Anda di halaman 1dari 62

Cooperative MIMO Relaying

MIGUEL ANGEL GOMEZ RODRIGUEZ

R ADIO C OMMUNICATION S YSTEMS L ABORATORY

Cooperative MIMO Relaying


MIGUEL ANGEL GOMEZ RODRIGUEZ

Master Thesis

January 2004

TRITAS3RSTXXXX
ISSN 14009137
ISRN KTH/RST/R--XX/XX--SE

R ADIO C OMMUNICATION S YSTEMS L ABORATORY


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

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

5 Conclusions and future work


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

Throughput comparison example between multihop and traditional networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


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

traditional infrastructure network . . . . . . . .


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

CDF of PBS for different SNR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


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. Motivation and interest of this thesis

1.3

Motivation and interest of this thesis

The motivation of this thesis is to see if it is possible to increase the maximum


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

Figure 3.1: Example of traditional infrastructure network


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

Cooperative MIMO Relaying Network

In this work, the focus is on a network based on cooperative MIMO relaying.


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

Figure 3.2: Example of cooperative MIMO relaying network


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)

The SVD is applied to H 0 obtaining a diagonal matrix with i in the diagonal.


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

is the power of the transmitted signal, M is the number of RSs, uik


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,k + 1)


(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)

where M is the number of RSs.


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

Figure 3.4: Example of multihop network


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

Figure 3.5: Example of STDMA-multihop network


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)

The interference is so low compared to the noise that it can be neglected. It is


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

Table 4.1: Table of Parameters


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

Relation between the total RS power and the BS


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

Throughput comparison for addition scheme

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

Throughput comparison for multiplication scheme

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

Throughput comparison for distance scheme

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

Throughput comparison for scheme 1

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

Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%)


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.

Comparison among the three networks


8

Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

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.

Performance comparison among the 3 networks in %


240

220

200

180

160

140

120

sch1trad (without direct path)


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

Figure 4.8: Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing


PBS /PRS

4.2.2

Number of MSs in the cell

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

Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%)


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

If scheme 1 is compared with the other three schemes in terms of throughput


(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

Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

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 (without direct path)


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

Figure 4.12: Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing


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

Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

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

Figure 4.16: Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing


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

Throughput increase by adding the direct path (%)


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

Comparison among the three networks


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

Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

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 (without direct path)


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

Figure 4.20: Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing


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

Path loss coefficient ()

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 .

Comparison among the three networks


8

4.5

Throughput comparison among the 3 networks (with direct path)

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

Performance comparison among the 3 networks in %


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

Figure 4.24: Performance comparison among the 3 networks in % - changing


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

Conclusions and future


work
5.1

Conclusions

In this thesis we have simulated a cooperative MIMO relaying network with


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

[13] B. Schein, Distributed Coordination in Network Information Theory,


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

SNR CDF at the cell border

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

Figure 6.1: CDF of PBS for different SNR


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

Total SNR before SVD for the CMIMOR


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

Throughput calculation for CMIMOR networks

From equation 3.3:


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)

where U H is an unitary and hermitian matrix.


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

is the power of the transmitted signal,


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)

where akk are the diagonal values of matrix A.


CT OT =

M
BT OT X
log2 (1 + SN Ri )
M i=1

where BT OT is the total bandwidth.

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

Throughput comparison example between multihop and traditional networks

For the traditional infrastructure network the throughput is calculated using


Shannons throughput equation:
C = BT OT log2 (1 + snr)

(6.11)

For the multihop network:


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)

where snr is the direct (single) hop SNR.


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

Figure 6.2: Throughput example between traditional and multihop networks

6.6

Optimal STDMA-Multihop Network Algorithm

Summarizing, the algorithm can be expressed as the following:


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).

Consideration of Previous work (Literature review)


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.

Models and Method


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?

Relevance and meaning of Conclusions


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?

Report and Graphical Presentation


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.