighborhood
INTERFERING SUB-CELLS
FIGURE 9
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 86 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
UE
Measure Pathloss for BS
Average out Rayleigh
Get the new FH Pattern
Measure Pathloss for Interfering Relay1
Average out Rayleigh
UEs IN RS NEIGHBORHOODS
IN-CELL RELAYS
Measure Pathloss for Interfering Relay2
Average out Rayleigh
Collect Pathloss Reports from UEs in RS Neighborhood
Notify RSs with the new FH Patterns for UEs in
RS Neighborhoods
Create new Random FH Patterns for UEs in RS
Neighborhoods from the pool of available and unblocked Resources
Store FH Patterns of all
UEs and RSs in Memory
BASE STATION
Calculate which resources result in a SIR less than the threshold SIR, SIRTh,
and block them
OTHER BASE STATIONS
OUT-OF-CELL RELAYS
LANDLINE NETWORK
NO COORDINATION
Get the new FH Pattern
Notify UEs in RS Neighborhoods with their
new FH Patterns
UE in RS-Neighborhoods
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 87 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
UE in BS service region: DFH with full information
DFH with LIMITED INFORMATION (Time Slot 2)
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 88 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
UE
Measure Pathloss for RS1 …
Average out Rayleigh
Get the new FH Pattern…
Measure Pathloss for RS6
Average out Rayleigh
UEs IN BS NEIGHBORHOOD Collect Pathloss Reports
from UEs in BS Neighborhood
Notify UEs in BS Neighborhood with their
new FH Patterns
Create new FH Patterns for UEs in BS Neighborhood
Store FH Patterns of all
UEs and RSs in Memory
BASE STATION
OTHER BASE STATIONS
OUT-OF-CELL RELAYS
LANDLINE NETWORK
IN-CELL RELAYS
NO COORDINATION
BS-Neighborhood, BS relays as interferers
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 89 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Upper limit on consecutive frame drop before retransmission
3
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 97 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Simulation Assumptions
Snap shot processing at frame level All transmissions are slot synchronized Independent & fixed shadowing on all links Doppler shift negligible Multipath fading handled by micro diversity Infinite buffer size on the node All user nodes are active Separate control channels are available Continuous ARQ Protocol
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 98 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Outage Probability
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 99 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Outage Analysis of SH & MH Network, 2-Channels
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 100 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Outage Analysis of SH & MH Network, 4-Channels
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 101 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Outage Analysis of SH & MH Network, 6-Channels
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 102 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Connectivity Analysis: MH Network, 2-Channels
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 103 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Connectivity Analysis: MH Network, 4-Channels
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 104 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Connectivity Analysis: MH Network, 6-Channels
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 105 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Net Node Throughput
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 106 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Diversity- and AMC (Adaptive Modulation and Coding)-Aware Routing inInfrastructure-based TDMA Multihop Networks
Hop0 to 4
Hop0 to 1
Hop1 to 2
Hop2 to 3
Hop0 to 5
Hop5 to 6
Connection to 3Connection to 4 Connection to 6
0AP
1
2
3
4
56
Extra channels are not used. Connections and hops are orthogonal in the time domain.
Time Domain – MAC Frame
Hares, Yanikomeroglu, Hashem
VTC’F03 & Globecom’03
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 107 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Routing
Routing objective Select relay nodes and hop modulation/coding (MC) to maximize throughput
Throughput = (Information Rate bits/sec)*(1 - Probability of error) Increase Info. Rate or decrease end-to-end error rate to increase throughput. How?
-100 -50 0 50 100
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
SingleHop Routing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 24
25
26
27 28
29
30
31
32
33
34 35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
-100 -50 0 50 100
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
MultiHop Routing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 24
25
26
27 28
29
30
31
32
33
34 35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 108 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Hop0
Frame Allocation for Relaying
•Adaptive modulation and coding (AMC)
•Different MC used on hops
•Amount of data entering and exiting relaying nodes are equal
QAM64 QAM64
Hop10 1 2
QAM4
Hop0 20
Hop0
Hop0
Hop1Hop0 Hop1
Hop0
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 109 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Multihop Diversity
Time Domain
MRC DecoderSymbols CRC
OK?
YesBits
DecoderSymbols YesBits
Node 3 Receiver Operation Equivalent
No
QAM64 QAM16 QAM64
Hop1 Hop2Hop0
Hop2
Hop0
Hop1
DecoderSymbols YesBits
DecoderSymbols YesBits
No
Hop0
Hop1
CRC OK?
CRC OK?
CRC OK?
Node 2 Receiver Operation Equivalent
0 1 2 3Hop2Hop1Hop1Hop0Hop0
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 110 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Adaptive Modulation & Coding Maximization (AMCM)
Originally, hop modes were selected to maximize data rates on hops.
AMCM adapts hop modes to maximize the connection throughput for systems using MRC diversity.
Performed after route has been selected.
Possible modes a hop can assume is limited to the set of modes used in the connection (i.e. QAM16, QAM64, QPSK1/2).
For each iteration, examine all possible modes for all hops.
Change a mode for a single hop that generates the maximum metric for the connection.
Use the new set of modes for the subsequent iteration.
Stop when a mode change does not increase the metric for the connection.
Hop1 Hop2 Hop3
QAM64QAM16 QPSK1/2
From all possible changes, changing the mode of hop 2 from QAM64 to QAM16 generates the
max. metric.
Stop when mode changes do not increase the connection metric.
Hop1 Hop3
Use the new set of modes to continue to maximize the metric.
QPSK1/2QAM16
Hop2
QAM16
Hop2
QAM64
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 111 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Routing Types
Route Selection Strategies: Single Hop (SH) Multihop (MH) Multihop Selection Combining Diversity (MHSC)
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Simulation – Throughput, 128m Cell
0 5 10 15 20 25 300
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
T, [Mbps]
Pr(
Use
r T
hrou
ghpu
t <
= T
)
SHMHMHSCMHMRCMHAMMRCMHMRC-HDARMHAMMRC-HDAR
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 119 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Simulation - Number of hops, 128m Cell
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Number of Hops, d
Pr(
Num
ber
of H
ops
in R
oute
= d
)MHMHSCMHMRCMHAMMRCMHMRC-HDARMHAMMRC-HDAR
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 120 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Simulation – Throughput, 256m Cell
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
T, [Mbps]
Pr(
Use
r T
hrou
ghpu
t <
= T
)
SHMHMHSCMHMRCMHAMMRCMHMRC-HDARMHAMMRC-HDAR
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 121 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Simulation - Number of hops, 256m Cell
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Number of Hops, d
Pr(
Num
ber
of H
ops
in R
oute
= d
)MHMHSCMHMRCMHAMMRCMHMRC-HDARMHAMMRC-HDAR
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 122 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Simulation Results
Routing Type System Diversity
Avg. Network Throughput [Mbps] Avg. Hops in Route
128m Cell 256m Cell 128m Cell 256m Cell
SH None 7.75 2.07 1 1
MH None 12.77 4.17 2.21 2.93
MHSC SC 13.17 4.70 2.64 4.17
MHMRC MRC 13.19 4.70 2.62 4.14
MHAMMRC MRC 13.26 4.85 2.62 4.24
MHAMMRC-HDAR MRC 14.32 5.62 2.56 3.70
Routing Type – routing/metric typeSystem Diversity – form of diversity used at nodesSH = singlehop, MH = multihop (routing algorithm)MHAM = multihop adaptive modulation (routing algorithm)
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 123 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Observations
Multihop routes Optimal 2-hop routesDiversity techniques: very attractive -- they do not use additional radio resources (power or bandwidth)Routing: incorporates diversity benefitsHDAR: increases diversity benefitsAverage aggregate throughput: increases 2-3XOutage: reduces very significantly (range extension: remarkable)Strategically placed fixed relayers: may be very attractiveCan be used in any TDMA network, if PER models are known & channel updates supported
For more information: Shoaev Hares, Halim Yanikomeroglu, and Bassam Hashem,
"Diversity- and AMC (Adaptive Modulation and Coding)-Aware Routing in TDMA Multihop Networks", IEEE GLOBECOM 2003
Shoaev Hares, Halim Yanikomeroglu, and Bassam Hashem, "A relaying algorithm for multihop TDMA TDD networks using diversity", IEEE VTC Fall 2003
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 124 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Current Interest in Relay/Mesh/Multihop Networks (1) IEEE 802.11s – WLAN (Wireless Local Area Network) ESS Mesh Networking
Auto-configuring multihop paths between APs in a wireless distribution system. Targeted to be approved by 2008.
IEEE 802.15.5 – WPAN (Wireless Personal Area Network) Mesh Networking Aims at determining the necessary mechanisms that must be present in the PHY and MAC layers of
WPANs to enable mesh networking. Targeted to be approved by 2007.
IEEE 802.16 – WMAN (Wireless Metropolitan Area Network) 802.16-2004 standard “Air Interface for Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems”: approved in July
2004. MAC layer supports an optional mesh topology. 802.16e amends 802.16 to support mobility for the devices operating in the 2-6 GHz licensed bands. An optional mesh mode is being considered based on 802.16e-2005 OFDMA
MMR-SG: Mobile Multihop Relay Study Group 802.16j (Taipei, Sep’05; Vancouver, Nov’05; New Delhi, Jan’06; Denver, Mar’06)http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/16/sg/mmr/http://ieee802.org/16/sg/mmr/
IEEE 802.20 – MBWA (Mobile Broadband Wireless Access) Aims at developing the specification of PHY and MAC layers of an air interface for interoperable mobile
broadband wireless access systems, operating in licensed bands below 3.5 GHz, optimized for IP-data transport, with peak data rates per user in excess of 1 Mbps.
Expected to support the mesh architecture. http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/11/index.html
http://www.802wirelessworld.com
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 126 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Current Interest in Relay/Mesh/Multihop Networks (2)
Cellular 4G Networks (WINNER Project)
Propriety solutions by industry BelAir, Firetide, Strix, Tropos, RoamAD, Mesh Networks, … Nortel, Nokia, IBM, …
Booming literature
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 127 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
WINNER – Wireless World Initiative New RadioIntegrated Project funded by European Union under the 6th Framework Program (FP6)
Objective: “to develop a ubiquitous radio system concept based on global requirements for mobile communication systems beyond 3G. The project covers a full scope from short-range to wide-area scenarios and will provide significant improvement to current systems in terms of performance, efficiency, coverage and flexibility.”
01 Jan 2004 – 31 Dec 2009 (three 24-month phases)
~ 50 partners (all European, except 2 Chinese & 1 Canadian [Carleton]) Manufacturers, network operators, academic institutions and research centres Including Siemens, Alcatel, DoCoMo Europe, Ericsson, Nokia, France Telecom,
Fujitsu Europe, IBM Europe, Philips, Samsung Europe, Vodafone, Qualcom Europe, Nortel Europe
Relaying: integral part of WINNER network deployment conceptCheck https://www.ist-winner.org Public Deliverables D3.x
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 128 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Concluding Remarks
Infrastructure-based multihop networks: cost-effective ubiquitous high data rate coverage in future wireless networks
Fixed relay stations with add-on terminal relays
Impact in all layers of wireless communications Propagation, PHY, MAC, networking, higher layers and protocols
Relay networks will soon become a realityGoal: to develop advanced cooperation protocols and algorithms among relays and APs to obtain further performance gains at physical layer (cooperative diversity, virtual antenna arrays, …) systems layer (interference avoidance and management) networking layer (smart scheduling and routing, load balancing, …)
by relying on other advanced technologies, such as OFDM(A) and MIMO, as much as possible.
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 129 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Tutorial/Overview/Perspective Papers
H. Yanikomeroglu "Fixed and mobile relaying technologies for cellular networks", Second Workshop on Applications and Services in Wireless Networks (ASWN'02), pp. 75-81, 3-5 July 2002, Paris, France.
H. Yanikomeroglu, "Cellular multihop communications: infrastructure-based relay network architecture for 4G wireless systems", the 22nd Queen's Biennial Symposium on Communications (QBSC'04), 1-3 June 2004, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada; invited paper.
R. Pabst, B. H. Walke, D. C. Schultz, P. Herhold, H. Yanikomeroglu, S. Mukherjee, H. Viswanathan, M. Lott, W. Zirwas, M. Dohler, H. Aghvami, D. D. Falconer, and G. P. Fettweis, “Relay-based deployment concepts for wireless and mobile broadband radio”, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 42, no. 9, pp. 80-89, September 2004.
R. Bruno, M. Conti, and E. Gregori, “Mesh networks: commodity multihop ad hoc networks”, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 43, vol. 3, pp. 123-131, March 2005.
IEEE ICC 2006 – H. Yanikomeroglu Page 130 of 130
IEEE ICC 2006 – Tutorial 1011 June 2006, Istanbul, Turkey
Relay/multihop/mesh networks research at Carleton University