arxiv: v1 [cs.ni] 8 Feb 2013

Transcription

1 ON RANDOMIZED SENSING AND ACCESS SCHEMES IN WIRELESS AD-HOC COGNITIVE NETWORKS arxiv: v1 [cs.ni] 8 Feb 2013 Technical Report by ARMIN BANAEI October 2009 Texas A&M University Electrical and Computer Engineering Department

2 i ABSTRACT On Randomized Sensing and Access Schemes in Wireless Ad-Hoc Cognitive Networks. (October 2009) Armin Banaei, M.S., Texas A&M University Over the past decade we have witnessed a rapid growth and development in wireless communication systems, to the point that conventional spectrum allocation policies may not be able to fulfill them all. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses certain frequency segments to a particular user in a particular geographic area. Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) radio bands have also been envisioned for all other unlicensed user to share, as long as they follow certain power regulations. But with the recent boom in the wireless technologies, these open channels have become overcrowded with everything from wireless networks to wireless controllers. Therefore, the regulatory and standardization agencies have been working on new spectrum regulation policies for wireless communication systems. The underlying idea is to let unlicensed users to use the licensed band as long as they can guarantee low interference to the licensed users. Though seemingly simple, sophisticated interference management protocols are needed to meet the expected level of transparency accepted by licensed users. In this thesis we adopt the dynamic spectrum access approach to limit the interference to primary users and analyze the performance of the cognitive MAC protocols based on randomized sensing and access schemes. We assume that the secondary users are equipped with spectrum sensors. We consider two main settings; In the first setting we assume that the secondary users deploy the ALOHA protocol to resolve the contentions among each other and can only sense and access a single frequency band at a time. We introduce a heuristic

3 ii Page sensing scheme and analyze the performance of the system in two scenarios; In the first one we conduct our analysis over the data-link layer performance of the protocol. In the second one we analyze the physical layer performance of the system, in which we demonstrate the trade-off between the secondary network throughput and the interference level to primary network. Furthermore, we conjecture that the optimal number of secondary users that can co-exist with the primary network is proportional to the frequency diversity of the system, the average backs-off number of the secondary users and the spatial diversity in the secondary network. In the second setting we assume that secondary users utilize the CSMA/CA protocol to avoid collisions among themselves and analyze the performance of the system only in data-link layer 1. We investigate how much benefit we would gain by sensing and accessing multiples at a time channel and determine the associated optimal sensing and access protocols. We conclude the analysis by considering the role of detection errors in the design of the optimal cognitive MAC protocols. 1 The physical layer analysis could follow the same steps as in the first setting.

4 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page I INTRODUCTION A. Background B. Cognitive Radios C. Motivation D. Outline II III RANDOMIZED SENSING SCHEME BASED ON SLOT- TED ALOHA PROTOCOL A. The System Model B. Asymptotic Scenario Secondary Network throughput A Suboptimal Sensing Scheme C. General Scenario: Cell Based Network Primary Network Throughput and Probability of Collision Secondary Network Throughput and Probability of Successful Transmission RANDOMIZED SENSING SCHEME BASED ON CSMA/CA PROTOCOL A. System Model B. Single Channel Detection C. Multiple Channel Detection D. Multiple Channel Detection with Error IV CONCLUSION REFERENCES

5 iv LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page I System Parameters II Definition of the Successful transmission and the Spectrum Opportunity 22 III Events Definition IV Probability Definition V Detector Parameters

6 v LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE Page 1 NTIA s chart of frequency allocation Measurement of 0-6 GHz spectrum utilization at Berkeley Wireless Research Center; Power Spectral Density (PSD) of the received 6 GHz wide signal collected for a span of 50s sampled at 20 GS/s Spectrum Sharing Opportunistic Spectrum Access Primary network channel utilization statistics The time-slot structure Notations Normalized secondary network throughput variation with respect to the number of secondary users for q = 0.4, N = 100 and three channel utilization statistics; ρ = 0.2 (Rarely Utilized), ρ = 0.5 (Fairly Utilized), ρ = 0.8 (Highly Utilized) An illustration of a successful and interfering transmissions (a) both primary and secondary users pair successfully communicate (b) secondary user pair successfully communicates but interferes with primary communication (c) primary user pair successfully communicates but interfere with secondary user s communication An illustration of the opportunity detection by secondary users Variation of the detection radius with respect to number of secondary users and number of primary frequency channel. The system parameters are set as: R s,p I = Rr s,p = 1, ξ = 0.2, q = 0.3,λ =

7 vi FIGURE Page 12 Graphical evaluation of P (2,j) III. Solid circle is of radius R D, dashed circle is of radius R p I and dashed-dotted circle has radius Rs I. P (2,j) III equals the probability that there are no primary transmitters in the shaded area Graphical evaluation of P (1,j) IV. Solid circle is of radius R D, dashed circle is of radius R p I and dashed-dotted circle has radius Rs I. P (1,j) IV equals the probability that there are no primary transmitters in the shaded area The variation of the normalized secondary throughput with respect to the number of the secondary users and the number of frequency channels. The system parameters are set as:r s,p I = Rr s,p = 1, ξ = 0.2, q = 0.3, λ = 1, γ = 0.1, ρ = Normalized secondary network throughput variation with respect to the number of the secondary users and the number primary users using CSMA/CA protocol. The channel utilization statistic is chosen as ρ = 0.8 which corresponds to highly utilized spectrum Throughput percentage loss caused by using the heuristic sensing scheme instead of the optimal scheme under highly utilized spectrum regime (ρ = 0.8) Throughput percentage loss caused by using the heuristic sensing scheme instead of the optimal scheme for three channel utilization statistics ρ = 0.2 (Rarely Utilized), ρ = 0.5 (Fairly Utilized), ρ = 0.8 (Highly Utilized) and N = Normalized throughput of secondary users with multiple channel sensing and accessing capability for channel utilization statistic ρ = 0.2 (Rarely Utilized), and N = Performance comparison between optimal and heuristic sensing scheme when secondary secondary detectors are capable of sensing S = 2, S = 5 and s = 7 at a time. The number of primary channels equal N = 10. (a) The channel utilization statistic ρ = 0.8 (b) The channel utilization statistic ρ =

8 vii FIGURE Page 20 Normalized throughput of secondary users with multiple channel erroneous sensing and accessing capability for channel utilization statistic ρ = 0.2 (Rarely Utilized), α = 0.2 and β = 0.8. (a) Fixed S = 5 (b) Fixed N = Normalized throughput of secondary users with multiple channel sensing and accessing capability for channel utilization statistic ρ = 0.2 (Rarely Utilized), and erroneous detection outcome. (a) Fixed S = 3 (b) Fixed N =

9 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A. Background The demand for wireless services has been growing rapidly throughout the world in the last decade. The extensive use of voice over IP networks, gaming consoles, PDA s and Wi-Fi networks has shown that wide-band wireless communication is becoming more and more popular and demanded as the last mile connection rather than cable, fiber and etc. Conventionally, FCC has allocated each frequency band exclusively to a single user within a geographical region and prohibits the transmission of of other unlicensed users in that band. However, with the emergence of personal wireless communications, static spectrum allocation is no longer reasonable due to economical and technological factors. Therefore, Industrial, Scientific and medical (ISM) bands have been provided to support unlicensed networks at 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.8 GHz which has become more and more crowded. Figure 1 shows the NTIA s chart of frequency allocation [1]. From the chart it appears that almost all usable frequency spectrum has been allocated and we are running out of spectrum. However, measurements of actual spectrum usage shows an abundance of idle frequency bands in the seemingly crowded radio spectrum [2] [3]. Figure 2 shows the actual measurements taken in downtown Berkeley, which are believed to be typical and indicates low utilization, especially in the 3-6 MHz bands [4]. Another example could be the current television broadcast frequency bands where on the average only 8 channels out of the 68 allocated channels are being used in any given TV market [11], which suggests an The journal model is IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control.

10 2 utilization factor of about 12%. As such, a change to the current spectrum allocation policies is desired. However, there is still a strong debate going on among economists about the approaches to fix this problem. Some suggest that the introduction of a secondary market in the already existing market could greatly reduce the inefficiencies in spectrum usage [5], while others believe that a common band for all the users is the best solution [6]. They argue that wireless transmissions can be regulated by a combination of (a) baseline rules that allow users to coordinate their use, to avoid interference-producing collisions, and to prevent, for the most part, congestion, by conforming to equipment manufacturers specifications, and (b) industry and government sponsored standards [6]. More specifically, in the first proposed approach primary or licensed users have a higher priority and secondary or unlicensed users have a lower priority in accessing the spectrum; Therefore the secondary user activity should be transparent to primary users. In the second proposed approach, all the users are treated equally and should limit their interference to their neighbors. From the technological point of view there are still many challenges that need to be addressed until any one of these two approaches become applicable [7], [4] and [8]. In particular, both approaches require an acute interference management in order for the users to be able to coexist peacefully along side each other in a shared medium. In order to limit the interference to the primary users two main approaches has been suggested. The first one, spectrum sharing, is based on controlling the interference temperature at the primary users and makes use of ultra-wideband signaling. For example, secondary users could spread their power over a vast bandwidth to minimize the interference they cause to the primary users [9]; Essentially in this method, the secondary users transmit their packages while the channels are occupied by the primary users but they schedule their transmissions such that the perceived interference at each pri-

11 M IN ISTR A TIO N TIO N A L TE LE C OM AD NA N U.S. E M UN RC DE R PA IC A TIO GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVE Primary Capital Letters Secondary SERVICE Mobile TOF CO TM EN M EXAMPLE 1st Capital with lower case letters M TIO N S & IN FO R E M A National Telecommunications and Information Administration Office of Spectrum Management U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE October 2003 GOVERNMENT/ NON-GOVERNMENT SHARED NON-GOVERNMENT EXCLUSIVE ALLOCATION USAGE DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION This chart is a graphic single-point-in-time portrayal of the Table of Frequency Allocations used by the FCC and NTIA. As such, it does not completely reflect all aspects, i.e., footnotes and recent changes made to the Table of Frequency Allocations. Therefore, for complete information, users should consult the Table to determine the current status of U.S. allocations. ** EXCEPT AERO SAT. (S-E) BAND DESIGNATIONS WAVELENGTH FREQUENCY 0 ACTIVITIES Infra-sonics 3 x 107m 10 Hz AMATEUR 3 x 106m 100 Hz 3 x 105m 1 khz 3 khz VERY LOW FREQUENCY (VLF) Audible Range Sonics 30,000 m 10 khz SPACE RES. 30 GHz LF 100 khz 3,000 m AM Broadcast Ultra-sonics MF 1 MHz 300 m HF 10 MHz RES. 30 m RADIORADIO NAVIGATION NAVIGATION FM Broadcast THE RADIO SPECTRUM MAGNIFIED ABOVE VHF P 100 MHz 3m UHF L 1 GHz 30 cm S C (E-S) (E-S) Microwaves SHF X 10 GHz 3 cm EHF Radar Radar Bands 100 GHz 0.3 cm 0.03 cm 1 THz SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) Sub-Millimeter Infrared INFRARED 3 x 105Å 1013Hz lected for a span of 50s sampled at 20 GS/s 1014Hz RADIO ASTRONOMY 3 x 104Å VISIBLE Visible 3 x 103Å 1015Hz SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) (S-E) Radiolocation 1016Hz 3 x 102Å ULTRAVIOLET 3 x 10Å 1017Hz EARTH EXPLORATION (Passive) SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) ISM ±.250 GHz GHz IS DESIGNATED FOR UNLICENSED DEVICES RADIO ASTRONOMY 1018Hz 3Å Ultraviolet X-RAY 3 x 10-1Å 1019Hz 1020Hz 3 x 10-2Å Gamma-ray GAMMA-RAY X-ray 3 x 10-3Å 3 x 10-4Å 1021Hz 1022Hz 3 x 10-5Å 1023Hz 3 x 10-6Å 1024Hz ISM ±.500 GHz COSMIC-RAY 3 x 10-7Å (E-S) SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) RADIO ASTRONOMY (S-E) ISM ± 1GHz ISM ± GHz RADIO ASTRONOMY SAT (E-S) INTER ISM ± 50 MHz 30.0 MARITIME FX-SAT (S - E) Radiolocation AERONAUTICAL METEOROLOGICAL Radiolocation AIDS MOB** B- SAT. FX FX-SAT RADIO ASTRON. SPACE RESEARCH EARTH EXPL SAT E-Expl Sat Radio Ast Space res. BCST - SAT. ** LAND AMATEUR Radiolocation Radiolocation Mobile AMATEUR ** AMATEUR LAND AMATEUR LAND MARITIME LAND ** RADIO ASTRONOMY BROADCASTING MARITIME LAND ** ** ** LAND AMATEUR STANDARD FREQ. AND TIME SIGNAL (25,000 khz) Space Research STANDARD FREQ. AMATEUR Mobile* AERONAUTICAL (OR) MARITIME BROADCASTING AERONAUTICAL (R) AMATEUR LAND MARITIME MARITIME MARITIME (TELEPHONY) MARITIME (TELEPHONY) (DISTRESS AND CALLING) MARITIME (TELEPHONY) Space Research STANDARD FREQ. AND TIME SIGNAL STANDARD FREQ. STANDARD FREQ. AND TIME SIGNAL (2500kHz) AERONAUTICAL (R) Radiolocation Amateur Fixed R- LOC. B-SAT Amateur TRAVELERS INFORMATION STATIONS (G) AT 1610 khz (E-S) ** (S-E) RADIODETERMINATION SAT. (S-E) AMATEUR AMATEUR FX BCST- RADIOLOCATION Radiolocation MOB Fixed MARITIME (RADIO BEACONS) AERONAUTICAL Aeronautical Mobile AERONAUTICAL Aeronautical Radionavigation (Radio Beacons) Maritime Radionavigation (Radio Beacons) Aeronautical Mobile (E-S) Amateur AMATEUR RADIOLOCATION BROADCASTING AERONAUTICAL (E-S) (E-S) Radiolocation Radiolocation BROADCASTING 3 khz Earth Exploration Satellite (S-S) Earth std Exploration freq e-e-sat (S-S) (s-s) &Satellite time e-e-sat F I XRADIOLOCATION E D (E-S) (E-S) (E-S) INTER-SAT. INTER-SAT. (E-S) INTER- RADIOLOCATION INTER- Mobile Radiolocation Mobile Fixed Mobile ISM ±.007 MHz Earth Standard Exploration Frequency and Satellite Time Signal (S-S) F I X ESatellite (E-S) D Earth Expl. INTER- Satellite (Active) SPACE RES..(S-E) Amateur RADIOLOCATION ** Radiolocation Mobile Fixed MOB FX R- LOC. B-SAT Fixed ISM 5.8 ±.075 GHz Amateur AMATEUR Radiolocation S) SPACE EARTH OPERATION EXPLORATION (s-e)(s-s) SAT. (s-e)(s-s) Space Research EARTH EXPLORATION (Passive) EARTH EXPL. SAT. (Passive) ISM ± 13 MHz Amateur Satellite Amateur AMATEUR SPACE RES. (Passive) RADIOLOCATION MOB. FX. SPACE OP. (E-S)(s-s) SPACE RESEARCH (s-e)(s-s) MARITIME STANDARD FREQ. STAND. FREQ. & TIME SIG. Space Research STANDARD FREQUENCY & TIME SIGNAL (20,000 KHZ) LAND AMATEUR Earth Expl. Satellite (Active) AMATEUR RADIO ASTRONOMY (LOS) (S-E) SPACE RES. EARTH EXPL. (E-S)(s-s) SAT. (E-S)(s-s) (LOS) BROADCASTING MARITIME SPACE RES. (Passive) MARITIME BROADCASTING Radiolocation EARTH EXPL. SAT. (Passive) INTER- AERONAUTICAL (R) AERONAUTICAL (OR) AMATEUR AMATEUR Mobile MARITIME BROADCASTING MARITIME (S-E) Radiolocation EARTH EXPLORATION (Passive) SPACE RES. (S-E) (Passive) MARITIME BROADCASTING (TV CHANNELS 7-13) Land Mobile STANDARD FREQ. AND TIME SIGNAL (60 khz) Radiolocation RADIOLOCATION BROADCASTING BROADCASTING RADIOLOCATION Mobile* EARTH EXPLORATION SAT. (Passive) (E-S) STANDARD FREQ. AND TIME SIGNAL (15,000 khz) Space Research STANDARD FREQ. AERONAUTICAL (OR) SPACE RES. (Passive) METEOROLOGICAL AIDS (Radiosonde) LAND BROADCASTING BROADCASTING BROADCASTING Mobile* AMATEUR AMATEUR AMATEUR Mobile* MARITIME S P A C E R A D. A S T ** F I X E D EARTH EXPL. SAT RES. SPACE RES. STD FREQ. & TIME METEOROLOGICAL AIDS (RADIOSONDE) SAT. (E-S) SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) METEOROLOGICAL (s-e) ** RADIO ASTRONOMY RADIO ASTRONOMY RADIO ASTRONOMY (S-E) 19.7 SAT. (S-E) (S-E) 20.1 FX SAT (S-E) (S-E) 20.2 FX SAT (S-E) SAT (S-E) 21.2 F I X E D EARTH EXPL. SAT ** Radioloc. MARITIME MARITIME LAND LAND AMATEUR AMATEUR (E-S) MARITIME AERONAUTICAL (R) RADIOASTRONOMY AERONAUTICAL (OR) Radiolocation Radiolocation Radiolocation RADIOLOC. (S-E) MET. SAT. (s-e) Space Res. Radiolocation FX SAT (E-S) (S-E) FX SAT (S-E) EARTH EXPL. SAT. Fixed INTER SPACE RES. (S-E) (E-S) BCST SAT. Earth Expl Sat RADIOLOCATION RADIOLOCATION Space Res.(act.) RADIOLOCATION MET. SAT. (S-E) MET. SAT. (S-E) MET. SAT. (S-E) MET. SAT. (S-E) SPACE OPN. (S-E) SPACE OPN. (S-E) SPACE OPN. (S-E) SPACE OPN. (S-E) MARITIME LAND LAND MARITIME LAND MARITIME LAND RADIONAV- (E-S) AMATEUR 300 MHz 1545 SPACE RES. (S-E) SPACE RES. (S-E) SPACE RES. (S-E) SPACE RES. (S-E) (E-S) AERONAUTICAL RADIONAV. (Space to Earth) AERO. RADIO DET. SAT. (E-S) M O B I L E S A T ( E - S ) AERO. RADIONAV. RADIO DET. SAT. (E-S) SAT. (E-S) RADIO ASTRONOMY AERO. RADIONAV. RADIO DET. SAT. (E-S) SAT. (E-S) Mobile Sat. (S-E) ISM ±.02 MHz 1544 MOB. SAT. (S-E) Mob. Sat. (S-E) MOB. SAT. (S-E) Mob. Sat. (S-E) MARITIME INTER INTER (Space to Earth) Mobile Satellite (S- E) (S-E) AERONAUTICAL (R) (space to Earth) AERONAUTICAL (R) (space to Earth) AERONAUTICAL (R) (space to Earth) AERONAUTICAL (R) AERONAUTICAL (R) AERONAUTICAL (R) AERONAUTICAL (R) SPACE RES. (Passive) EARTH INTER EXPLORATION SAT. (Passive) SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) RADIO ASTRONOMY SAT (E-S) AERONAUTICAL AERO RADIONAV SAT. (Space to Earth) Mobile (Aero. TLM) SAT. MARITIME SAT. (Space to Earth) (Space to Earth) MARITIME (S-E) (space to Earth) Mobile ** EARTH SPACE RESEARCH EXPLORATION (Passive) (Passive) (S-E) Space Research EARTH EXPL. SAT. (Passive) Mobile SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) Space Research Space Research (E-S) LAND (TLM) Land Mobile Satellite (E-S) Land Mobile SAT. (E-S) Satellite (E-S) FX SAT.(E-S) L M Sat(E-S) Mobile Fixed AERONAUTICAL RADIO ASTRONOMY Mobile (E-S) Mobile Fixed (TLM) (TLM) BROADCASTING BROADCASTING (AM RADIO) Mobile** Fixed Fixed -SAT SPA CE RESEARCH ( Passive) (AERONAUTICAL TELEMETERING) (TLM) 300 khz (S-E) ** BROADCASTING AERONAUTICAL (OR) AERONAUTICAL (R) BROADCASTING Radiolocation RADIO ASTRONOMY Amateur Satellite (S-E) EARTH EXPL. SAT. SPACE RES. (Passive) (Passive) Amateur 14.2 ** EARTH EXPL SAT (Passive) LAND ** ASTRONOMY RADIO LAND LAND (TLM) -SAT STANDARD FREQ. AND TIME SIGNAL (10,000 khz) Space Research STANDARD FREQ. AERONAUTICAL (R) AMATEUR STANDARD FREQ. AND TIME SIGNAL (20 khz) EARTH EXPLORATION (Passive) BROADCASTING MARITIME Radiolocation RADIOLOCATION (S-E) Space Research AMATEUR INTER RADIOLOCATION AERONAUTICAL (R) AERONAUTICAL AERONAUTICAL BROADCASTING AERONAUTICAL (OR) AERONAUTICAL (R) MARITIME MARITIME RADIOLOCATION (E-S) Space Research (E-S) AERONAUTICAL RADIONAV RADIOStandard RadioLOCATION Freq. and location Time Signal RADIORadioSatellite (E-S) SAT.(E-S) location LOCATION 14.0 RADIO Land Mobile Space NAVIGATION SAT. (E-S) Satellite (E-S) Research Radiolocation BROADCASTING BROADCASTING AMATEUR AMATEUR AMATEUR Mobile Mobile AERONAUTICAL (RADIO BEACONS) MARITIME AMATEUR (E-S) 12.2 Amateur AERONAUTICAL ISM 6.78 ±.015 MHz SPACE RESEARCH (S-E) (Deep Space) Mobile ** BROADCASTING (S-E) (S-E) SPACE EARTH Amatuer RES. EXPL.SAT EARTH SPACE INTER RESEARCH EXPL SAT. (Passive) (Passive) RADIOLOCATION RADIOLOCATION Amateur AERONAUTICAL INTERSAT. AERONAUTICAL (S-E) LAND LAND AERONAUTICAL LAND LAND LAND RADIOLOCATION RADIO ASTRONOMY AERONAUTICAL BROADCASTING (FM RADIO) Mobile* Amateur Satellite Amateur EARTH EXPL. (Passive) RADIO ASTRONOMY SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) EARTH EXPL. SAT. (Passive) RADIOLOCATION Amateur Radiolocation Radiolocation Radiolocation AERONAUTICAL LAND LAND LAND LAND LAND BROADCAST BROADCAST EARTH RADIO ASTRONOMY SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) Radiolocation RADIOLOCATION RADIOLOCATION Radiolocation Radiolocation LAND Mobile AERONAUTICAL (OR) AERONAUTICAL (R) MARITIME AERONAUTICAL (RADIO BEACONS) MARITIME (SHIPS ONLY) MARITIME (DISTRESS AND CALLING) MARITIME SPACE Meteorological Aids Radiolocation SPACE RESEARCH (S-E) (deep space only) AERONAUTICAL MARITIME RADIOLOCATION SPACE RESEARCH (S-E) BROADCASTING BROADCASTING AERONAUTICAL (OR) * * Aeronautical Mobile AERONAUTICAL MARITIME INTERF I X E D RESEARCH EXPL SAT. (Passive) (Passive) Mobile MET. Satellite (E-S) (E-S) (E-S) (no airborne) Mobile Satellite (E-S)(no airborne) (E-S) Mobile Satellite (E-S) Fixed BROADCASTING (TV CHANNELS 5-6) EARTH EXPL. (Passive) EARTH EXPLORATION (Passive) (E-S) EARTH EXPL. (S-E) EARTH EXPL. SAT. (S-E) Fixed Mobile Satellite (S-E) Mobile Satellite (S-E) Mobile Satellite (S-E) 300 MHz RADIOLOCATION AERONAUTICAL (R) MARITIME (E-S) (E-S) EARTH EXPL. (E-S) (S-E) BROADCAST AERONAUTICAL (OR) * STANDARD FREQ. AND TIME SIGNAL (5000 KHZ) Space Research STANDARD FREQ. Mobile SPACE RESEARCH (E-S) (S-E) (S-E) MET. (S-E) (S-E) (S-E) (S-E) RADIO ASTRONOMY LAND TV BROADCASTING SAT (E-S) BROADCASTING (TV CHANNELS 2-4) 76.0 Amateur 77.0 Amateur Amateur Sat AMATEUR AMATEUR SAT 78.0 Amateur Amateur Satellite 81.0 (S-E) (S-E) 84.0 BROADBROAD CASTING CASTING 86.0 (E-S) (E-S) (S-E)(E-S) AERONAUTICAL (RADIO BEACONS) MARITIME AMATEUR Amateur (E-S) 3 MHz 71.0 (E-S) MARITIME AERONAUTICAL (R) * Aeronautical Mobile Fixed AMATEUR INTER RADIOLOCATION RADIOAmateur- sat (s-e) Amateur LOCATION Amateur SAT(E-S) BROADCASTING (TV CHANNELS 14-20) Maritime Radionavigation (Radio Beacons) RADIOLOC. RADIOLOC. RADIOLOC. RADIOLOCATION INTER INTER LAND (E-S) EARTH-ES INTER- SAT INTER EARTH EXPLORATION SAT. (Passive) 58.2 EARTH EXPLORATION SAT. (Passive) 59.0 SPACE RADIO- INTERRES.. LOC. SAT EARTH-ES SPACE INTER - SAT RADIOLOCATION EARTH SPACE EXPLORATION RESEARCH F I X E D M OB I L E ** ** RES. SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) SPACE INTER- SAT AERONAUTICAL RADIONAV. RADIORadioLOCATION location Radiolocation MARITIME Radiolocation MARITIME METEOROLOGICAL Radiolocation AIDS SAT (S-E) Radiolocation LAND AMATEUR AERO. RADIONAV. RADIOLOCATION BROADCASTING (TV CHANNELS 21-36) EARTH EXPLORATION F I X E D SAT. (Passive) INTER- SAT EARTH EXPL-SAT (Passive) GHz SPACE RESEARCH (Passive) LAND ** ** RADIO ASTRONOMY Space Research (Passive) AERONAUTICAL LAND EARTH EXPLORATION (Passive) LAND RES. FX SAT(E-S) RADIO ASTRONOMY AERONAUTICAL (R) NOT ALLOCATED SPACE FX SAT(E-S) AMATEUR EARTH EXPLORATION FI XED (E-S) (E-S) (S-E) SPACE RESEARCH Meteorological Satellite (S-E) LAND LAND LAND LAND LAND AERONAUTICAL (OR) AERONAUTICAL (R) * MARITIME Amateur LAND LAND LAND LAND Aeronautical Radionavigation RADIONAV.SAT SAT (E-S). MOB. SAT(E-S) (S-E) RADIOLOCATION LAND Radio Astronomy LAND LAND Met-Satellite Earth Expl Sat (E-S) (E-S) MET-SAT. EARTH EXPL SAT. (E-S) (E-S) METEOROLOGICAL AIDS (RADIOSONDE) (E-S) RADIO ASTRONOMY SPACE RESEARCH (S-S) MET. AIDS (Radiosonde) MET. SAT. (S-E) 30 MHz MARITIME RADIONAV (E-S) Space Opn. (S-E) Earth Expl. Met-Satellite Earth Expl Sat (E-S)Satellite(E-S) (E-S) (S-E) SPACE RES. MET-SAT. EARTH EXPL (E-S) SAT. (E-S) LAND AMATEUR (E-S) 4.2. SAT. (S-E) STD. FREQ. & TIME SIGNAL SAT. (400.1 MHz) MET. AIDS (Radiosonde) MET. AIDS SPACE OPN. (Radio(S-E) sonde) LAND Radiolocation AERONAUTICAL Aeronautical Mobile (E-S) Radiolocation Radiolocation AERONAUTICAL (RADIO BEACONS) ASTRONOMY SAT. (S-E) SAT. (S-E) RADIOLOCATION RADIOLOCATION ** AERO. RADIONAV.(Ground) AERONAUTICAL (Ground) AERONAUTICAL F I X E D SA T EARTH Earth SPACE F I X E D EXPL Expl. SAT RES. (E-S) Sat (s - e) SAT (E-S) SAT BROAD- FX-SAT Fixed Mobile BCST CA STIN G (S-E) SAT BROADBCST CA STIN G SAT RADIO F I X E D M O B I L E * * (E-S) F I X E D (S-E) RADIOLOCATION SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-earth) Radiolocation RADIOLOCATION Radiolocation STANDARD FREQUENCY AND TIME SIGNAL SPACE RE. EARTH EXPL..(Passive) SAT. (Passive) STANDARD FREQUENCY AND TIME SIGNAL Amateur SPACE RES. Radiolocation SPACE RESEARCH SPACE OPERATION METEOROLOGICAL METEOROLOGICAL AIDS EARTH EXPLORATION RADIOLOCATION BROADCASTING 3.3 ** 3.1 MARITIME 32.0 MARITIME BROADCASTING 32.3 AMATEUR INTER- INTER- SAT RADIOLOCATION MARITIME (RADIO BEACONS) 3.0 MARITIME Radiolocation AMATEUR MARITIME RADIOLOCATION 31.8 LAND 31.3 AERONAUTICAL 31.0 Aeronautical Radionavigation (Radio Beacons) SPACE RES. ACTIVITY CODE 30.0 RADIODETERMINATION RADIO ASTRONOMY LAND (E-S) INTER- AERONAUTICAL AERONAUTICAL (E-S) RADIO SERVICES COLOR LEGEND SPACE EARTH RESEARCH EXPLORATION (Passive) SAT. (Passive) SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) THE RADIO SPECTRUM RADIO ASTRONOMY FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS Standard Frequency and Time Signal Satellite (S-E) UNITED STATES Stand. Frequency and Time Signal Satellite (S-E) 3 MARITIME 300 khz LAND 3 MHz ISM ±.163 MHz 30 MHz 3 GHz 30 GHz (E-S) 300 GHz * EXCEPT AERO (R) Cosmic-ray 1025Hz PLEASE NOTE: THE SPACING ALLOTTED THE SERVICES IN THE SPECTRUM SEGMENTS SHOWN IS NOT PROPORTIONAL TO THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF SPECTRUM OCCUPIED. 300 GHz Fig. 1. NTIA s chart of frequency allocation Fig. 2. Measurement of 0-6 GHz spectrum utilization at Berkeley Wireless Research Center; Power Spectral Density (PSD) of the received 6 GHz wide signal col-

12 4 p r x s r x p t x s t x Fig. 3. Spectrum Sharing mary receiver does not exceed the tolerable threshold, as shown in Fig. 3. The second strategy is called opportunistic/dynamic spectrum access, in which secondary users only make use of locally or temporally unused channels to transmit their data, as shown in Fig. 4. Primary signal detection is of fundamental importance to this strategy; The performance of the sensing scheme and the detector characteristics highly affect the system performance. In Chapters II and III these effects will be studied in details. Since in this strategy secondary users presumably use the vacant channels they can transmit in higher power or bit rates compared with the first strategy; But they could only use the channel over a fraction of time or frequency. The triumph of one strategy over the other is hard to justify due to many involved open problems. In this thesis we take the second approach (opportunistic spectrum accessing) and study the performance of the resulting cognitive radio system with randomized medium access protocols.

13 5 Fig. 4. Opportunistic Spectrum Access B. Cognitive Radios The term Cognitive radio was first coined by Joseph Mitola III as a radio that is sufficiently intelligent about the radio resources and can identify the user communication needs in order to provide wireless services most appropriate to user needs [13] [14]. Mitolas CR-1 cognitive radio prototype modeled a cognition cycle at the application layer. His research pointed to the potential use of cognitive radio technology to enable spectrum rental applications and create secondary wireless access markets [15]. A more common definition that restricts the radio s cognition to more practical sensory inputs is the FCC definition of cognitive radios as a radio that can change its transmitter parameters based on interaction with the environment in which it operates [16]. The main idea of cognition for a radios is to periodically search the spectrum for available opportunities (idle frequency bands), dynamically adopts the proper transmission policy (power, modulation scheme,... ) in order to avoid interference

14 6 to other users. When we have multiple cognitive radios working together, we have a cognitive radio network. C. Motivation As mentioned in the previous section, the main idea of cognitive networks is to allow unlicensed users (secondary users) to access the idle portion of the frequency spectrum without interfering (or, rather, doing so in a controlled manner) with the licensed users (primary users). Though the basic idea seems simple, this technology still faces many challenges (technological and regulatory). For instance, in order to explore opportunities and also limit the interference to the primary users, cognitive radios need to periodically scan the spectrum. One of the key challenges in this regard is the design of wide-band detectors [4]. Considering present difficulties in processing multi-gigahertz bandwidth signals and reliable detection of primary users presence, the protocol introduced in this work is based on practical technology limits and assumes that each secondary user is capable of sensing and accessing only a limited number of frequency bands at a time. Hence, secondary users can only obtain partial information about the channel state which together with inherent hierarchy in accessing the channels, imposes substantial complications in identifying transmission opportunities and differentiates the cognitive medium access control (MAC) layer from the MAC layer in conventional radios. One of the key issues in designing the cognitive MAC is how to decide which channel(s) to sense and how to share the idle channels among secondary users. A considerable amount of literature exists on cognitive MAC protocols [17] - [21]. In [17] and [18], an optimal strategy for dynamic spectrum access is developed by integrating the design of spectrum sensors at the physical layer with that of spectrum

15 7 sensing and access policies at the MAC layer, based on a partially observable Markov decision processes (POMDPs) framework. Although this protocol can well utilize the residual spectral opportunities for a single secondary user, its implementation and analytical study of the network level performance (achievable secondary network throughput) is complicated. In [19] the authors present an ad-hoc secondary medium access control (AS-MAC) protocol, which utilizes the resources available on the downlink time/frequency domain, for Mobile Communications (GSM) cellular network. Through simulation, it is shown that they are able to efficiently utilize the available resources, with a utilization factor from 75 to 132 percent, due to spatial reuse in the latter case. The authors of [20] propose a dynamic open spectrum sharing (DOSS) MAC protocol, which is somewhat impractical as it requires three separate sets of transceivers to operate on the control channel, data channel, and busy-tone channel, respectively. In [21] the authors propose certain schemes, which integrate the spectrum sensing policy at the physical (PHY) layer with packet scheduling at the MAC layer. They analyze the throughput and the delay-qos performances of the proposed schemes for the saturation network and the non-saturation network cases under random and negotiation-based channel sensing policies. However, their sensing strategy suffers from the fact that secondary users need to cooperate to sense the licensed channels through a pre-set control channel. Moreover, the secondary users pre-select the channels to access in the previous time slot, which faces the problem that there is no guarantee the channel occupancy states remain the same during two consecutive time slots. In addition, all the aforementioned work, except the last one, do not address the performance of cognitive MAC protocols at the network level and the consequences that each entity decision has on the performance of the others. Furthermore, due to deployment difficulties, the cognitive schemes that make use of a central authority to coordinate the action of secondary users are less appealing.

16 8 Therefore, recently, distributed techniques for dynamic spectrum allocation, where no central spectrum authority is required, are being widely studied. Though they are less efficient, decentralized approaches require much less cooperation. Some of the decentralized protocols require control channels as a common medium among locally adjacent users to negotiate the communication parameters in order to make the best use of the available opportunities [20] [24]. These protocols face serious challenges: How to set up the control channel? What if the control channel is corrupted by interference? How to negotiate a transition to a new frequency? Due to aforestated difficulties and the desired autonomous nature of secondary users, in this work we focus on randomized cognitive MAC protocols, which need no (or minimal) information to be exchanged among secondary users in order for them to take an appropriate actions. This fact rids us from the need of control channels and the complications that they incur. D. Outline In this thesis we propose and study cognitive MAC protocols for wireless ad-hoc networks, which integrate a randomized sensing scheme to decide on which channel to scan and Slotted ALOHA and CSMA/CA protocols to avoid collision among secondary users. Secondary users do not need any centralized controller or common control channel to coordinate their actions. Primary users are distributed according to a spatial Poisson process in the network cell and utilize their allocated frequency bands according to know statistics. Secondary users are allowed to opportunistically access the spectrum as long as they guarantee a certain probability of collision to the primary users. In order to meet the collision constraint, secondary users scan the frequency band(s) they intend to exploit for primary activity, and access it provided

17 9 that it is idle. In Chapter II we study the performance of the ALOHA-based cognitive MAC protocol. We first introduce the system model under study and analyze the throughput performance of the scheme with idealized system parameters. We then derive the optimal number of secondary users that can coexist in the network under the Slotted ALOHA MAC protocol for a special case. Second, under general system parameters we investigate the trade-off between the probability of opportunity-detection and the probability of collision. Utilizing the optimal detection radius we determine the total primary and secondary throughput. Furthermore, we establish a conjecture on the optimal number of secondary users and prove it for a special case. In Chapter III we consider the CSMA/CA-based cognitive MAC protocol. We first presume that secondary user are only capable of sensing and accessing one channel at a time and compare the performance of the corresponding optimal scheme with the heuristic scheme introduced in Section II. Next, we extend the secondary users sensing and access capability to multiple channels at a time and study how much this extra feature can benefit the system performance. Finally we conclude the analysis by considering the effect of detection errors on the performance of the optimal cognitive MAC protocol. Chapter IV concludes this work.

18 10 CHAPTER II RANDOMIZED SENSING SCHEME BASED ON SLOTTED ALOHA PROTOCOL In this Chapter we analyze the performance of a randomized cognitive MAC protocol for wireless ad-hoc networks in which secondary users can only sense and access one channel at a time. We assume secondary users employ Slotted ALOHA protocol to limit the interference among each other in the shared medium. According to this protocol whenever a user has a packet to transmit, it does so with probability q. First, we analyze the performance of the system under asymptotic values for some network parameters. This corresponds to the analysis of the system in the Data Link Layer. Essentially we assume perfect performance at the physical layer, i.e., no collision occurs at the physical layer. Next, we extend the analysis to lower layers and investigate the issues that arise from the distributed nature of the network. Specifically, we study the trade-off between the opportunity utilization and the probability of collision. Then, utilizing the optimal detection radius (which satisfies the collision constraint set by the primary network and achieves the maximum throughput for the secondary network), we determine the total primary and secondary throughput. A. The System Model Consider a frequency spectrum consisting of N orthogonal channels with bandwidths W j, j N. Set N = {1,..., N} represents the set of channel indices. The total bandwidth available to primary users is W = j N W j. Each channel is licensed to a time-slotted primary network. The spectrum occupancy statistics of channels are independent of each other and follow a Bernoulli distribution with probability θ j of being active for each channel j N, Fig 5.

19 11 θ1 θ 2 θ3 θi θ N W1 W2 W3 Wi W N Fig. 5. Primary network channel utilization statistics. Assuming a fixed Physical Layer scheme in all channels, the rate at which users communicate is proportional to their available bandwidth, i.e. C j = a W j (2.1) Where the proportionality constant a depends on the PHY signaling scheme. Therefore, from the perspective of the data-link layer, the expected secondary network throughput equals N C p = θ j C j, (2.2) whereas the total supported throughput in the network is potentially as in 2.3. j=1 N C max = C j = a W (2.3) j=1 In order to utilize the spectrum more efficiently, the frequency channels are also made available to an unlicensed (secondary) network comprised of M secondary users who seek opportunities to access the vacant frequency bands. The spectrum occupancy statistics of primary channels are assumed to be available to the secondary network. The secondary network is time-slotted and synchronized with primary net-

20 12 Channel Selection Channel Sensing Data Transmission Time Slot Fig. 6. The time-slot structure. work clock 1. We further assume that the secondary users operate under heavy traffic model, i.e. they always have packet in their queue to transmit. At the beginning of a time slot, each secondary user decides on which channel to sense according to a sensing scheme described later. Upon the perception of an opportunity 2 in that specific channel, the secondary user transmits a packet with probability q, in order to reduce the interference among secondary users (Slotted-ALOHA protocol 3 ). However, if the channel is detected busy, the secondary user postpones the transmission of the data to the next time slot. The basic time slot structure is illustrated in Figure 6. One of the challenges in establishing connection between a secondary transmitter and a receiver is synchronization [25], [26]. Since synchronization is out the scope of this work, for the sake of simplicity, we assume that the secondary transmitters and the receivers are perfectly synchronized, i.e. the secondary receiver knows in which channel the corresponding secondary transmitter is attempting to establish a connection at any time. Primary users are distributed in the network cell, Ω, according to two dimensional Poisson point process with density λ. Primary transmitters randomly pick a destination among the primary users located within their transmission range of radius 1 We can assume both primary and secondary networks use the same clock source. 2 Opportunity will be defined in following sections. 3 Alternatively, we can assume that data traffic arrives at each secondary transmitter in an i.i.d fashion with probability q at the beginning of each time slot and gets transmitted upon reception.

21 13 Ω R D s t x s R I p t x p R I s R r p R r s r x p r x Fig. 7. Notations

22 14 R p r. To simplify the equations we assume that the secondary receivers are located at a fixed distance, R s r, away from the corresponding secondary transmitter. Secondary users are equipped with perfect detectors that can detect the primary signals without error within radius R D. Moreover, secondary users are only cable of sensing and accessing a single channel at a time 4. In Section II-C we will show that even perfect detection does not guarantee collision free coexistence between primary and secondary users. Active receivers perceive interference from (non-designated) primary and/or secondary transmitters which are within R p I and Rs I radii about them respectively. In Fig. 7 we illustrate the definition of the network parameters graphically and in Table I summarize the system parameters. Now we define what we mean by the sensing scheme in the most general case. Let G := {G 1,, G κ } be the set of all sensing actions available to secondary users and κ = G be the cardinality of the action set. Assuming secondary users are capable of sensing S channels at a time (1 S N), G i corresponds to a specific subset of N of the size S, i.e. for i {1,, κ}, G i N, G i = S. For S = 1, G i simply represents the channel i. Based on the specifications of the detector the value of κ can vary from N to ( N S). We define the secondary users randomized sensing scheme as the probability measure (G, R, P ), i.e. P i = P (G i ) i {1,, κ} P i 0 i {1,, κ} κ P i = 1 i=1 (2.4) where P i denotes the probability that a secondary user chooses the group/channel 4 We assumed a isotropic (spherical) model for signal propagation.

23 15 Parameter Ω N M Table I. System Parameters Definition Network cell Number of primary frequency bands Number of secondary users (.) p Parameter associated with primary users (.) s Parameter associated with secondary users R I R r R D λ θ j q W j C j C max ρ C j Interference range Transmission range Perfect detection range Primary users density Probability of channel j being busy Probability of packet transmission for secondary users Channel jth bandwidth Capacity of jth channel Maximum achievable rate in the whole network Primary users utilization efficiency Normalized data rate at channel j

24 16 i to sense. In the next section we determine the throughput performance of the randomized sensing schemes in the data-link layer. B. Asymptotic Scenario In this section we consider the case in which R p I, Rs I and R D tend to infinity and determine the data-link layer performance of the randomized sensing scheme based on the ALOHA protocol. The immediate consequence of R I going to infinity is that any attempt by a particular transmitter to communicate in an already occupied channel (it could be occupied by either a primary or a secondary user pair) results in collision or packet loss for the active receiver. In other words, in this scenario, one and only one primary user will access each frequency band at a time. Furthermore, assuming R D going to infinity leads to the accurate detection of spectrum opportunities for secondary users, i.e. each secondary user can tell if there is any active primary user in a channel with absolutely no error. As mentioned earlier, the performance metric of interest to us is the total secondary network throughput, i.e., the amount of data that is successfully transmitted per unit time, given that the interference caused to the primary users does not exceed an acceptable level. The infinite detection radius for secondary users guarantees collision free communication for the primary network. Therefore, the expected total throughput of the primary network remains unchanged in the presence of secondary users as in (2.2). In the following section we derive the throughput of the secondary network assuming an arbitrary sensing scheme and present the numerical results based on a heuristic sensing scheme.

25 17 1. Secondary Network throughput Assume there are M secondary user pairs competing for residual spectrum resources in the network. At the beginning of each time slot, each secondary user decides on which channel to sense according to the sensing scheme defined in (2.4) for S = 1 and transmit its data with probability q. First, we derive the throughput of a single secondary user, for N > 1 and q < 1, provided that there are exactly k secondary users active in the network. Let θ j = 1 θ j denote the probability that channel j is idle, which is also a measure of the availability of channel j to secondary users. N C single SU k = θ j.c j P j (1 P j ) k 1 (2.5) Thus the expected total throughput of the secondary network is given by j=1 M ( ) M C s = q i (1 q) M i ic single SU i i i=1 N N ( ) M (q(1 = q θ j.c j P j i Pj ) ) i 1( ) M i 1 q i j=1 = qm i=1 N θ j.c j P j (1 P j )(1 qp j ) M 1 (2.6) j=1 We observe that for the special cases of N = 1 and/or q = 1 Equation (2.6) does not hold. For N = 1, we get P 1 = 1. Therefore, by Equation (2.5), the throughput of a single secondary user given that k secondary users are transmitting would be: N C single SU k = P j (1 P j ) k 1 θ j.c j j=1 (2.7) = P 1 (1 P 1 ) k 1 θ 1.C 1

26 18 The only case in which C singlesu k admits a non-zero value is k = 1, which results in C single SU k = N j=1 θ jc j, i.e. only one secondary user is active in the network. Following the same approach as in Equation (2.6) we get the total secondary throughput to be M( N j=1 θ j C j )q(1 q) M 1. Similarly, for the case of q = 1, we have that all the secondary users will transmit their packets in every time slot. Therefore, each secondary user achieves a non-zero throughput if it is the only user to choose a specific channel to sense. This amounts to a total secondary throughput of M N j=1 θ j C j P j (1 P j ) M 1. In the next section we introduce a heuristic sensing scheme and study its performance. Note that equation (2.6) is not concave (or quasi-concave) in P, hence, we can not obtain a globally optimal sensing scheme. 2. A Suboptimal Sensing Scheme Since secondary users can only sense one channel at a time, they have partial knowledge of the channel state. According to Section II-A, we define the sensing scheme as a probability measure P on set G, i.e. (G, R, P ). Since in this section we assume that secondary users are only capable of sensing a single channel each time, the set G is simply the set of all primary channel. Each secondary user selects a channel to sense according to probability measure P, i.e., the probability that a secondary user selects the j th channel to sense is equal to P j = P (G j ). By exploiting such random sensing scheme, unlike deterministic policies, we give the secondary users a degree of freedom in seeking spectrum opportunities and therefore enable the secondary network to achieve a higher expected throughput. In this section we introduce a simple and intuitive suboptimal sensing scheme.