54 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,

Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

Optimal Channel Allocation in Wireless Sensor

Network using OFDMA
Mohd. Sabir1, Rakesh Kumawat2 and Dr. V.S.Chouhan3
1
Electronics & Communication Department, Sobhasaria Engineering College,
Sikar (Raj.), India
Sabii.sankhla@gmail.com
2
Electronics & Communication Department, Sobhasaria Engineering College,
Sikar (Raj.), India
rakesh130186@gmail.com
3
Prof. & Head, Electronics & Communication Department,
I.E.T. Alwar (Raj.), India
vsc_iet@rediffmail.com

other optimal algorithms, which consider perfect CSI, when

Abstract: Wireless Sensor Network is a Wireless network of
Spatially Distribution of Various Autonomous Device which
using Sensors to Co-operative Monitor Physical or real
environment conditions like temp., light etc. in wireless sensor
network, we require a fast data transfer between one node to
another node in critical real-time applications, in present ,we
face slow data rate between one sensor node to another sensor
node.In this Paper, we want to solve this problem and propose
unique approach for optimal channel allocation in wireless
sensor network using OFDMA. We assume that sensor node
knows channel state information (CSI) partially, and perfect
queue state information (QSI). Our Objective is to minimize
long-term average packet delay over multiple time slots.
Keywords: Wireless sensor network, channel state
information, data rate, OFDMA, Channel allocation.
1. Introduction
A wireless sensor network (WSN) is a wireless network
consisting of spatially distributed autonomous devices using
sensors to cooperatively monitor physical or environmental
conditions, such as temperature, sound, vibration, pressure,
motion or pollutants, at different locations. The
development of wireless sensor networks was originally
motivated by military. Applications such as battlefield
surveillance. However, wireless sensor networks are now
used in many civilian application areas, including
environment and habitat monitoring, healthcare
applications, home automation, and traffic control. In
addition to one or more sensors, each node in a sensor
network is typically equipped with a radio transceiver or
other wireless communications device, a small
microcontroller, and an energy source, usually a battery.
The envisaged size of a single sensor node can vary from
shoebox-sized nodes down to devices the size of grain of
dust, although functioning 'motes' of genuine microscopic
dimensions have yet to be created. A sensor network
normally constitutes a wireless ad-hoc network, meaning
that each sensor supports multi-hop routing algorithm
(several nodes may forward data packets to the base
station).We propose a heuristic Approaches, which we show
through simulation performs better, in comparison with the
error in channel estimation is high. We then consider the
problem of Designing a centralized scheduler in data
transmission that maximizes the average sensor node
throughput, and satisfies the average delay constraint of
individual node. We assume a data transfer between one
node to another node in wireless sensor node is use single
channel and multiple queues at the base station. We propose
an online throughput optimal delay constraint satisfying
(OTODCS) algorithm for this model, and we will show
through simulation that it performs better than multi-queue
TDM system under the same set up. Further we extend the
same problem to a problem with multicasting data transfer
with optimal channel allocation. We will show via
simulation that we will be get, in both throughput and delay
in comparison with the other online algorithm with single
server. OFDM is a promising technique for broadband
wireless communication in a multi-path environment with
frequency selective fading. OFDM achieves high spectral
efficiency in multi user environment by dividing the total
available bandwidth to narrow-bands in efficient way. This
allows the mobile to spread information selectively in order
to avoid sub-bands where fading occurs. For the user
downloading data, it is required to have as much as
throughput as possible. OFDM achieves high spectral
efficiency by converting a frequency selective channel into a
set of parallel non-interfering frequency flat channels on
which efficient power allocation can be done. When we
assume that each user has infinite amount of data stored in
buffer water filling is throughput optimal. However, when
considering stochastic packet arrival with finite rate, water
filling is not throughput optimal. However in all previous
work they assume perfect CSI at the base station, but in
practice only the inaccurate estimate is available and
optimal policies may not be robust to this estimation error. It
is interesting to study performance of these scheduling
algorithms under partial CSI.
2. Problem Definition and assumption
We consider a multi-queue multi-server system with
stochastic connectivity’s. There are N queues (users) and K
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 55
servers (sub-carriers). Fixed-size packets arrive
stochastically for each user and are transmitted over a set of
allocated servers. Each user has an infinite buffer to store
the data packets that cannot be immediately transmitted.
The system is time slotted. The users have the same priority
and are symmetric, i.e., they have statistically identical
arrival and channel connectivity processes. At the beginning
of each time slot, the assignment of servers to users is
instantaneous and made by a centralized resource manager.
The resource manager has perfect knowledge of the current
queue backlogs and the connectivity’s which are assumed to
be constant during a time slot but varying independently
over time slots (e.g. block fading model). We do not allow
sharing of any server and assume no error in the
transmission.
We use the following convention: lower case for scalar, bold
faced lower case letters for row vector, upper case letter for
matrices and scripted upper case letter for space of matrices.
b(n) = (b1, b2, ..., bN) : Backlogs (in units of packets) of each
queue in the beginning of time slot n.
• a(n) = (a1, a2, ..., aN) : Stochastic number of fixed-length
packets arrived to each queue during a time slot n. The new
packet arrivals at time n can be served only at time n + 1 or
after.
• C(n) = [ci,j ]: the K-by-N stochastic connectivity matrix at
time slot n where ci,j Є{0, 1, ..., cmax < ∞} denotes the
maximum number of packets sub-carrier i can serve from
queue j at time n, and we further assume that ci,j takes
discrete values form 0 to cmax, where cmax is the maximum
number of packets that a user j can transmit in channel i.
• ξ(n) = [ξi,j ]: the K- by- N matrix , each element of this
matrix is a circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random
variable.
• W(n) = [wi,j ]: K-by-N allocation matrix at the beginning
of time slot n where wi,j {0, 1} and wi,j = 1 denotes that
sub-carrier i is assigned to serve queue j during time n.
In our model we assume that there is error in channel
estimation. We denote the
Erroneous connectivity matrix by
H(n) = C (n) + ξ (n),
If above is the equation for channel visible to base station,
we assume that base station Does MMSE estimation on the
received channel matrix H(n). And with MMSE estimate.
3. Problem Formulation and Assumption
The channel estimation at base station is given by [14]:
Ĥ(n) = SNRest / 1+ SNRest {C(n) + ξ(n)}
Where
SNRest = E[|C|2] / E[|C|2] + E[|ξ|2]
The dynamics of queue length vectors under allocation W
(n) are described by equation
b(n+1) = [b(n)-1W(n)Θmin C(n),H(n)]+ +a(n),n=1,2…
where element wise product (W(n) ‫ ּס‬min(C(n),H(n)) is a
matrix [wi,j min(ci,j ,Hi,j)], 1 is a K dimensional row vector
of K ones, and, for a vector, [v+] = [v+ 1 , ..., v+ N] with v+
j = max{0, vj}.
Definition 1: For a row vector x = (x1, ..., xN) and a matrix
Y = [y1, ..., yN] where yj is a column vector, a column by
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
column matrix permutation Ππ corresponding to a
permutation π is defined as, for any j and k Є {1, ...,N},
π (xj) = xk ↔ Ππ (yj) = yk
Using the above notation and definition, we make the
following symmetry assumptions on the arrival and
connectivity processes:
A(1) The packet arrival processes [a(n)] to users’ queues
during each time slot are i.i.d across time slots. The packet
arrival processes are symmetric or exchangeable, i.e., the
joint probability mass function is permutation invariant, i.e.,
P[a(n) = π(x)] = P[a(n) = x]
for any n, vector x, and permutation π.
A(2) The connectivity profiles [C(n)] are i.i.d across time
slots and exchangeable across server, i.e. for any n, matrix
Y , and column by column permutation matrix Ππ
Assumption A(2) is valid when channel and the mobility
creates a homogeneous environment for all users. Note that
A(1) and A(2) imply independence across time slots but not
across users, i.e., at a given time the arrival to various
queues need not to be independent. Note that we will some
times use the vector w(n) to mean the matrix product
1W(n).
4. Mathematical Formulation Problem (P)
Consider the system described above. We wish to determine
a Markov server allocation policy σ that minimizes the cost
function at the finite horizon T:
=E | ]
Where summarizes all information available at time zero
and denotes the cost under Markov policy σ over horizon
T.
=
where the cost function ø(b) = g(bj) and g is a
convex and strictly increasing function. Note that when g is
an identity function, problem reduces to a average total
backlog (E [ bj(t)]) minimization problem
over horizon T. From Little’s theorem, any optimal policy
that achieves minimum average backlog achieves minimum
average packet delay as well. Thus, in this special case, the
study reduces to the study of the average delay
minimization.
5. Proposed Solutions to the Problem
In this section we present a heuristic policy as a solution to
the above problem. We modify maximum throughput load
balancing (MTLB) algorithm and maximum weighted
matching (MWM) algorithm proposed by Kittipiyakul and
Javidi in [5] to take into account the error in channel
estimation. In [13] authors proved that MTLB policy is a
special case of MWM when we assume channel is On/Off.
Our algorithm is valid for both On/Off channel and general
channel with cmax > 1 by the arguments in [13]. We
assume full queue state information (QSI) and partial
channel state information (CSI).
Algorithm:
• X = {1, 2, ..., K}
• loop (until stop):
56 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

– If X = Φ, then stop via simulation that our algorithm performs better than
– (i*,j*) = arg maxi∈X,j∈{1,2,...,N} bj( (Ci,j\ Hi,j)) ; MTLB when error in channel estimation is high and
– if bj Hi,jP (ci,j |Hi,j)> 0 then w∗ i*,j* = 1 channel is On/Off. Figs. 1 to 3 above show the simulated
performance in terms of average queue backlogs for Poisson
– bj* = bj* − min(Hi*, j*, ci*,j*) and X = X − {i∗ }
distribution when the channel is On/Off. The simulation
• Assign W∗ = wi*, j*
results in Fig.2 demonstrate the superior performance of
MTLB algorithm with reliability information in comparison
6. Simulation parameter with simple MTLB algorithm with channel estimation error
Before we provide the details of simulation set up let us first and no reliability information. By reliability information we
discuss the MTLB and MWM algorithm: mean probability with which estimation is correct. In MTLB
(1) MTLB Algorithm: The subcarrier assignment uses the channel is On/Off. It is clear with simulation results in
full information about the queue lengths (full QSI) Fig. 1 that we do well in terms of the average queue backlog
and binary (ON-OFF) information about the when error in channel estimation is high. From Figs. 2 and
channel: a sub-carrier is considered ON if ci, j > 3, it is clear that we gain nothing by reliability information,
cthreshold. Then MTLB policy is used for sub carrier and the performance is almost same as the MTLB even with
allocation. channel estimation error. While Figs. 4 show the simulated
= performance under the same set up with the condition that
channel is more general, i.e., Hi, j ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3}. It is clear
For state (b,ĉ). Compute an MTLB allocation W∗
from the simulations that when channel is general rather
(2) MWM Algorithm: The sub carrier assignment uses
than just On/Off we gain nothing from reliability
full queue state information (full QSI) and full
information. Our heuristic policy performs almost same as
channel state information (full CSI)
the MWM with error in channel estimation.
• X = {1, 2, ..., K}
• loop (until stop):
– If X = Φ, then stop
– (i∗ , j∗ ) = arg maxi,j∈{1,2,...,N} bjci,j ;
– if bj*ci*,j* > 0 then w∗ i*,j* = 1 else stop;
– bj* = bj* − ci*,j* and X = X − i∗
• AssignW∗ = wi*,j*
where ci,j denotes the channel capacity for user j on server i,
K denotes the number of sub carrier and N denotes the
number of user (queues).We now compare the performance
of MTLB algorithm and MWM algorithm in [5] with our
heuristic policy. We consider downlink OFDM consisting of
32 statistically independent and identical users, and 128 sub
carriers. We assume equal power distribution among all
users, and further assume that the loss of throughput due to
equal power allocation is tolerable [15]. We can represent
the number of packets per time slot the sub carrier i can Figure 1. Average queue backlog for MTLB policy with
transmit to user j, in terms of the erroneous channel gain gi,j, SNR = 0 dB
as follows:

Hi, j =

where D is the number of QAM symbols per channel in a

time slot, β the fixed packet length (in bits) and N0 is the
noise power in the sub carrier. The parameters P, D, β and
N0 are chosen such that the connectivity Hi,j ∈ {0, 1, 2, 3}.
All simulations are conducted over 6,000 time slots. We
assume arrivals to each user have the Poisson distribution
and are independent from user to user.

7. Results and Comparisons

We compare the performance of our algorithm with the

maximum through- put load balancing (MTLB) and Figure 2. Average queue backlog for MTLB policy with
maximum weighted matching (MWM) algorithm pro-posed SNR = 6 dB
by Kittipiyakul and Javidi in [13] with error in channel
estimation error under different channel model. We show
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 57
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

average delay constraint in terms of number of slots. All

users in a group have the same system parameters.
We do two experiments. In experiment 1, we vary the
arrival rate for group 1 and measure the user delay and
throughput, while in experiment 2 we vary the average SNR
of the users in a single group and measure the same
quantities as in experiment 1. For both the experiments, we
compare 4 schedulers, i.e., Opportunistic scheduler,
heuristic, OTODCS scheduler in [12] and OTODCS
scheduler for broadcast channel case. In the OTODCS
scheduler for broadcast channel we assume that at the most
2 users can be scheduled at a time, and also assume equal
power distribution among them. Figure 5shows the variation
of the delay of a user in group 1 against various arrival
rates. Figure 6 shows the variation of the system throughput
Figure 3. Average queue backlog for MTLB policy with against various arrival rates for group 1. In this experiment,
SNR = 9 dB group 1 has poor channel conditions; hence the pure
opportunistic scheduler allocates a small share of bandwidth
to this group. From figure 5 we observe that pure
opportunistic scheduler achieves a very high user delay. The
heuristic scheduler, OTODCS scheduler for the broadcast
case and its TDM counterpart all satisfy the delay
requirements, and we see in Figure 6 that throughput
achieved by all the scheduler except OTODCS for broadcast
are same. However the throughput for OTODCS broadcast
case is higher than the other scheduler. From Figure 5 it is
clear that OTODCS scheduler for the broadcast case do
much better than the others when we compare in terms of
delay.

Figure4.Average queue backlog for MWM with SNR = 0dB

8. Performance and Comparisons

Before we provide the details of simulation parameters let us
first discuss a Heuristic algorithm which is also a delay
satisfying algorithm.
Heuristic Algorithm:
We state here the heuristic algorithm proposed by Salodkar
et.al, in [12]. Let in a time slot n, i be the estimate of i(n),
the average rate at which data can be transmitted to a user i.
We calculate i using exponential averaging as follows,
i (n+1) = α i(n) + (1-α) yi(n),
Where yi (n) is the rate at which data can be transmitted to a Figure 5. Single user delay variation with arrival rate
user in time slot n and α ∈ (0, 1). The heuristic scheduler
chooses a user i in time slot n such that,

We perform the simulation using MATLAB. We simulate

the system for 50 users, then we divide user’s in 10 groups
and each group has 5 users. The arrivals to each users queue
are i.i.d., and we use the Poisson distribution of arrivals for
each user, bounded to 8. The distribution for each user
channel is Rayleigh, The mean of |hi(n)|2, i.e., is the
average SNR of a user (expressed in dB).
We normalize the ratio P/N0 to 1. The rate at which user
can receive data from a base station in a time slot and is
upper bounded by 25. The throughput achieved in a time
slot is expressed in packets/timeslot/Hz. Each user has an
Figure 6. System throughput variation with arrival rate
58
Figure 7. Single sensor node variations with channel
condition
Figure 8. System throughput variations with channel
condition
Figure 7 shows the variation of the delay of user in group 10
against various channel gain (average SNR). Figure 8 shows
the system throughput against various channel gain (average
SNR) for group 10. In Figure 5.3 it is clear that OTODCS
scheduler for the broadcast case, OTODCS scheduler with
TDM and heuristic policy all are able to satisfy delay
requirements, but the delay performance of OTODCS for
broadcast case is the best among all. We can observe form
Figure 8 that OTODCS for the broadcast case do better than
the other in terms of throughput as well.
9. Applications
The applications for WSNs are many and varied, but
typically involve some kind of monitoring, tracking, and
controlling. Specific applications for WSNs include habitat
monitoring, object tracking, nuclear reactor control, fire
detection, and traffic monitoring. In a typical application, a
WSN is scattered in a region where it is meant to collect
data through its sensor nodes.
10. Conclusion
The problem of delay optimal server allocation policy
studied in literature is with full CSI and QSI. We considered
a more practical scenario where there is channel gain
estimation error. We proposed a heuristic policy as a
solution to this problem. We then compared the policy with
(IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security,
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009
some of the existing ones. We have shown via simulation
that our algorithm performs better than MTLB algorithm
when error in channel estimation is high, and channel is
considered to be On/Off. We then formulated the problem of
maximizing average throughput, with individual delay
constraints, and we considered a broadcast channel at the
downlink. We proposed an online algorithm as a solution to
this problem. We compared our algorithm with some of the
existing algorithms. We have shown via simulation that our
algorithm gives better performance in comparison with its
TDM counterpart in terms of throughput and delay. Further
we extended our problem to two server case. We have shown
that this has the same structure as single server problem. We
have shown via simulation that we gain in performance
when we increase the number of servers to two.
References
[1] R. S. Cheng and S. Verdu, “Gaussian multiaccess
channel with isi: capacity region and multiuser
waterfilling,” IEEE Trans. on Inform. Theory, vol. 39,
no. 3, pp. 773–785, May 1993.
[2] R. V. Nee and R.Prasad, “OFDM for wireless
communications,” Artech House,Boston, 2000.
[3] T. Javidi, “Rate stable resource allocation in OFDM
systems: from waterfilling to queue balancing,”
Allerton conference on communication, control and
computing, September 2004.
[4] G. Li and H. Liu, “Dynamic resource allocation with
finite buffer constraint in broad-band OFDMA
networks,” IEEE Wireless Communication and
Networking, pp. 1037-1042, March 2003.
[5] S. Kittipiyakul and T. Javidi, “Delay-optimal server
allocation in multi-queue multi-server systems with
time varying connectivities,”IEEETrans. on info.
theory.
[6] L. Tassiulas and A. Ephremides, “Dynamic server
allocation to parallel queues with randomly varying
connectivity,” IEEE Trans. on Inform. Theory, vol. 39,
no. 2, pp. 466–478, May 1993.
[7] A. Ganti, E. Modiano, and J. T. Tsitsiklis, “Optimal
transmission scheduling in symmetric communication
models with intermittent connectivity,” IEEE Trans.
On Inform. Theory, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 998–1008,
March 2007.
[8] X. Liu, E. Chong, and N. Shroff, “Transmission
scheduling for efficient wireless re-source utilization
with minimum performance guarantees,” Proceeding of
IEEE VTC,vol. 2, pp. 824–828, October 2001.
[9] S. Kulkarni and C. Rosenberg, “Opportunistic
scheduling policies for wireless systema with short
term fairness constraint,” IEEE GLOBECOMM, vol. 1,
pp. 533–537, December 2003.
[10] R. Berryand and R. Gallager, “Communication over
fading channel with delay constraint,” IEEE Trans on
Info. Theory, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 533–537, May 2002.
[11] E. Yeh and A. Cohen, “Dealy optimal rate allocation in
multiaccess fading channel,”IEEE Worksop on
Multimedia Signal Processing, pp. 404–407, October
2004.
 (IJCNS) International Journal of Computer and Network Security, 59
Vol. 1, No. 3, December 2009

[12] N. Salodkar, A. karanidikar, and V. S. Borkar, “Delay

constrianed point to multipoint scheduling in wireless
fading channel,” IEEE Journal on selected areas in
communication.
[13] S. Kittipiyakul and T. Javidi, “Resource allocation in
OFDMA with time-varying channel and bursty
arrivals,” IEEE Communication Letters, vol. 11, no. 9,
pp. 708–710, September 2007.
[14] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of statistical Signal
Processing: Estimation theory. Prentice Hall, 1993.
[15] A. Czylwik, “Adaptive OFDM for wideband radio
channels,” IEEE Globecomm, vol. 1, pp. 713–718,
1996.
[16] D. P. Bertsekas, Nonlinear Programming. MA: Athena
Scientific, 1999.
[17] V. S. Borkar, “Stochastic approximation with two time
scales,” System and Contol Letters, vol. 29, 1996.
[18] J. C. Spall, Introduction to Stochastic Search
Optimization. Wiley, 2003.

Mohd. Sabir received the B.E. degree

(Electronics & Communication) from
MAIET, Jaipur (Raj.) in 2003. And M.E.
degree (Digital Communication) from
M.B.M. Engineering College, Jodhpur
(Raj.) in 2009. He now with Sobhasaria
Engineering College, Sikar, as lecturer in
department of electronics.

Rakesh Kumawat received the B.E.

degree (Electronics & Communication)
from SEC, (Raj.) in 2007. And M.Tech.
degree (VLSI Design) from C-DAC
Mohali in 2009. He now with Sobhasaria
Engineering College, Sikar, as lecturer in
department of electronics.

Vijay S. Chouhan was born in India in

1960. He received B.E. degree in
Electronics & Communication
Engineering and M.E. degree in Digital
Communication Engineering from J. N.
Vyas University, Jodhpur, India. He
submitted his Doctoral thesis on
Biomedical Signal Processing in 2007.
Presently he is working as Professor in
the Department of Electronics &
Communication Engineering, Institute of Engineering &
Technology, Alwar, India. His research interest includes fields of
Biomedical Signal Processing, Soft Computing and Digital
Communications.