Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 26

Coverage and Throughput Analyses of Mobile Multi-hop Relaying Networks

P Udhay Prakash & Dr. D Sreenivasa Rao JNTU Hyderabad uday3prakash@gmail.com, dsraoece@gmail.com
, 10 2013 ICIECE-13 1

Existing work Single hop vs. multiple hop SCN vs. MCN IEEE 802.16j Networks

Content for discussion

Mutihop cellular networks (MCN) Mobile multi-hop relaying (MMR)


Relay selection

Performance Analyses

Success rate Route sustaining time Connection sustaining time Connection duration-outage probability Maximum gain(gmax) Throughput gain
ICIECE-13 2

Concluding where single hop is better and where multihop is better


, 10 2013

Introduction
Current deployments suffer from
Limited Spectrum Low SINR at Cell edge Coverage hole due to shadowing

Non-uniformly distributed traffic load


Unable to address users at cell boundaries, due to power constraints Allocated 1-2 GHz frequency band is not that suiatble for nLOS communication
, 10 2013 ICIECE-13

Introduction
Solution: Mobile Multi-hop relaying (MMR) based access network.
Improved data throughput and coverage area with relaying in networks. cellular

Relaying was already used in non-cellular, adhoc networks.

This paper addresses relaying concept for the cellular networks.


Here, end user can choose to connect directly to a BS, or, a RS, to establish a two-hop link using a relay. Relay locations are modelled as realizations of a two-dimensional Poisson process with random motion for analyses.
, 10 2013 ICIECE-13 4

Existing work
Mobile radio channel Vary from LoS path to complex path, severely obstructed by buildings, mountains, and foliage. For multi-hop wireless network, a fundamental question is

to route over many shorter hops (short-hop routing) or over a smaller number of longer hops (long-hop routing).
In [4], it is shown that relaying is always not beneficial and the reasons why short hop routing is not as beneficial as it seems to be.

In [6], the analysis reveals that multi-hop transmission performs very well in the power-limited regime but can become inefficient in the bandwidth-limited regime without interference cancellation.

In [10], the optimal number of hops for a specified end-to-end spectral efficiency (throughput) was analysed for evenly spaced linear networks.

In [7, 8], the relative advantages of one hop versus two hop routing were compared, where a deployed relay could provide an improvement in spectral efficiency.

In the above literature,


Location of relays is either predetermined or optimized in the design phase.

This presentation focuses on the mobile relays , which was less studied the above literature.
, 10 2013 ICIECE-13 5

IEEE 802.16j network


IEEE 802.16 Broadband Wireless Access Working group IEEE 802.16j supports relay mode operation Use cases

Increased coverage

Capacity enhancement

Extending the coverage range of a BS using multi-hop techniques Addressing coverage hole problems (e.g., shadows of buildings). Use of multiple links with greater efficiency, as opposed to single-hop links over poor-quality channels. Multi-hop communications, which can support spatial reuse [9].

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

SCN vs. MCN

Hop: The step from one router to the next, on the path of a packet on any communications network. SCN: Single-hop Cellular Network MCN:Multihop cellular network
Infrastructure-based cellular networks with adhoc networking concept SCN++ Fixed Base Stations + Adhoc networking Enhanced coverage, improved capacity and flexibility. Mobile relays are not (yet) of practical interest except in some specific applications such as professional radios for emergency response, police and security organizations. Provides cellular systems with opportunity of peer-to-peer (mobile to mobile) communication as well as communication relayed through other fixed and/or mobile terminals.

The increase in system throughput is the major advantage of MCN.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

SCN vs. MCN


SCN
BSs must be reached by MSs in a single-hop. Subcell in SCN -- area of a sub cell is the same as the area of a cell.

MCN
Cell radius is half the distance between two neighbouring BSs. BSs need not always be reachable by MSs in a single hop. sub cell in MCN -- area reachable in a single wireless hop by a BS or a MS BS and MSs are not always reciprocally accessible in a single hop. transmission range of BS and MSs can be reduced than that in SCNs. accessible area by a BS or a MS is the area of a sub-cell. MSs can directly communicate with each other provided that they are mutually reachable and belonging to the same cell.

perform multi-hop routing.


when destination MS is in a different cell from that of the source MS, then the Relay Station forwards the packets to its own BS, which in turn, forwards to the destined MS via its BS.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

MMR
MMR-Mobile multihop relaying

Concept of relaying user data and possibly control information between an MMR-BS
and MS through one or more relay stations (RS). Mobilebecause both RS & MS are mobile. Relaying
To enhance coverage, range, and throughput and possibly capacity of an MMR-BS To enable very low power devices to participate in the network.

Multipath routing between the MMR-BS and an MS to communicate user data and/or control/management information, to improve communications reliability.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

Relay selection
Relay Selection effects hop delay and the complexity involved. Assumed variables are
dij(t)distance between mobile i and mobile j at time t. Index 0 denotes the BS.
di0(t) & dj0(t)distances between mobile i and BS, & mobile j and BS respectively at time instant t. r transmission range for any mobile. Clearly, d00(t)=0 for all t.

M= { 1,2,..N }set of mobiles and N= { 0,1,2,, N}set of nodes including the BS (i=0).
R(t)Nset of relay nodes at time slot t. A(t) Mset of active nodes. i.e, the nodes that are not acting as relays.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

10

Relay selection
Node i A(t) selects relay ki as Ki = argminjFi(t){dij + (1- )dj0} for all i A(t) where 0 1 is a weighting parameter Fi(t)set of feasible relays for mobile i. Fi(t) ={ j/j R(t); dij< r; dj0 di0}

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

11

Performance Analyses
Simulations were performed in MATLAB 7.12. End user is fixed at coordinates (l,0) and Mobile relay is at coordinates (r,) Since BS coverage has been normalized,

- Simulation consideration

M/M/ queuing model is used to capture relay mobility L distance between BS and end user rdistance between BS and mobile relay - angle between BS and mobile relay with end user 1and 2SNRs of BS and mobile relay respectively path loss exponent Naverage no. of usable relays in cell coverage area N=, with relay density

l >1 corresponds to out-of-coverage users, l 1 implies the end user is within the coverage area.

Average relay speed is normalized to the cell diameter


, 10 2013 ICIECE-13

Assuming N = 20 to represent a low density cell N = 100 to represent a high density cell for numerical evaluation.

12

Performance Analyses

Simulation Environment with respective Nodes coordinate positions. 20 nodes (node may be MS, BS or a relay) forming a network, with every nodes connected to its nearby nodes, is created. The relay movement is randomized in distance and direction.
, 10 2013 ICIECE-13 13

Success rate
For r = 10, = 35, and SNR of BS and

relay is 1= 2= 3dB with = 3,


Simulations for l = 1.05, 1.10, 1.15 and 1.20, for out of coverage end user. As feasible region shrinks with increasing l, chance of locating a relay within the feasible region also declines.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

14

Success rate
Impact of SNRs 1 and 2 on two-hop routing success probability is depicted here for an end user 10% away from the BS coverage area l = 1.1 and considering 1= 2 dB, 3 dB, 4 dB and 5 dB. For two hop relaying to be useful, the relay SNR at unit distance 2 should be closer to that of the BS, 1, as 1 increases. Even with 1= 2, higher SNRs reduce probability of feasible relays. Two-hop relaying is less favourable in high SNR regions for line networks.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

15

Route sustaining time


Once the route (path) is established, its sustainability is analysed, either with or without re-routing. Assuming that handoffs between relays are allowed and they must be in time. Here l = 1, 1.05, 1.1, 1.15, and 1.2, with pedestrian speed as 2 and vehicular speed as 10, with = 3 and 1= 2= 3 dB. Average route sustaining time is much longer than average burst duration in IEEE 802.16j network architecture, even when the mobile relay travels at a vehicular speed.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

16

Connection sustaining time


For user to BS distances l =1.1 Tn connection sustaining time, averaged over all time instants for n feasible relays. route sustaining time >> connection sustaining time

due to possibility of new relays entering the feasible region as current feasible relays leave. So, allowing mobile relay hand-off is an effective method to extend connection time.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

17

Connection sustaining time


For user to BS distances l =1.2 For vehicular speed and pedestrian speed users When relay density is high, average connection sustaining time for l = 1.1 is very long connection success rate approaching one as the relay density increases.
on the order of days, depending on maximum time.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

18

Connection duration-outage probability


Probability that two-hop connection fails to meet connection duration requirement due to depletion of feasible mobile relays. Exponentially distributed with mean given by the x-axis value, Mobile relays are distributed with = 20 relays in the cell. Mobile relays are assumed to move at poisson point process such that there are an average N

pedestrian speed, with = 3.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

19

Maximum gain(gmax)

For = 4 with 1= 3 dB, 2= 1 dB, 2 dB and 3 dB and for = 3 with 1= 3 dB, 2= 1 dB, 2 dB and 3 dB. Gmax can be determined by searching for the optimum relay position. Graph depicts how Gmax varies with user distance l. Assumin has a big impact on Gmax. Gmax increases with increasing l, as end users close to BS already enjoy a high throughput. So, multi-hop is less favourable in the high spectral efficiency regime.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

20

Throughput gain
For = 3 , and end user is located at cell boundary. With the upper bound Gmax,

simulation results show how


random relay placement affects the throughput gain.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

21

Throughput gain
For = 4, and end user is located at

cell boundary.
With increasing relay density, probability that relaying achieves a

gain close to Gmax increases.


And, the average throughput gain approaches Gmax.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

22

Conclusions
Concluding where single hop is better and where multihop is better. For the two-hop links, success rate is inversely proportional to the coverage distance. two hop networks are unfavourable in high SNR regions for line networks. Average route sustaining time is much longer than the average burst duration. Connection sustaining time is directly proportional to the relay density and inversely proportional to the relay speed. With increasing relay density, the achievable throughput reaches the maximum gain level. For an out of-coverage end-user, mobile relays offer substantial coverage extension benefits.

With randomly placed moderate number of mobile relays, significant average throughput gains
can be obtained for end users near cell boundaries.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

23

Future Scope
Above presented work can be extended for different SNR values. Power consumption and security aspects of relay supported cellular networks can be analysed. Alternative techniques for delay reduction such as decreasing packet size can be analysed.
, 10 2013 ICIECE-13 24

References
1) Y. D. Lin and Y. C. Hsu, Multi-hop cellular: A new architecture for wireless communication, in IEEE INFOCOM '2000, 2000, pp. 12731282.

2)
3)

Andrea Goldsmith, Wireless Communications, Cambridge University Press, 2005.


Halim Yanikomeroglu, Cellular Multi-hop Communications: infrastructure Based Relay Network Architecture for 4G Systems, Queen's University 22nd Biennial Symposium on Communications (QBSC'04), Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 1st June 2004.

4)

M.

Haenggi and D.

Puccinelli, Routing in adhoc networks: a case for long hops, IEEE

Commun. Mag., vol. 43, pp. 93-101, Oct. 2005. 5) A. Florea and H. Yanikomeroglu, On the Optimal number of hops in infrastructure-based fixed

relay networks, in Proc. IEEE Globecom, St. Louis, MO, Nov. 2005.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

25

References
6) M. Sikora, J.N. Laneman, M. Haenggi, D.J. Costello Jr., and T. E. Fuja, Bandwidth and Power efficient routing in linear wireless networks, IEEE Transactions on Inf. Theory, Vol.52, pp. 26242633, June 2006. 7) S. V. Maiya, Spectral efficiency and its relation torouting strategies in simple communication networks, Master's thesis, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, 2007.

8)

S.V. Maiya and T.E. Fuja, One hop vs two hop routing in simple networks with fading: an outage
probability analysis addressing spectral efficiency, in Proc. Wireless Communication Networks Conference (WCNC 2008), Las Vegas, Mar. 2008.

9)

Vaskengenc, Seanmurphy, Yangju and Johnmurphy, IEEE 802.16j Relay-based Wireless Access Networks: An Overview, IEEE Wireless Communications, October 2008.

, 10 2013

ICIECE-13

26

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi