3 tayangan

Diunggah oleh lfklas

ksdfgldsf lkdgnlsd lsdfglds lsdngsld lsdg fl

- Virtual Channels in NoCs
- New Adaptive Cooperative-MIMO for LTE Technology
- IBwave Certification Course Syllabus
- LTE Drive Test Part 1
- 42. Design Challenges
- Diversity Transmit
- 5 Generalized Decision Feedback Equalization
- Agilent Imp
- hsliniting
- 05450663 MultiFunctional MIMO
- IJCNS20110200008_58644332
- 3G Drive Test Pankaj RANA
- crc final.docx
- Data
- ChoudhuryGibson_ITW07
- testho.txt
- testho
- Huawei Intro Presentation BDM WLAN 6.28.2013.pptx
- CMLoverview
- Chap2 Wireless Channel

Anda di halaman 1dari 62

MIGUEL ANGEL GOMEZ RODRIGUEZ

Master Thesis

January 2004

TRITAS3RSTXXXX

ISSN 14009137

ISRN KTH/RST/R--XX/XX--SE

D EPARTMENT OF S IGNALS , S ENSORS AND S YSTEMS

Abstract

Higher link data rates will be required because more demanding services are expected in future wireless networks. This requirement can not easily be achieved

by the traditional infrastructure networks currently used, but it is believed that

relaying based networks hold great potential in this respect. Relay networks

achieve high throughput by utilising cooperation between nodes and they can

be broadly classified as multihop networks and virtual antenna arrays (cooperative Multiple-Input Multiple-Output relaying networks).

The masters thesis presents performance results of a cooperative MIMO relaying (CMIMOR) network in terms of maximum throughput and compares

this network with multihop and the traditional infrastructure networks for the

downlink in a single-cell environment.

In the study of CMIMOR, four different heuristic schemes for the relay station

power allocation are considered. The purpose of each scheme is to choose which

mobile stations are to be used as relaying nodes. This implies that four different

throughput results are obtained for the CMIMOR case.

STDMA-multihop and traditional infrastructure networks were studied and the

corresponding maximum throughput results were obtained for comparison with

the CMIMOR network performance.

Different parameters (the relation between the base station and the relays power,

the number of mobile stations, the number of relay stations, the total bandwidth

and the path loss coefficient) were modified, observing, for example, that the

CMIMOR network maximum throughput increases considerably as the number

of mobile stations or the bandwidth is increased.

From the results we observe that one of the heuristic schemes performs better

than the others for almost all the studied cases and that there is a throughput

increase of around 20% by utilising the direct path. The most important conclusion is that the CMIMOR network performs 2.2 to 3 times better than the

other two networks.

iii

iv

Abstract

Acknowledgements

This master thesis is included in the Affordable Wireless Services and Infrastructure (AWSI) project for Wireless@KTH and I would like to thank the project

work package leader and examiner Tim Giles, the Ericsson researcher and advisor Peter Larsson and the Ph.D. student Pietro Lungaro for their assistance,

fruitful discussions and feedback.

This work would not have been possible without the support of my family,

specially my parents (Miguel and Dolores), and friends, particularly those who

made me forget how dark and cold Sweden can be in autumn and winter (Diego,

Agustin and Amer).

vi

Acknowledgements

Contents

1 Introduction

1.1 General Problem . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2 Thesis Problem . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3 Motivation and interest of this thesis

1.4 Previous Research . . . . . . . . . .

1.5 Thesis Outline . . . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

3

3

4

5

5

5

2 System Model

2.1 Channel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2 Fair comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7

8

8

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

3 Studied Networks

3.1 Traditional Network . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2 Relay Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.2.1 Cooperative MIMO Relaying Network

3.2.2 Multihop Network . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Results

4.1 Simulation parameters . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2 Studied parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.1 Relation between the total RS power

4.2.2 Number of MSs in the cell . . . . . .

4.2.3 Number of BS antennas . . . . . . .

4.2.4 Total bandwidth . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.5 Path loss coefficient () . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

9

9

10

10

13

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

and the BS power

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

17

17

17

18

23

26

28

30

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

35

5.1 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

References

37

Bibliography

37

6 Appendix

6.1 SNR CDF at the cell border . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6.2 Total SNR before SVD for the CMIMOR network

6.3 Throughput calculation for CMIMOR networks . .

6.4 CMIMOR Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

39

39

39

40

41

viii

Contents

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8

Optimal STDMA-Multihop Network Algorithm . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison between scheme 1 and the optimal solution for two

RSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Standard deviation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

42

43

43

List of Figures

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

Example

Example

Example

Example

Example

4.1

Throughput comparison with/without the direct path for addition scheme - changing PBS /PRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Throughput comparison with/without the direct path for multiplication scheme - changing PBS /PRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Throughput comparison with/without the direct path for distance scheme - changing PBS /PRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Throughput comparison with/without the direct path for scheme

1 - changing PBS /PRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing

PBS /PRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing PBS /PRS . . . . . . . . . . .

Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing PBS /PRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing

PBS /PRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing

the number of MSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing the number of MSs . . . . . .

Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing the number of MSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing

the number of MSs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing

the number of BS antennas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing the number of BS antennas .

Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing the number of BS antennas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing

the number of BS antennas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5

4.6

4.7

4.8

4.9

4.10

4.11

4.12

4.13

4.14

4.15

4.16

of

of

of

of

of

cooperative MIMO relaying network . . . . . .

cooperative MIMO relaying network with direct

multihop network . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

STDMA-multihop network . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

. . .

. . .

path

. . .

. . .

9

10

11

13

15

19

19

20

20

21

21

22

23

24

24

25

25

26

27

27

28

List of Figures

4.17 Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing

BT OT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.18 Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing BT OT . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.19 Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing BT OT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.20 Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing

BT OT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.21 Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing

4.22 Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.23 Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.24 Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing

32

33

6.1

6.2

39

42

Throughput example between traditional and multihop networks

29

29

30

30

31

31

List of Figures

Chapter 1

Introduction

1.1

General Problem

The increasing number of users and the existence of more resource demanding

services require a higher link data rate than the one that can be achieved in

current infrastructure networks [1]. In traditional infrastructure networks there

is only one hop between transmitter and receiver. The data capacity of this link

is upper limited by the Shannon capacity [2]

C = W log2 (1 + S/N )

(1.1)

where C is the channel capacity in bits per second, W is the bandwidth in Hertz,

and S/N is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).

Nowadays, thanks to efficient new forward error correction schemes, the achieved

rates are near to this limit, thus alternative solutions are studied, such as multihop networks and MIMO (Multiple-Input Multiple-Output) systems.

To exploit diversity helps considerably to increase the link robustness. A wellknown diversity scheme is spatial diversity where the diversity relies on uncorrelated channels, which is achieved by employing multiple antennas either at

the receiver side or the transmitter side and sufficiently separating the multiple

antennas (of same polarization). A system employing multiple antennas at both

the transmit and receive side is called multiple input multiple output (MIMO).

MIMO techniques can be used to increase the robustness of a link but they

could also be used to increase the links throughput. Although this is one of

the most interesting solutions, we are limited by the mobile size which does not

allow implementing more than one or a few antennas (given the current working

frequencies). However, this could be solved by shifting to higher communication

frequencies, which inevitably results in higher transmission losses.

To solve the receiver multiple antenna problem an innovative system has been

proposed. In this approach the communication between transmitter and receiver

is done in two hops through a group of elements called relay stations (RSs). This

cooperative MIMO relaying (CMIMOR) scheme creates a Virtual Antenna Array (VAA) [3] by using the antennas of a group of RSs. These RSs transmit

simultaneously on different channels the receiver signal that they receive from

the base station to the receiving terminal (downlink case) or the signal that

the transmitting terminal wants to send to the base station (uplink case). This

3

Chapter 1. Introduction

system can be modelled as a MIMO system although the real receiver (downlink) or transmitter (uplink) only has one antenna. Since the relaying mobile

stations (MSs) introduce additional noise and there is a double Rayleigh channel effect the scheme is expected to perform below the corresponding MIMO

diversity gain when used for spatial multiplexing. Due to this double Rayleigh

channel, the capacity remains also below the MIMO achievable capacity (for a

single Rayleigh channel) [4, 5]:

Ctot = W log2 (det[I +

P

HH ])

NM

(1.2)

where I is the identity matrix, P is the total transmit power, N is the total

noise power, M is the number of transmit antennas and H is the channel impulse

response matrix.

An advantage of ad-hoc networks over the traditional network is the division of

the path loss. If the path loss is divided in smaller parts, there is an increase in

the SNR, implying an increase in the data rate (or coverage). A lot of studies

have been done on multihop, but cooperative relaying (2 hop relaying with

communication over parallel paths) is of particular interest.

1.2

Thesis Problem

The improvement of the performance of VAA compared to a single link communication system has been proved in [6], but this is not the aim of our study.

We are interested in the performance comparison between cooperative MIMO

relaying, using a power control scheme in the relays, and multihop and traditional infrastructure networks.

The main task is to focus on the performance of cooperative MIMO relaying

in terms of data rate and to compare it with another ad-hoc network and the

traditional infrastructure network.

We want to find the maximum throughput performance for cooperative MIMO

relaying system. As this question has too many dimensions, it will be solved for

just a few cases and compared (in a fair way) with the STDMA-multihop and

the traditional infrastructure networks. Once we implement and simulate the

three systems, with the obtained results, we will decide which network performs

better as we increase some parameters such as the MSs and RSs density, the

power transmitted by the relays, the path loss coefficient and the total available

bandwidth.

The motivation to find these results by simulating the systems is that the analytical calculation can be really tricky and complicated for a MIMO system.

Another important issue that will be taken into consideration is the way to

choose the mobile terminals that will form the VAA group. M. Dohler groups

them by the distance to the receiver, taking those mobile terminals which are

closer to the receiver [3]. This solution is not certain to be the optimum as

the selection aspect has not been studied, thus some algorithms that strive to

optimize the link SNR will be implemented, and the best of them will be chosen

for further studies within the thesis. The VAA group will be formed by those

terminals that give a better link SNR. The SNR will be calculated for all the

possible links and those links with higher SNR will determine the MSs that will

be part of the VAA group.

1.3

achievable link throughput compared to the current infrastructure network and

to the multihop network, maintaining the same general characteristics (total

power, bandwidth, etc).

The general motivation of working in this field is to observe if it can be interesting to use CMIMOR networks in order to decrease the total network cost. The

network cost should be reduced compared to the current infrastructure network

but at least the same performance should be provided in terms of throughput,

delay, etc. This cost reduction can be achieved by decreasing the number of

BSs and using fixed/mobile RSs instead. Even the idea of BS could be removed

having no central infrastructure. We could think of cooperative MIMO relaying

as a possible candidate for 4G systems.

Two aspects that make this thesis different from other previous studies are the

comparison between the three wireless networks and the use of four different

heuristic schemes to choose the RSs for the CMIMOR network.

1.4

Previous Research

Previous work related to cooperative MIMO relaying covers mainly the MIMO

concept, its capacity limits, coding, cooperation between MSs and VAA. As we

want to compare its performance with multihop networks we are also interested

in the previous work done in this field.

There are many publications concerning MIMO systems, good reviews can be

found in [4] and [7], and also about the capacity limits that can be achieved by

its use [4].

Another interesting issue to take advantage of a MIMO system is coding. To

improve the link robustness some STC (Space Time Coding) is done [8, 9, 10],

such as Alamouti coding [11, 8]. This literature has been reviewed although

coding is not considered in this thesis.

Before arriving to the current CMIMOR network concept, some studies about

possible cooperation between terminals were done [1, 12, 13].

Cooperative MIMO relaying is a relatively new concept which has been studied

recently. Some solutions have been proposed by M. Dohler [6, 14, 15, 16] and

others [17]. The method of grouping a VAA, used in previous studies done by M.

Dohler, grouped them by the distance to the receiver (downlink) or transmitter

(uplink) [6, 14, 15, 16]. All this previous work on VAA has a relevant importance

for our study because it gives the basis to the system we will study.

In the multihop field, the other ad-hoc network that we will consider, our study

will be based mainly on [18], where a deep study has been done.

1.5

Thesis Outline

In chapter 2, the system model is given and some important notes about the

system that was studied are explained.

Chapter 3 describes the networks that have been studied and briefly explains

how they work. It is also explained how the four different power allocation

schemes that were used in the CMIMOR network work.

Chapter 1. Introduction

Chapter 4 shows all the obtained results and gives an explanation for all the

parameters that have been studied.

Chapter 5 is a summary of the obtained results. From these results some important conclusions were extracted and commented. Some suggestions for possible

future work are also included.

Chapter 2

System Model

Due to the time limitations that a M.Sc. thesis sets, only the downlink case for

a single cell has been studied. We considered an isolated hexagonal cell that was

not affected by any external interference. When considering an isolated cell, the

best cell shape is circular because of the omnidirectional transmission from the

BS at the center of the cell. We are using a hexagonal cell instead to simplify a

possible extension to a multicellular network.

Users in the network are 2D-Poisson distributed, and the receiver is chosen randomly among all the MSs in the cell.

All the results obtained and shown in following sections are for a link study for

the single hop (traditional network), CMIMOR and multihop networks. This

means that only the paths between the BS and a random receiver are studied,

not considering the existence of other possible transmissions between the BS

and other receivers. To study this link, a snapshot is considered, and for that

specific time (which will determine the position of the MSs among other variables) the comparison of the three networks will take place. The final result will

be the average over a large number of simulations (or snapshots).

The performance parameter that will be considered is the maximum throughput

that can be achieved in the three networks. To calculate this value we assume

continuous transmission and no delays.

Relays are an important element in multihop and CMIMOR networks. They

can act in two different ways: regenerative and non-regenerative. The regenerative relays receive the signal, store it, analyze it (decode and re-code it), amplify

it and send it. The non-regenerative relays only forward the amplified signal.

In our case, we will consider non-regenerative relays because the signal does not

have to be modified or studied by the relays, only amplified and forwarded. The

relays of the three studied networks will be mobile stations, although they could

also be fixed.

The way to choose the relays is different for each network and for each of the

schemes that will be studied within the CMIMOR network. The relays will be

chosen in order to maximize the link throughput and always considering all the

constraints that affect them.

2.1

Channel Model

In this thesis we will consider a Rayleigh and shadow fading channel with lognormal deviation and a distance dependent path loss (L = 1/R ) with attenuation coefficient .

The channels between each base station antenna and one relay station have the

same shadow fading but independent Rayleigh fading. The fading from a RS to

a MS (RS) is independent of the fading from the BS to the RS. Summarizing,

the fading from one element (BS antenna, RS or MS) in the network to another

one is independent of the fading between two other elements.

2.2

Fair comparison

To make a fair comparison among the three networks, all parameters and network conditions, such as the channel, are kept the same. The main constraints

for this fair comparison are the total bandwidth and the total power in the link.

The total power is divided in two parts:

PT OT = PBS + PRST OT

(2.1)

PBS is also considered fixed and with a value of 43.5 dBm (extracted from real

BS specifications [22]). PRST OT is assigned a value of 1/10PBS . With this PBS

value we can observe from Appendix 6.1 that we are achieving a SN R = 13 dB

at the cell border with a probability of 90 %.

The power assigned to each RS depends on the algorithm that we are using,

but we consider that there is no constraint apart from the total power assigned

to the RSs. This means that each RS will transmit with a different power

depending on the algorithm, without considering any minimum or maximum

value (always keeping the total power constraint). This is done in order to

calculate the maximum throughput, otherwise we would not consider some paths

in the algorithm due to the maximum relay station power.

Chapter 3

Studied Networks

The study of cooperative MIMO relaying networks is the main objective of this

thesis, but it is not a single network study. Indeed, it is a comparison between

its performance in terms of throughput and the performance of the multihop

network and the traditional infrastructure network. Hence, to arrive to some

conclusions about the performance comparison, we will study the three different

networks.

The three networks can be classified within two categories: traditional infrastructure networks and relay networks. In the first case, communication is carried

out directly between the base station and the receiver, both for the downlink

and the uplink cases. On the other hand, in relay networks a new element is

introduced: the relay station. This element reduces the dependency on the base

station and a lot of investigations take place in this field in order to reduce

the network cost. The cost can be reduced by decreasing the number of base

stations and using relays instead (hybrid network).

3.1

Traditional Network

In this network the communication is performed directly between the base station (BS) and the receiver (RX), then, there is only one hop. This is the way

networks work nowadays.

Receiver

To find out the power that should be used for the BS, a previous study was

9

done with only the BS and one RX at the cell border. Depending on the SNR

that we wanted to achieve at 90% probability (CDF), we got a value for the

base station power (Appendix 6.1).

Finally, we decided to choose a base station power from a base station specification [18] which assures a SNR of around 13 dB with 90% probability at the

cell border. This result can be extracted from the plot in Appendix 6.1.

The throughput (C) is calculated by applying Shannons throughput equation

(1.1)

This traditional system will provide a reference throughput value for the other

two relay networks.

3.2

Relay Networks

This section is called relay networks because the networks that we are considering depend on a central infrastructure, while an ad-hoc network does not require

this infrastructure. In an ad-hoc network, the communication is performed directly between transmitter and receiver without having to use a central element

such as a BS. In our case, in order to make a fair comparison with the infrastructure network, we will consider a BS which will become the transmitter

(downlink) or the receiver (uplink) of the communication.

3.2.1

This relay network uses all the relays to retransmit the signal transmitted by

the BS (downlink case) creating a VAA.

In our study we will consider two different cases. In the first case, the signal will

only be received from the relays, and in the second case the direct path (signal

arriving directly from the BS) will also be considered.

Relay

Receiver

Relay

Relay

By using the VAA concept we are emulating a MIMO system, and in order to

get the highest capacity the number of transmit and receive antennas will be the

same. In the case where we have more transmit antennas, the system capacity

saturates very quickly, provided that we have high SNR. On the other hand,

if we have more receive antennas, the capacity will increase in a logarithmic

fashion, having a low improvement as we increase the number of receive antennas

10

Relay

G2

W

G1

Receiver

Relay

PBS

Relay

PRS

N

Figure 3.3: Example of cooperative MIMO relaying network with direct path

compared to the difficulties and cost of the extra antennas [3, 9]. Regarding this

result we will use as many transmit antennas as receive antennas. Thus, if we

consider the direct path we will have as receive antennas the antennas from the

RSs plus the receiver antenna. From now on we will follow the relation:

Number of BS antennas = Number of RSs + 1

To avoid interference among the transmitters (RSs and BS) we will divide the

total bandwidth in channels. There will be as many channels as transmitters,

meaning that if we use N RSs, the total bandwidth for each transmission will

be divided by N + 1.

The maximum data rate performance will be measured by applying equation

(1.2). Expressed as a sum:

X

Ctot =

W log2 (1 + i )

(3.1)

where i is the SNR on each link after a SVD (Singular Value Decomposition)

[23] has been done at the receiver.

Before the SVD is deployed the total SNR at the receiver is:

=

1i 2i

2i + 1i + 1

(3.2)

where

PBSi G1i

(3.3)

N

PRSi G2i

2i =

(3.4)

W

where PBSi is the power transmitted by one BS antenna, G1i is the power (gain)

of the channel between the BS and the RS, PRSi is the power introduced by

relay i, and G2i is the power (gain) of the channel between the RS and the

receiver. A more detailed explanation is given in Appendix 6.2.

For the CMIMOR network, the received signal at the receiver is:

1i =

R = GP Cnorm (HT + N ) + W

(3.5)

where G is the diagonal matrix of the channel from all the RSs to the receiver;

P is the diagonal matrix of the power for each RS; Cnorm is the diagonal matrix

that normalizes the (HT + N ) power (for each relay) to 1 in order to control

11

the power transmitted by the RSs easily; H is the matrix channel between the

base station antennas and the RSs; T is the sent data vector; N is the relay

noise signal; W is the receiver noise signal (assumed to be white and complex

Gaussian).

Working with equation 3.3 we get:

R = A(HT + N ) + W = H 0 T + AN + W = H 0 T + W 0

(3.6)

Then the SNR for each path from a transmitting antenna to the receiver can

be calculated as:

i2 T2 i

(3.7)

SN Ri = PM

2 2

k=1 |uik k W 0

k

T2 i

where

are the elements of the hermitian matrix U H (obtained after the SVD decomposition) and

2

2 2

2

(3.8)

W

0 = |akk | N + W

k

where akk are the diagonal values of matrix A. There is a more detailed explanation of these equations in Appendix 6.3.

The way to choose the MSs that will become RSs is a very important issue that

we will focus on in order to achieve the maximum throughput. To get a good

result we will study four different heuristic schemes. One of them is the distance

scheme, already studied by M.Dohler. This scheme only considers the distance

from the MS to the receiver. The other three heuristic schemes focus on the

power transmitted by the BS and the RSs and the three of them are considerably influenced by the channel. They consider the characteristics of both the

first and the second link, in order to find the best RSs. These three schemes

assign the power to the RSs differently, choosing those RSs that give the highest

effective link SNR.

The scheme that gives the highest maximum throughput will be considered the

best and used in the CMIMOR network. As these schemes are heuristic approaches, we have to think that we will not get the optimal solution and that

they can be improved in future studies.

Scheme 1

This first heuristic scheme is extracted from [21]. It is the optimum scheme for

coherent combining but not necessarily optimum for the CMIMOR network.

The power assigned to each RS is the following:

Pk = C1 PRS

where

ak =

|ak |2

|ak |2

(3.9)

(1,k + 2,k + 1)

(3.10)

PBS Hk

2

RS

(3.11)

and

1,k =

12

PRS G

2

RX

2,k =

(3.12)

where C1 is a constant, PBS is the power transmitted by the BS, PRS is the

total power assigned to the RSs, Hk is the average path gain from the BS to

the relay k and G is the channel matrix between the RSs and the RX.

C1 is determined such that the sum of the relay powers is identical to PRS .

Addition scheme

This scheme differs from the previous one in the way the power is assigned to

the RSs:

Pk = C1 PRS (1,k + 2,k )

(3.13)

Multiplication scheme

In this scheme the power assignment considers a multiplication instead of an

addition:

Pk = C1 PRS (1,k 2,k )

(3.14)

Distance scheme

In this scheme the RSs are chosen as the closest MSs to the receiver and the

power assigned to them is the same:

Pk =

PRS

M

(3.15)

A brief explanation of the algorithm that has been used for the CMIMOR

network with the different schemes can be found in Appendix 6.4

3.2.2

Multihop Network

In this network, the information is relayed from one RS to another until the

destination is reached.

Receiver

Relay

Relay

Relay

Relay

Relay

The advantage of this network over the traditional one can be explained

considering the distance factor. As the distance between relays is decreased,

13

the factor

Gij = 1/Rij

(3.16)

is much larger, and so the more hops the better for multihop networks, because

Rij decreases. This implies that the required transmitted power is much lower

and thus, the interference created from this cell to other cells also decreases

considerably. We are considering cells, although in pure ad-hoc networks the

concept of cell is not used. Following our cell structure, this interference reduction increases the throughput considerably. This throughput increase will not

be observed in this thesis because we are considering an isolated cell with no

external interference, although a SNR increase will occur.

Another factor that makes the multihop network perform better is the path loss

coefficient (). The higher the , the better multihop performs compared to the

traditional network. This happens because the distance between RSs is lower

than the total distance to the receiver (R), and then Gij is not influenced so

much by as for the direct path (GBS,RX ).

The way to calculate C is the same as for the traditional network, with the

difference that now the SNR is increased considerably, although the bandwidth

that can be used is reduced by the number of RSs in the path:

C=

BT OT

log2 (1 + SN R)

M

(3.17)

It can be seen that the M factor is important because it reduces the throughput

considerably. This value is the number of channels that will be used.

The total bandwidth is divided into channels in order to avoid interference.

Thus, if we use N RSs to arrive to the receiver, there will be N + 1 different

channels, one for each transmitting element (N RSs + the BS).

The SNR is also affected by BTMOT . Hence, the SNR is increased if the number

of relay nodes that are considered is increased.

The SNR is calculated at each RS. This SNR will be the same for all the RSs in

order to have the same throughput between each intermediate transmitter and

receiver. Finally, this SNR is substituted in the previous equation.

We are interested in having the same throughput in all the RS-RS links because

the whole link throughput is determined by the lowest throughput between RSs

(bottleneck path).

In Appendix 6.5, an example can be seen comparing the multihop and the

traditional network, not considering any interference. From a plot also shown

in the same Appendix, it can be seen that for a higher SNR the traditional

network performs better. This result can be extrapolated to the systems that

we are studying, meaning that for high SNR the multihop network will work

worse than the traditional infrastructure one.

STDMA

In order to get the maximum throughput within a multihop network some research has been done and based on [18] and its previous research a good MAC

protocol has been found. This protocol is STDMA (Spatial Time Division Multiple Access). This approach allows simultaneous transmissions (from different

transmitters) in the same time slot without creating interference due to the spatial factor. In our case, we will apply this approach reusing frequency channels

14

instead of time slots. If the N transmitters are separated enough from one another, they can transmit in the same bandwidth creating negligible interference.

Receiver

Ch 2

Ch 1

Relay

Ch 4

Ch 2

Ch 3

Relay X

Ch 1

Relay Z

Relay

Relay Y

From the plot example we have the following SINR equations:

Z '

PY G Y Z

PY G Y Z

=

PBS GBSZ + NZ

NZ

(3.18)

a noise limited system.

We will use this approach to get a high maximum throughput that can be

achieved with a multihop network.

Optimal STDMA-Multihop Network

To find the maximum throughput in our system, an optimal STDMA-multihop

network is chosen. By optimal we mean that all the possible paths within the cell

are studied and the one that gives the highest throughput will be the maximum

link throughput. It is not an efficient way to find out the maximum throughput

but it is the only approach that assures that there will not be a better path

to the receiver. Thus, we are not fixing any minimum or maximum number of

hops.

The algorithm that has been used can be found in Appendix 6.6

15

16

Chapter 4

Results

All the results of this thesis have been obtained through simulation due to the

difficulty of finding an analytical solution when using CMIMOR networks for a

large number of RSs.

These results are shown in different plots which are the result of averaging over

200 simulations. To show the validity of the results the standard deviation for

all the curves has been calculated and is shown in Appendix 6.8

The metric that we will obtain is the throughput, measured in bits per second.

When a comparison is done, the results are in %. These values are calculated

by using this expression:

Result% = (

throughputA

1)100

troughputB

(4.1)

This means that for example 20% is equivalent to say that throughput A is

0.2 times higher than throughput B, or equivalently, throughput A is equal to

1.2 times the throughput of B. Similarly 200% means that throughput A is

an increase of 2 times the throughput of B (with respect to throughput B) or

equivalently 3 times higher than B. Thus, although in the figures the results are

shown as the throughput increase the comments will be given as the number of

times that throughput A is higher than B.

4.1

Simulation parameters

The parameters shown in the table 4.1 will be kept the same for all the simulations and for the three networks. They will only be changed if they are the

parameter under study.

= 8 dB is a typical value for flat terrain - standard deviation [19] and

= 3.5 for an urban environment [20].

4.2

Studied parameters

The obtained results of the maximum throughput for the three networks (and

four heuristic schemes for the CMIMOR network) are studied for different parameters. It was considered that the most important parameters were: the

17

Variable

Value

Path loss coefficient

Shadow fading coefficient

Cell radius

Average number of users

Bandwidth

Number of BS antennas

Power noise range

Total BS power

= 3.5

= 8 dB

R = 1 km

50

5 MHz

5

[118dBm, 134dBm]

43.5 dBm

relation between the BS power and the total RS power, the number of MSs in

the cell, the number of BS antennas, the total bandwidth and the path loss

coefficient.

The results obtained for these parameters are divided into two parts. In the

first one the CMIMOR network results are commented and in the second one

the comments are about the results for the comparison of the three networks.

4.2.1

power

Following the total power constraint, we modified the BS power in order to see

how this change influences the maximum throughput. The parameter that we

change in the following plots is the relation: PBS /PT OT from a value close to

0 up to almost 1. PRS is also modified in order to keep the total link power

constraint: PRS + PBS = PT OT

CMIMOR network

For the CMIMOR network, we want to see the influence of the direct path for

the four heuristic schemes. Thus, five different plots are shown. In the first four

plots (figure 4.1-4.4) the maximum throughput for the four different schemes is

shown, with and without the direct path. In figure 4.5 the throughput increase

for each scheme is shown in %.

18

x 10

Throughput (bits/s)

1.5

Traditional

Addition scheme

Addition scheme with direct path

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pbs (factor of the initial total power); Prs=PtotPbs

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.1: Throughput comparison with/without the direct path for addition

scheme - changing PBS /PRS

8

1.8

x 10

1.6

Throughput (bits/s)

1.4

1.2

Traditional

Multiplication scheme

Multiplication scheme with direct path

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pbs (factor of the initial total power); Prs=PtotPbs

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.2: Throughput comparison with/without the direct path for multiplication scheme - changing PBS /PRS

19

1.6

x 10

1.4

Throughput (bits/s)

1.2

Traditional

Distance scheme

Distance scheme with direct path

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pbs (factor of the initial total power); Prs=PtotPbs

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.3: Throughput comparison with/without the direct path for distance

scheme - changing PBS /PRS

8

x 10

Throughput (bits/s)

1.5

Traditional

Scheme 1

Scheme 1 with direct path

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pbs (factor of the initial total power); Prs=PtotPbs

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.4: Throughput comparison with/without the direct path for scheme 1

- changing PBS /PRS

20

35

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

30

25

20

15

10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pbs (factor of the initial total power); Prs=PtotPbs

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.5: Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing

PBS /PRS

From figures 4.1-4.5 we can observe the importance of the direct path, which

increases the throughput by around 20%. From this point we will consider the

direct path to get the maximum throughput for the CMIMOR case.

As could be expected, the influence of the direct path increases as PBS increases

and PRS decreases.

After some throughput results for the four heuristic schemes, and observing

that scheme 1 performs better than the other schemes, we want to quantify the

difference among them. To see this comparison we show figure 4.6.

Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes in % (with direct path)

60

sch1add

sch1mult

sch1dist

50

40

30

20

10

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pbs (factor of the initial total power); Prs=PtotPbs

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.6: Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing PBS /PRS

21

In this plot (figure 4.6) we can see that although the best scheme is scheme 1

there is not much difference with the addition scheme. The difference with the

distance scheme is reduced as the relation PBS /PRS increases. This happens

because if we have less power for the RSs, the RSs perform worse. Consequently,

scheme 1 will perform worse. On the other hand, the distance scheme only considers the distance from the RSs to the receiver and the throughput decrease is

not so noticeable.

8

x 10

Throughput (bits/s)

1.5

Traditional

Multihop

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

0.5

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pbs (factor of the initial total power); Prs=PtotPbs

0.8

0.9

Figure 4.7: Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path) changing PBS /PRS

In figure 4.7 the throughput of the three networks is shown, including the

throughput for the four schemes used with the CMIMOR network. In this plot

it can be observed the large performance difference between the four CMIMOR

network schemes and the other two networks, but perhaps the most surprising

result is the performance of the multihop network. The maximum throughput is

even lower than the one obtained for the traditional infrastructure. This can be

explained if we consider that we are working with a high SNR at the cell border

(13 dB), which becomes even higher for a receiver within the cell. Furthermore,

the main reason for the low throughput obtained for the multihop network is

the interference. There is a considerable throughput loss when dividing the total bandwidth in channels, but this loss is compensated by the low interference

that a multihop cell creates over the other cells. This throughput increase due

to the interference reduction is not seen in our system because we are working

in a single cell system.

In the same figure, we can observe the inverted U shape for the three heuristic

schemes (for the CMIMOR network) that consider the power transmitted by the

RSs and not only the distance. This shape indicates that the optimal relation

between PBS and PRS would be PBS = PRS . With this result, we can conclude

that both PRS and PBS are equally important for the CMIMOR network.

22

In the following plot (figure 4.8) we can see the exact values in % when comparing the CMIMOR-scheme 1 with the multihop and the traditional networks.

The CMIMOR network with the heuristic scheme 1 performs around 2.8 times

better than the traditional network, decreasing to 2.3 times as PBS increases

(considering the direct path) and as commented before for the multihop network

the improvement is higher, from 2.9 to 3.2 times.

240

220

200

180

160

140

120

sch1trad (with direct path)

sch1multih (without direct path)

sch1multih (with direct path)

100

80

60

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Pbs (factor of the initial total power); Prs=PtotPbs

0.8

0.9

PBS /PRS

4.2.2

The range that has been studied goes from 5 to 160 users in the cell. In the case

that we have 5 MSs, one is randomly chosen to be the receiver and the other 4

will work as RSs because we fixed the number of RSs to 4.

CMIMOR network

In figure 4.9 the throughput increase (in %) by adding the direct path for the four

different schemes is shown. We can conclude from this plot that as the number

of MSs in the cell is increased, the importance of the direct path decreases. This

happens because if there are more MSs, better MSs that will become RSs can

be found. This implies a better result for the relaying signal. Independently of

this fact, it can be observed that the increase in throughput by considering the

direct path is still around 20%.

It is important to remark the large decrease in the influence of the direct path

for a low number of MSs in the cell. This decrease is almost constant when the

number of MSs is higher than a certain value. This can be explained by the fact

that if there are more MSs the relaying signal will become better, up to a point

where the throughput increase by adding more MSs will not be so important.

This happens because it is difficult to find better MSs to become RSs. Thus,

the throughput increase is reduced implying a reduction in the difference of the

influence of adding the direct path.

23

65

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

20

40

60

80

MSs in the cell

100

120

140

160

Figure 4.9: Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing the

number of MSs

Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes in % (with direct path)

30

sch1add

sch1mult

sch1dist

25

20

15

10

20

40

60

80

MSs in the cell

100

120

140

160

Figure 4.10: Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing the number of MSs

(figure 4.10), it can be observed that scheme 1 performs around 2-3% better than

addition scheme and around 5-6% than multiplication scheme. The difference

with distance scheme increases from 0% to 30% as the number of MSs increases.

This is due to the fact that with more MSs better RSs can be found following the

scheme 1 algorithm, which considers the power and channel as two important

factors. On the other hand, the distance scheme only takes those MSs which are

closer to the receiver. For this scheme the throughput increase does not increase

considerably as we have more MSs in the cell. There is a point from which even

if the MSs are closer to the receiver the throughput increase is almost negligible.

24

x 10

1.8

1.6

Throughput (bits/s)

1.4

Traditional

Multihop

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

20

40

60

80

MSs in the cell

100

120

140

160

Figure 4.11: Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing the number of MSs

Comparison among the three networks

We can clearly see in figure 4.11 (where the maximum throughput for the three

networks is shown) that the best heuristic scheme is scheme 1 and that the difference with the distance scheme increases as the number of MSs increases. The

throughput increase can be seen as a logarithmic shape which can be explained

with Shannons throughput equation. This increase is not so noticeable from a

number of MSs. This means that although we have more MSs in the cell, it is

difficult to find better RSs and if they are found, the improvement compared to

the previous RSs is not very important.

It can also be seen that as it was expected, the throughput for the traditional

network is not altered by the number of MSs in the cell.

Performance comparison among the 3 networks in %

250

200

150

100

sch1trad (with direct path)

sch1multih (without direct path)

sch1multih (with direct path)

50

20

40

60

80

MSs in the cell

100

120

140

160

the number of MSs

Figure 4.12 shows the throughput comparison (in %) among the three studied networks. The CMIMOR network with scheme 1 performs around 2.2 times

25

better than the multihop network. The throughput improvement goes from 0.6

to 1.6 times compared to the traditional network as the number of MSs increases.

4.2.3

Number of BS antennas

In our CMIMOR network, the number of RSs is also modified by modifying the

number of BS antennas, following the previously commented equation:

Number of BS antennas = Number of RSs + 1.

The studied range goes from 3 to 28 BS antennas.

CMIMOR network

Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%)

40

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

35

30

25

20

15

10

15

20

Number of BS antennas = Number of RSs+1

25

30

Figure 4.13: Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing the

number of BS antennas

In figure 4.13 we can see again the importance of the direct path in terms

of throughput. The throughput increase by adding the direct path is slightly

smaller as the number of RSs increases. This can be explained by thinking that

if we have more RSs we receive more copies of the original signal. Thus, the

throughput obtained is higher and the relation between the throughput obtained

from the direct path and the total throughput decreases.

In next figure (figure 4.14), it can be observed that scheme 1 performs better

than the multiplication scheme and slightly similar to the addition scheme. It

also performs better than the distance scheme for a low number of RSs. As this

number increases, the distance scheme performs better. Scheme 1 chooses the

best MSs to become RSs; thus, if the number of RSs is increased, the number

of possible MSs to select is reduced. This means that scheme 1 is forced to

choose other MSs that are not as good as the few first ones. If the number of

MSs in the cell is increased, scheme 1 has more MSs to pick as RSs, increasing

the probability to find better RSs. Thus, the point where the distance scheme

is better than scheme 1 moves to the right (more RSs) because there are more

MSs in good condition (position) to become RSs.

26

Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes in % (with direct path)

20

sch1add

sch1mult

sch1dist

15

10

10

15

20

25

30

10

15

20

Number of BS antennas = Number of RSs+1

25

30

Figure 4.14: Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing the number of BS antennas

Comparison among the three networks

8

2.4

x 10

2.2

Throughput (bits/s)

1.8

1.6

Traditional

Multihop

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

10

15

20

Number of BS antennas = Number of RSs+1

25

30

Figure 4.15: Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing the number of BS antennas

In figure 4.15, it can be observed an almost logarithmic shape for the CMIMOR network. This shape is not seen for the traditional network or for the

multihop network because their SNR does not increase considerably by increasing the number of BS antennas. This SNR increase does not happen due to the

fact that we keep the same total PBS but divided into more transmitted signals.

The increase in the number of RSs does not affect the multihop network. As we

wanted to find the maximum throughput for the multihop network, the number

of RSs was not limited. Thus, meanwhile the CMIMOR network is forced to

use a number of RSs, the multihop network is free to use the number of RSs

that will give the best throughput performance.

The four schemes have an almost logarithmic shape for the throughput but the

nearly constant value is reached later for the distance scheme because it does

27

only consider the distance factor. On the other hand, the other three schemes

are forced to use more RSs than the optimum number of RSs. Thus, a part

of the power transmitted by the BS and the total RSs power is assigned in an

inefficient way implying that the total throughput becomes constant or even

decreases slightly. If the optimum number of RSs was used, the throughput

result would be the maximum.

Performance comparison among the 3 networks in %

240

220

sch1trad (without direct path)

sch1trad (with direct path)

sch1multih (without direct path)

sch1multih (with direct path)

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

10

15

20

Number of BS antennas = Number of RSs+1

25

30

the number of BS antennas

In figure 4.16, the scheme 1 shape observed in figure 4.15 can be seen again.

This happens due to the fact that the throughput for the traditional infrastructure and the multihop network is constant. The difference between the

CMIMOR-scheme 1 and the traditional network increases from 2.1 to 2.4 times

and decreases to 2.3 times as the number of RSs is increased. These values

increase when the comparison is carried out with the multihop network.

4.2.4

Total bandwidth

The total available bandwidth used in the simulations ranges from 1 to 10 MHz.

CMIMOR network

In figure 4.17, the throughput increase (in %) by adding the direct path is shown

and we observe that the bandwidth increase does not influence significantly the

throughput when the direct path is added.

Figure 4.18 shows a comparison in % between scheme 1 and the other

schemes. The throughput difference when increasing the bandwidth remains

more or less constant. These implies that all schemes have the same increase in

throughput as the bandwidth increases.

28

33

32

31

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

30

29

28

27

26

25

24

23

5

6

Bandwidth (Hz)

10

6

x 10

Figure 4.17: Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing

BT OT

Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes in % (with direct path)

14

sch1add

sch1mult

sch1dist

12

10

5

6

Bandwidth (Hz)

10

6

x 10

Figure 4.18: Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing BT OT

In figure 4.19, it can be seen what it has already been commented. The throughput for the four schemes increases in the same way, having an almost linear

shape. Scheme 1 still performs better than the other schemes in the whole

bandwidth range.

The throughput of the traditional and multihop networks also increases, and the

increase is slightly larger than for the CMIMOR network case (it can also be

observed in figure 4.20 where the values are given in %). This difference in the

throughput increase can be explained by observing the throughput equations

that are used. For the CMIMOR network the noise bandwidth increase happens

29

x 10

3.5

Traditional

Multihop

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

Throughput (bits/s)

2.5

1.5

0.5

5

6

Bandwidth (Hz)

10

6

x 10

Figure 4.19: Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing BT OT

for every path coming from the relays. Thus, there is a factor that decreases

the logarithm in every path. Meanwhile, for the traditional and multihop networks the decrease happens only once because there is only one path from the

transmitter to the receiver.

Performance comparison among the 3 networks in %

260

240

220

sch1trad (with direct path)

sch1multih (without direct path)

sch1multih (with direct path)

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

5

6

Bandwidth (Hz)

10

6

x 10

BT OT

In this last figure (4.20), it can be observed this relative throughput decrease

between the CMIMOR network and the other two networks. For the traditional

case, CMIMOR network performs 2.6 to 2.2 times better. Meanwhile, for the

multihop case it performs in the range 3.6 - 3.1 times better.

4.2.5

The path loss coefficient will be varied from 2 (line of sight) to 4 (urban area).

30

CMIMOR network

Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%)

34

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

32

30

28

26

24

22

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Alpha

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

Figure 4.21: Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%) - changing

In figure 4.21, the throughput increase by adding the direct path (in %) for

the four different schemes is shown. Some conclusions can be extracted from

this plot.

Two alpha regions can be observed. For low values there is a slight throughput

increase by adding the direct path. This means that the throughput decrease,

due to the distance dependent path loss, affects more the RSs signal. It is more

important the throughput decrease in the sum of the relayed paths than in the

direct path. When increases the influence of the distance increases, being

more noticeable for the direct path. This implies a decrease in the influence of

the direct path.

For the distance scheme, the distance factor influences in the same way the direct

path and the relayed path. This happens because there is not an important

distance division when using the distance scheme.

Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes in % (with direct path)

25

sch1add

sch1mult

sch1dist

20

15

10

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Alpha

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

Figure 4.22: Performance comparison between scheme 1 and the other schemes

in % (with direct path) - changing

31

The most interesting aspect of figure 4.22 (where the throughput of the four

schemes is compared) is the increase in the throughput relation between the distance scheme and scheme 1. For a low , the distance scheme performs better

but the performance relation improves for scheme 1 as increases. The explanation to this fact is that for high values the distance influence is higher than

for low values. Hence, as the distance from the transmitter to the relays (for

the distance scheme) is not reduced considerably compared to the distance for

the direct path, distance scheme performs worse than scheme 1 for high values

of .

8

4.5

x 10

Traditional

Multihop

Scheme 1

Addition scheme

Multiplication scheme

Distance scheme

3.5

Throughput (bits/s)

2.5

1.5

0.5

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Alpha

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

Figure 4.23: Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

- changing

In figure 4.23, it can be observed that there is a nearly linear decrease in the

throughput for the three networks as increases. This nearly linear decrease can

be explained by looking to Shannons equation for the traditional infrastructure

network:

P

C = W log2 (1 + KR )

(4.2)

N

where K is a constant, R is the distance, P is the transmit power, N is the noise

power (including the bandwidth: N = N0 W and W is the bandwidth.

For a high SNR the previous expression can be approximated to:

C = W log2 (

P

P

KR ) = W log2 ( KR)

N

N

(4.3)

The decrease is higher for the CMIMOR network because the decrease happens in all the paths from the BS to the receiver, and thus there is an addition

of decreases.

In figure 4.24, it can be seen that the throughput difference between the CMIMOR network and the multihop network decreases from 5.6 to 2.2 times with

32

500

sch1trad (without direct path)

sch1trad (with direct path)

sch1multih (without direct path)

sch1multih (with direct path)

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

Alpha

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

the increase in . This decrease is lower for the traditional network where it

goes from 3.2 to 1.8. This is because the throughput decrease for the multihop

network is lower than for the traditional network. The influence of is lower for

the multihop network. Although the channel gets worse, the multihop algorithm

can find better paths through different RSs.

33

34

Chapter 5

work

5.1

Conclusions

four different heuristic schemes to choose the RSs. Two more networks (multihop and traditional infrastructure networks) have been simulated in Matlab in

order to compare the three networks. The comparison has been done in terms

of maximum link throughput, changing different parameters in order to see the

performance alterations.

The main results that have been found as we modified the studied parameters

are the following:

1. As we increase the relation PBS /PT OT the direct path influence increases,

the difference between scheme 1 and the distance scheme is reduced, the

throughput shape for the relay networks (CMIMOR and multihop) is an

inverted U, when plotted against PBS /PT OT .

2. As the number of MSs increases, the importance of the direct path decreases, the difference between scheme 1 and the distance scheme increases

and for the relay networks, the throughput increases considerably up to a

value where the increase is not so noticeable.

3. As the number of RSs increases, the direct path influence decreases, the

distance scheme performs better than scheme 1 and the throughput increases only for the CMIMOR network for a low number of RSs, thus it

stabilizes.

4. As the total bandwidth increases the influence of the direct path remains

constant, the difference between scheme 1 and the distance scheme increases and the throughput increases for the three networks.

5. As the path loss coefficient increases the influence of the direct path decreases, remaining almost constant for the distance scheme. The difference

35

between scheme 1 and distance scheme increases and the link throughput

decreases for the three networks.

To conclude, two important conclusions can be extracted:

One of the main conclusions is that scheme 1 performs better than the

other schemes in terms of maximum throughput. We want to remark that

the difference with the distance scheme is noticeable, although in some

extreme cases, such as when there is a large number of RSs compared to

the number of MSs in the cell, the distance scheme performs better.

Another important conclusion is that CMIMOR network using scheme

1 and considering the direct path performs in the range 2.2 to 3 times

better than the traditional infrastructure network and even more than the

optimal STDMA-multihop network. For the comparison with STDMAmultihop, we have to take into consideration the fact that we are working

with a bandwidth limited system and the main benefit of multihopping is

to provide much better received SNR at the cost of bandwidth.

There are a few more conclusions, but they are not so important. We want to

emphasize the importance of the direct path for the CMIMOR network, which

increases the total maximum throughput by at least 20%. It has also been seen

that the power transmitted by the BS and the total power assigned to the RSs

are equally important, obtaining the maximum throughput for scheme 1, addition and multiplication schemes when both powers are the same. There is also

an optimum number of RSs, from which the improvement gained from having

any extra relay stations diminishes as the number of relay stations becomes

large.

5.2

Future Work

Due to the time limitations of a M.Sc. thesis many things have been left for

possible posterior studies. One of these things would be to extend the actual

work into a multi-cellular system instead of working with an isolated single cell

system. By doing this, we would see the influence of other elements and the

interference that they introduce. Hence, a network study instead of a single link

study would also be interesting.

CMIMOR networks is a very interesting field. As it has been seen that increases

the maximum throughput, a different study could be done. A coverage study

instead of a throughput study could be performed in order to see if it is cost

efficient to reduce the number of BSs by using fixed or mobile RSs.

36

References

[1] J.N. Laneman, Cooperative Diversity in Wireless Networks: Algorithms

and Architectures, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

Cambridge, MA,August 2002

[2] C.E. Shannon, The Mathematical Theory of Information, University of

Illinois Press, Urbana, Illinois, 1949

[3] M. Dohler, H. Aghvami, Virtual Antenna Arrays, internationally filed

28th June 2002. Patent application 0115-799.9 M.

[4] A. Goldsmith, Capacity limits of MIMO Channels, IEEE Journal on

selected areas in communications, vol.21, no.5, June 2003

[5] G.J. Foschini and M.J. Gans, On limits of wireless communications in

a fading environment when using multiple antennas, Wireless Personal

Communications, Vol. 6, 1998, pp. 311-335

[6] Z. Zeng, M. Dohler, H. Aghvami, System Performance of a W-CDMA

based Network with deployed Virtual Antenna Arrays , ICT2002, June

2002

[7] M. Dohler, A. Gkelias, H. Aghvami, 2-Hop Distributed MIMO Communication System, IEE Electronics Letters, vol. 39, no. 18, Sept. 2003,

pp.1350-1351

[8] P.A. Anghel, G. Leus, M. Kaveh, Multi-User Space-Time Coding in Cooperative Networks , in Proc. of ICASSP, Hong-Kong, April 6-10, 2003

[9] M. Dohler, E. Lefranc, H. Aghvami, Space-Time Block Codes for Virtual

Antenna Arrays, PIMRC 2002, Lisbon, Portugal, September, 2002

[10] M. Dohler, F. Said, H. Aghvami, Higher Order Space-Time Block Codes

for Virtual Antenna Arrays, ICT 2003, Tahiti, French Polynesia, February

2003, conference CDROM

[11] S.M. Alamouti, A simple transit diversity technique for wireless communication, IEEE Journal on Select Areas in Comm., vol.16, pp. 1451-1458,

1998

[12] T. Hunter and A. Nosratinia, Coded Cooperation under slow fading, fast

fading, and power control , Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and

Computers, November 2002

37

PhD thesis, pp. 64-68, MIT, Cambridge, MA, August 2001.

[14] M. Dohler, H. Aghvami, A step towards MIMO: Virtual Antenna Arrays,

COST273, Barcelona, Catalonia, Jan 2003, Conference CD-ROM

[15] M. Dohler, E. Lefranc, H. Aghvami,Virtual Antenna Arrays for Future

Wireless Mobile Communication Systems, ICT2002, Beijing, China, June

2002, Conference CD-ROM

[16] Z. Zeng, M. Dohler, H. Aghvami, System Performance of a W-CDMA

based Network with deployed Virtual Antenna Arrays , ICT2002, June

2002

[17] Yung-Szu Tu and Gregory Pottie, Coherent Cooperative Transmission from Multiple Adjacent Antennas To a Distant Stationary Antenna

Through AWGN Channels,VTC 2002

[18] P. Lungaro, Coverage and Capacity in Hybrid Multihop Ad hoc Cellular

Access Systems, M.Sc. Thesis, KTH, 2003

[19] William C.Y. Lee, Mobile Communications Engineering, Edited by

McGraw-Hill, 1982

[20] Theodore S. Rappaport, Wireless Communications Principles and Practice, Edited by Prentice-Hall,Inc., 1996 (page 102).

[21] P. Larsson, Large-scale cooperative relaying network with optimal coherent combining under aggregate relay power constraint, In Proc FTC2003,

Beijing, China, 9-10/12 2003. pp166-170.

[22] http://www.ericsson.com/pmiinternetdocs/Download/257332832/12ABAFB05B1B-4830-A95F-4C51A029A6C0v 2.pdf (3/10/2003).

[23] http://mathworld.wolfram.com/SingularValueDecomposition.html (20/9/2003)

38

Chapter 6

Appendix

6.1

In our cell, the CDF (Cumulative Density Function) at the cell border was

calculated for different SNR values obtaining the following plot:

CDF of the worst Pbs for different SNR

100

SNR=0dB

SNR=5dB

SNR=10dB

SNR=15dB

SNR=20dB

SNR=25dB

50

30

C.D.F. [%]

20

10

3

2

100

200

300

400

500

600

Pbs in W

By looking at this plot, we can see, for example, that we have a SNR of 15 dB

at the cell border with a probability of 90% if PBS = 43 W. Thus, the required

BS power to have a specific SNR at the cell border can be found.

6.2

network

=

=

PBSi G1i

PBSi G1i +N PRSi G2i

N

PBSi G1i +N PRSi G2i + W

1i

1i +1 2i

1

1i +1 2i +

1i

1i +1 PRSi G2i

1

1i +1 PRSi G2i + W

1i 2i

2i + 1i + 1

39

(6.1)

where

PBSi G1i

(6.2)

N

PRSi G2i

2i =

(6.3)

W

where PBSi is the power transmitted by one BS antenna, G1i is the power (gain)

of the channel between the BS and the RS, PRSi is the power introduced by

relay i, G2i is the power (gain) of the channel between the RS and the receiver,

N is the noise power at the RS and W is the noise power at the receiver.

As a comment, for this study the channel matrix between the transmitter and

the RSs is considered as a scalar matrix. This matrix is the average path.

1i =

6.3

R = A(HT + N ) + W = H 0 T + AN + W = H 0 T + W 0

(6.4)

At the receiver:

R0 = U H R

(6.5)

Knowing that at the transmitter:

T = V T0

(6.6)

and that [U, S, V H ] = SV D(H 0 ) where U and V are unitary and S contains the

singular values. Thus, we have:

R0

=

=

U H (H 0 V T 0 + W 0 ) = U H H 0 V T 0 + U W 0

U H U SV H V T 0 + U H W 0 = ST 0 + U H W 0

ST 0 + U H (AN + W )

(6.7)

Then the SNR for each path from a transmitting antenna to the receiver can

be calculated as:

i2 T2 i

(6.8)

SN Ri = PM

2 2

k=1 |uik | W 0

k

T2 i

where i are the diagonal values of S,

M is the number of RSs, uik are the elements of the hermitian matrix U H and

2

2

2 2

W

0 = |akk | N + W

k

(6.9)

CT OT =

M

BT OT X

log2 (1 + SN Ri )

M i=1

40

(6.10)

6.4

CMIMOR Algorithm

1) Assign PRS,k to all the MSs in the cell depending on the scheme power assignment (explained in section 2.2.2).

2) Choose those RSs that give the highest effective SNR (the number of RSs is

determined by the number of BS antennas). For the distance scheme the chosen

RSs will be those which are closer to the receiver.

3) Find the SNR for each BS antenna-receiver path, after the SVD decomposition (explained in section 2.2.2).

4) Calculate the maximum throughput.

6.5

Shannons throughput equation:

C = BT OT log2 (1 + snr)

(6.11)

C=

BT OT

log2 (1 + SN R)

M

(6.12)

where M is the number of channels in which the total bandwidth is divided and

SN R =

P Gij

Nj

(6.13)

If the (M 1) RSs are set in a straight line and there is no channel reuse,

equidistantly separated, and we consider a channel only influenced by the dis

tance (Gij = 1/Rij

), then

SN R =

P

1

R

M (M

)

N0 BTMOT

= M

P 1

= M snr

N R

(6.14)

Thus,

BT OT

log2 (1 + M snr)

(6.15)

C=

M

Plotting the two equations for = 3.5 and BT OT = 5 MHz we get figure 6.2.

The performance of the multihop network could be improved by reusing the

channels (STDMA), but this example is used to see that for high snr values the

traditional infrastructure network performs better than the multihop network.

41

Throughput comparison

x 10

Traditional netw

Multih netw (M=2)

Multih netw (M=3)

Multih netw (M=5)

Multih netw (M=10)

Multih netw (M=20)

1.8

1.6

Throughput (bits/s)

1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

10

15

SNR

6.6

1) From the BS find all the MSs with C > Cref (Cref is a reference throughput).

2) From each of these MSs find the necessary PRSi to get Cref to all the other

MSs.

3) Redo step 2 until all the possible paths to the receiver have been studied.

4) The remaining power for the RSs is assigned to the RSs in the BS-RX path

in a way that the SNR or SINR (when there is channel reuse) is the same for

all the receivers (RSs and receiver).

5) Calculate the maximum throughput.

In step 4 we get a C for each RS-RS link (and then in the whole BS-RX link)

higher than Cref and equal for all the RS-RS links. We assume that the BS

transmits with enough power to reach this C and then the first link (BS-RS)

will not be a bottleneck.

With this algorithm, a tree from the first RSs to the RX is created and all

the possible paths are studied. A branch of this tree is cut when the power

already assigned to the RSs exceeds the total power for the RSs. This RS power

is checked for every branch. It is also checked the possibility to reuse one of

the previously used channels. When looking into the channel reuse, we have to

consider the interference created from the transmitter that was already using

that channel and the interference created to the receiver that was already using

that channel.

The Cref is initially the traditional infrastructure network throughput but this

value is updated every time a path to the receiver is found (this value will always

be higher than Cref ). With this new value, the constraint is increased because

a higher PRS is required to achieve this new Cref , and then more branches will

be cut because they will not fulfill the condition.

If no path from the BS to the receiver is found the algorithm is executed again

for a lower Cref . This new Cref is the previous one multiplied by a factor k

42

(k < 1). This process is repeated decreasing k linearly until at least one path

to the receiver is found.

6.7

Comparison between scheme 1 and the optimal solution for two RSs

To see how far the CMIMOR-scheme 1 was from the optimal solution, we use

our network implementation with two RSs and only three users in the network.

The optimal solution consists of finding all the throughput solutions for as many

combinations of PRS1 and PRS2 as possible (always maintaining the total RS

power constraint). The maximum value will give the optimal solution for this

system.

It was shown that scheme 1 performs at 80-90% of the optimal maximum

throughput. This result shows that it does not work so far from the optimal

solution.

6.8

Standard deviation

To show the validity of the curves shown in the results chapter, a table will

be created for each parameter (relation between the total RSs power and the

BS power, number of MSs in the cell, etc) with the standard deviation. The

standard deviation that we are showing is in % and represents the deviation

with respect to the average. As we have different points in a plot, we set the

criterion that the standard deviation is the worst standard deviation of all those

points.

43

Table 6.1: Standard deviation when the parameter is the relation between the

total RSs power and the BS power

Curve

st.deviation (%)

Traditional throughput

Multihop throughput

Scheme 1 throughput

Scheme 1 with direct path (dp) throughput

Addition scheme throughput

Addition scheme with dp throughput

Multiplication scheme throughput

Multiplication scheme with dp throughput

Distance scheme throughput

Distance scheme with dp throughput

Direct path comparison for scheme 1 (%)

Direct path comparison for addition scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for multiplication scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for distance scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and addition scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and multiplication scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and distance scheme (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and multihop network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and multihop network (%)

44

3.8017

1.9500

2.7771

3.2046

4.9905

3.2205

6.7769

4.5143

5.8277

6.2407

10.4626

6.7678

7.5166

9.9271

13.8342

16.4336

11.9829

8.6164

12.9647

3.3079

4.3549

Table 6.2: Standard deviation when the parameter is the number of MSs in the

cell

Curve

st.deviation (%)

Traditional throughput

Multihop throughput

Scheme 1 throughput

Scheme 1 with direct path (dp) throughput

Addition scheme throughput

Addition scheme with dp throughput

Multiplication scheme throughput

Multiplication scheme with dp throughput

Distance scheme throughput

Distance scheme with dp throughput

Direct path comparison for scheme 1 (%)

Direct path comparison for addition scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for multiplication scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for distance scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and addition scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and multiplication scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and distance scheme (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and multihop network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and multihop network (%)

45

2.1321

3.0359

3.2164

2.8093

3.6422

2.9077

3.8994

2.9222

3.3870

2.6098

10.7782

11.7438

9.2026

18.2761

22.2545

13.4351

9.5940

3.6287

2.8756

4.7497

2.1071

Table 6.3: Standard deviation when the parameter is the number of BS antennas

Curve

st.deviation (%)

Traditional throughput

Multihop throughput

Scheme 1 throughput

Scheme 1 with direct path (dp) throughput

Addition scheme throughput

Addition scheme with dp throughput

Multiplication scheme throughput

Multiplication scheme with dp throughput

Distance scheme throughput

Distance scheme with dp throughput

Direct path comparison for scheme 1 (%)

Direct path comparison for addition scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for multiplication scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for distance scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and addition scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and multiplication scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and distance scheme (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and multihop network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and multihop network (%)

46

2.2309

1.1801

2.1355

2.6450

2.3285

2.7193

1.7397

2.2130

4.5386

4.6087

6.1211

6.9087

6.3716

10.2839

7.3372

10.2629

5.8642

1.9125

3.1473

3.9409

3.6429

Table 6.4: Standard deviation when the parameter is the total bandwidth

Curve

st.deviation (%)

Traditional throughput

Multihop throughput

Scheme 1 throughput

Scheme 1 with direct path (dp) throughput

Addition scheme throughput

Addition scheme with dp throughput

Multiplication scheme throughput

Multiplication scheme with dp throughput

Distance scheme throughput

Distance scheme with dp throughput

Direct path comparison for scheme 1 (%)

Direct path comparison for addition scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for multiplication scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for distance scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and addition scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and multiplication scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and distance scheme (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and multihop network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and multihop network (%)

47

7.3948

9.4738

8.9448

8.3242

8.8474

8.1093

10.1756

8.1783

6.5543

6.2293

9.0050

9.7275

7.4841

5.3710

16.1229

12.3983

11.2895

3.2877

5.5639

3.8651

4.3597

Table 6.5: Standard deviation when the parameter is the path loss coefficient

()

Curve

st.deviation (%)

Traditional throughput

Multihop throughput

Scheme 1 throughput

Scheme 1 with direct path (dp) throughput

Addition scheme throughput

Addition scheme with dp throughput

Multiplication scheme throughput

Multiplication scheme with dp throughput

Distance scheme throughput

Distance scheme with dp throughput

Direct path comparison for scheme 1 (%)

Direct path comparison for addition scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for multiplication scheme (%)

Direct path comparison for distance scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and addition scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and multiplication scheme (%)

Scheme 1 and distance scheme (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and traditional network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 with direct path and multihop network (%)

CMIMOR-sch1 and multihop network (%)

48

5.0225

2.6766

10.6736

9.6732

10.8748

9.3887

7.1108

6.8121

12.8358

11.7244

2.2765

3.2928

6.5600

1.4435

18.8470

21.8235

28.5362

3.5346

8.0741

6.1278

9.8597

Opposition Report:

Cooperative MIMO Relaying, Miguel A. G.

Rodriguez

Naik Siddharth S.

March 3, 2004

Aim

The thesis work presents the performance results of a cooperative MIMO relaying (CMIMOR) network in terms of maximum throughput and uses the traditional infrastructure networks as a reference for comparison. The aim is to

reduce the dependency on base stations in turn reducing the network cost and

benefit from higher data coverage, reduction of transmission power, overcoming

dead-spots and ad-hoc network (uncoordinated systems).

Previous work is well referenced and all the references can be found easily on the

net. Peter Larssons notes are not available on the net. They could have been

added as an appendix. Singular Value Decomposition is a standard technique

and a reference would have been nice.

The simulation model and all the assumptions have been clearly defined.

Results

There are a lot of results and they have been well presented. Enforcing the

validity of the results by calculating the standard deviation and mentioning it

in appendix 6.8 is nice.

Page 17: The table mentioned here Simulation Parameters provides no additional information about the rest of the chapter and seems a bit disconnected.

Could you reason out as to why in the first three schemes the optimal distribution of power is half to the base station and half to the relaying stations, while

it is 0.65 in the fourth scheme?

The conclusions have been well derived and presented nicely. The importance

of the direct path and the superiority of scheme 1 in certain cases has been

pointed out well.

The analysis done in Chapter 3 is done in the absence of Rayleigh fading. How

much would the presence of Rayleigh fading affect the results?

Page 12: Why is singular value decomposition applied to H 0 ?

Page 14: The concept of cell is used and an ad-hoc network is not considered.

How would the presence of an ad-hoc effect the result?

The report is well written. It is clear, concise and easy to read. One possible

addition which would make it more readable would be a list of notations before

beginning with the main matter.

Certain Queries

Page 15: For finding of an optimal path in terms of maximizing throughput you

check all the possible paths and choose the one with maximum throughput, that

is, an exhaustive search is performed. Maybe you could reduce the computation

by taking into account only those paths with better channel conditions.

Page 20: Figure 4.5 needs to be made a little larger.

Page 25 the range of base station antennas is until 28 is this practically feasible.

Page 27: Figures 4.17 and 4.18 more number of points are required for the

simulation.

- Virtual Channels in NoCsDiunggah olehBlanca Isabel Gea Garcia
- New Adaptive Cooperative-MIMO for LTE TechnologyDiunggah olehEditor IJTSRD
- IBwave Certification Course SyllabusDiunggah olehSandroTrigoValdivia
- LTE Drive Test Part 1Diunggah olehsunilsrsan
- 42. Design ChallengesDiunggah olehKrishna Chalam
- Diversity TransmitDiunggah olehTran Huong Nam dinh
- 5 Generalized Decision Feedback EqualizationDiunggah olehGabriel Villarreal
- Agilent ImpDiunggah olehBoravelly A Venu Gopal
- hslinitingDiunggah olehkeepsilent12344321
- 05450663 MultiFunctional MIMODiunggah olehlaxmanababu
- IJCNS20110200008_58644332Diunggah olehSaima Azam
- 3G Drive Test Pankaj RANADiunggah olehPankaj Rana
- crc final.docxDiunggah olehrachna009
- DataDiunggah olehAnuj Varshney
- ChoudhuryGibson_ITW07Diunggah olehTuan Vu
- testho.txtDiunggah olehSofiya Hassan
- testhoDiunggah olehSofiya Hassan
- Huawei Intro Presentation BDM WLAN 6.28.2013.pptxDiunggah olehBakayoko Vaflaly
- CMLoverviewDiunggah olehpokoemaknyus
- Chap2 Wireless ChannelDiunggah olehthangdalat
- WR_BT11_E1_1 LTE Principle 48.pdfDiunggah olehLuciano Motta
- LTE_PPTDiunggah olehAkki Dev
- CS224d-Lecture2Diunggah olehMahmood Kohansal
- Lecture8 IDDiunggah olehAhumada Leoncito
- BR0112-A LTE Indoor Radio PlanningDiunggah olehFirmansyah Kobongsatu
- 585838445Diunggah olehSharath Kumar
- RMCS_lecture 7 v12_1_annotated.pdfDiunggah olehDhanuka Abeysekera
- Image Adaptive Watermarking Using Wavelet Domain Singular ValueDiunggah olehJeeva Seethapathy
- BTTJVol25No2_paper01Diunggah olehshamdurgs
- ion TechniquesDiunggah olehMurali Dharan

- Optimal Number of Users in Zero-Forcing Based Multiuser MIMO Systems With Large Number of Antennas 2013Diunggah olehlfklas
- A channel state information feedback method for massive MIMO-OFDM 2013.pdfDiunggah olehlfklas
- 10.1.1.28.4589Diunggah olehlfklas
- O'HalloranBryanM2011.pdfDiunggah olehlfklas
- Full Text 01Diunggah olehWided Ahmadi
- IndexDiunggah olehlfklas
- electricalDiunggah olehMeltz Njoroge
- (CIDR-Std-11) Ethiopian Building Code Standard-11.pdfDiunggah olehlfklas
- Future of MIMO Plenary HeathDiunggah olehJulita Ciccone
- A Scalable Massive MIMO Array ArchitectureDiunggah olehlfklas
- Channel EstimationDiunggah olehlfklas
- Design anf verification of Motion control AlgrothmsDiunggah olehTran Thanh Tung
- 1408.4853Diunggah olehlfklas
- Training Signal Design for Channel Estimation in Massive MIMO SystemsDiunggah olehlfklas
- Analysis of Pilot-symbol Aided Channel Estimation for MIMO-OfDM SystemsDiunggah olehlfklas
- Pilot Embedding for Joint Channel Estimation and Data Detection in MIMO Communication SystemsDiunggah olehlfklas
- wu2013Diunggah olehlfklas
- Tongs Adler Dong 04 s Pm RefDiunggah olehlfklas
- 10.1.1.28.4420Diunggah olehlfklas

- Cloud ERP Final Research PaperDiunggah olehdaveterminator
- Microsoft v Motorola ITC '566 Patent Claim ChartDiunggah olehFlorian Mueller
- Cellular Networks - Positioning Performance Analysis ReliabilityDiunggah olehstranger_1
- dfgdfgdfDiunggah olehasdasd
- 34 SlideDiunggah olehLoke Wythe
- DHCP Relay Option 82 How ToDiunggah olehBùi Xuân Toàn
- Pc202 Full DatasheetDiunggah olehsrnalexv
- UserManual ShellDiunggah olehMoose
- WinWedge 4 ProDiunggah olehhudanurul
- MX-M264-314-354 ServiceDiunggah olehLee Donnelly
- Power Grid Control System Using Gsm ModemDiunggah olehMohammad Aminul Islam
- Detecon Opinion Paper WiMAX. Window of OpportunityDiunggah olehDetecon International
- 45597369-TEMS-Investigation-9-0-Getting-Started-ManualDiunggah olehhoangtuna
- ASU-President's Conference Room RenovationsDiunggah olehMontgomery Advertiser
- CDMA Fundamentals.pdfDiunggah olehMohe Elnaser
- Upgrading Dell Networking N4000 Series Switches From Version 6.x.x.x to 6.3.0.18Diunggah olehlaloxsky
- Customer ConfigDiunggah olehgrant
- Presentation for July 9 2015 Cisco HCS for Contact Center and MediaSenseDiunggah olehnunomgtorres
- Wbts and Flexi Lite CountersDiunggah olehii_pe
- CONMUTADORA OTM MOTORIZADADiunggah olehDaniel Morgante
- S7-1500 Ladder Logic Reference ManualDiunggah olehAsadullah Qureshi
- Steps to Shutdown Startup the Exadata & RDBMS Services and Cell Compute Nodes on an Exadata ConfigurationDiunggah olehJoão De Deus Oliveira Criscuolo
- eMail CollabDiunggah olehSapna Yadav
- BrocadeDiunggah olehkrishnarjunacv
- Windows 10 ProDiunggah olehRobert
- 001515889-an-01-en-LTE_GSM_MODEM_LANDiunggah olehAnonymous BkmsKXzwyK
- HOWTO Emulate Buttons False in Lucid With Udev - Ubuntu ForumDiunggah olehwuuhuu
- Mainboard ESC Model C51 M940Diunggah olehHo Thanh Binh
- Abhishek_SinhaDiunggah olehAshutosh Vats
- psbm07Diunggah olehRaqibul Hassan