Study of Cooperative Communication for variations of

Distance between Relay Nodes

Dr.M.Shyam sundar

Assoc.Prof

Kamala Institute of Technology and science,

karimnagar

Abstract—with regards to ad-hoc networks and wireless sensor networks the idea of cooperative

communication through relays have significant advantage. It decreases the signal degradation that occurs

because of factors such as signal multi path-propagation and fading. Cooperative diversity uses a multiple

antenna condition to enhance or expand add up to network channel capacities for some random set of

bandwidths. This is finished by abusing user diversity by translating the joined signal from the transfer

and the source of the data in wireless multi-hop networks. There are several transferring strategies to

execute cooperative diversity, and some of the basic strategies are Amplify-and- Forward, Decode-and-

Forward and Compress-and Forward. Every one of them have their own advantage and they can give

diverse execution results with various condition. Variety of probability of error can be seen with the

change in signal consolidating strategy.

Keywords—Cooperative Communication, Diversity, Channel Capacitance.

1.Introduction

In a wireless network, signal from source to the destination propagates through observable pathway as

well as various circuitous paths. This impact is alluded to as multipath propagation. Because of the

multipath propagation, signal degradation occurs. This signal degradation is called fading and it is a

severe type of impedance that can be experienced through the use of diversity. Cooperative

communication is a system in which excess signals are transmitted over essentially autonomous channel

and suitable collector combines these excess signals to average the channel effects which prompted

fading. [1] As opposed to the more usual forms of space diversity with physical arrays [2], [3], [4], this

work builds upon the classical hand-off channel demonstrate [5] and examines the issue of making and

misusing space diversity using a gathering of distributed antennas having a place with multiple terminals,

each with its own data to transmit. This type of space diversity is known as cooperative diversity (cf., user

collaboration diversity of [6]), this is because the terminals share their antennas as well as also different

resources to make a "virtual cluster". At the destination space diversity or multi-antenna diversity

techniques are incredible as they can be readily joined with different forms of diversity, for e.g. time and

recurrence, and still offer incredible execution gains when different forms of diversity are inaccessible.

[1]

Cooperative communication is a multi-hop transmission system, in which small single antenna cell

phones share their antennas in a multi-user condition. Thus the basic thought of the cooperative

communications is that cell phones in a wireless network can help each other to send signals to the

destination cooperatively. Every user's information data is sent out to the destination by the user, as well

as by other users. Thus, it is becomes increasingly solid for the destination to recognize the data

transmitted by the user as the possibility of all the channel links to the destination going down is

uncommon. Cooperative communication system along these lines generates a virtual MIMO system, and

thusly it achieves spatial diversity. Sharing resources of the cooperative system leads to saving of the

network resources such as power and computations. [7] Various cooperative diversity algorithms have

been produced for a couple of terminals based upon relays amplifying their gotten signals or completely

deciphering and rehashing data. These algorithms are alluded as amplify-and-forward and decode-and-

forward, respectively. [8], [9] The amplify-and-forward hand-off strategy is the simplest way that a hand-

off hub may participate. In this, the hand-off simply buffers the source hub's transmission over some

predefined time interim and retransmits an enhanced duplicate of the signal amid the accompanying

collaboration time frame. In the decode-and forward transfer strategy, the hand-off hub completely

decodes, reencodes and retransmits the source hub's message.

2.System model

To see the effects of cooperative communication on a pre existing system with one Source Node and one

Destination Hub, one additional hub is added, this hub is known as the Relay hub. The simplest

description of the system considering a source hub (SN), a destination hub (DN) and one hand-off hub

(RN) is as given in Fig 1.

Fig1: System model for Cooperative communication

In the Fig 1, hSR, hSD and hRD represents channel state among source and hand-off, source and

destination and hand-off and destination respectively. The distances between various nodes are

represented as follows:

nodes distance

Source to destintion dsd

Source to relay dsr

Relay to destination drd

The channel coefficients are assumed to pursue square Rayleigh fading. The data transfer is partitioned

into two phases. In phase 1, data is sent from SN to RN and from SN to DN. In phase 2, data is sent from

RN to DN. At the destination both the signals are processed to give the yield. The distance between every

one of the hub is considered to be 1 unit. Hence every one of the nodes are equidistant. Henceforth any

change in the execution or change in probability of error will be because of the convention used to

transmit information. The basic blocks used to simulate the transfer of information between nodes is

given beneath in Fig 2.

X[n] y[n]

Modulator channel Demodulator

Fig 2. Basic Model for data transfer from one node to another

3.Protocol

The Cooperative communication convention that is used in the transfer station is Amplify and Forward

convention. This convention will describe how the information that is gotten by the transfer hub will be

processed before it tends to be sent to the destination. In Amplify and Forward convention the signal that

is gotten by transfer simply is intensified before it is sent once more. By doing as such the noise is also

intensified and this leads to bad execution by this convention. Amplify and Forward convention is ostly

used when the transfer has just constrained measure of processing time accessible all the time elay caused

by the transfer to decode and encode the message has to be limited and when the transmitted signal is

either simple or computerized. At the destination Enhanced Signal to Noise Combining (ESNRC) is used,

this strategy ignores an approaching signal at the point when the information from the other approaching

channels have a much better quality. On the off chance that the channels have pretty much the same

channel quality the approaching signals are apportioned similarly. This joining type has the best

probability of error versus signal to error proportion response.

At the destination Enhanced Signal to Noise Combining (ESNRC) is used, this strategy ignores a moving

toward signal right when the data from the other moving toward channels have a much better quality. In

case the channels have basically the same channel quality the moving toward signals are allocated

similarly. This joining type has the best probability of error versus signal to error extent response.

4.Results

A multi-hop link need not have intermediate nodes which are not in the line of sight for best possible

performance. But in natural environment, the intermediate nodes may be present at any location. To take

into account the effect of position of the relay node, the distance of relay node is varied with respect to the

source node and the destination node. If the relay node is situated very close to the sender node, the entire

system approximates to two sender configuration. The effect of signal quality when the relay node is

moved in line of sight from source node to destination node is shown in Fig 3. In the figure the distances

are symbolized as follows: distance : ds,d : ds,r : dr,d With this configuration the system performs better

than the two sender configuration. In order to get the best possible performance, the relay node must be

present either in the middle or closer to the source node.

Fig 3. The effect of relay location when between Source and Destination nodes

Execution is not symmetrical. So it is wanted to keep the hand-off hub in the center. On the off chance

that it is impractical to so, it can be drawn nearer to the source hub. Such conduct can be clarified by the

way that the convention under use is Amplify and Decode. As the hand-off hub amplifies the signal got

from the source hub, the noise got is also enhanced At the point when the hand-off hub is closer to the

source hub, the impact of noise is lesser to the case when the hand-off hub is closer to the destination hub.

So it tends to be reasoned that the nature of the first hop in a multi-hop communication system is

significantly more essential for the general nature of the communication. Consequently the execution is

not symmetrical. Also this arrangement, instead of using QPSK adjustment, gives much preferable

execution over a BPSK adjusted arrangement which is not using cooperative communication convention.

Next possible approach to change the position of transfer hub could be by keeping the hand-off hub

equidistant from both source hub and destination hub and changing the distance. Response for this case is

as shown in Fig 4.

Fig 4. Effect of increasing distance between relay node to source and destination node

In normal usage, it is not always possible to keep the transfer hub to be both equidistant from both source

and destination hub and in viewable pathway. Results in Fig 4 show the conduct of such an arrangement.

On increasing the distance slightly from the improved position in the previous case, the execution of the

system starts degrading. And in the wake of increasing the distance more, the system at last limits to the

execution of single connection Source to Destination communication. The distances ds,r and dr,d in such

a case are a lot bigger than the distance ds,d. The third possible design can be moving transfer hub either

closer to source or destination hub while not keeping it in observable pathway of source and destination

nodes. The impact of such design on the execution of the system can be seen in Fig 5. The results in this

case show that keeping the transfer hub closer to the source hub gives a superior execution than the case

when the transfer hub is held closer to the destination hub

Moreover this case shows that for such a configuration thesystem’s performance might be worse than the two source

configuration but still it outperforms direct link BPSK as well as QPSK modulation schemes.

Fig 5. Effect of moving the relay node closer to either source or destination node

References

[1] T.M. Cover and A.A. El Gamal, “Capacity theorems for the relay channel,’’ IEEE Trans. Inform.

Theory, vol. 25, no. 5, Sept. 1979.

[2] C. Y. Song, M. K. Chang and G. C. Yang, "Adaptive Modulation in Decode-and-Forward (DF)

Cooperative Communications," Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring), 2012 IEEE 75th,

Yokohama, 2012, pp. 1-5.

[3] I. E. Telatar, “Capacity of Multi-Antenna Gaussian Channels,” European Trans. on Telecomm., vol.

10, pp. 585–596, Nov.-Dec. 1999.

[4] A. Narula, M. D. Trott, and G. W. Wornell, “Performance Limits of Coded Diversity Methods for

Transmitter Antenna Arrays,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 45, pp. 2418–2433, Nov. 1999.

[5] T. M. Cover and A. A. El Gamal, “Capacity Theorems for the Relay Channel,” IEEE Trans. Inform.

Theory, vol. 25, pp. 572–584, Sept. 1979.

[6] A. Sendonaris, E. Erkip, and B. Aazhang, “Increasing Uplink Capacity via User Cooperation

Diversity,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Information Theory (ISIT), (Cambridge, MA), Aug. 1998.

[7] K. J. R. Liu, Ahmed K. Sadek, Weifeng Su, and Andres Kwasinski. 2009. Cooperative

Communications and Networking.Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.

[8] J. N. Laneman, G. W. Wornell and D. N. C. Tse, "An efficient protocol for realizing cooperative

diversity in wireless networks," Information Theory, 2001. Proceedings. 2001 IEEE International

Symposium on, Washington, DC, 2001, pp. 294-.

[9] J. N. Laneman, D. N. C. Tse and G. W. Wornell, "Cooperative diversity in wireless networks:

Efficient protocols and outage behavior," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 50, no. 12,

pp. 3062-3080, Dec. 2004.

[10] J. N. Laneman and G. W. Wornell, "Distributed space-time-coded protocols for exploiting

cooperative diversity in wireless networks," in IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 49, no. 10,

pp. 2415- 2425, Oct. 2003.

11] H. Shan, W. Z. P. Wang, and Z. Wang, “Cross-layer Cooperative Triple Busy Tone Multiple Access

for Wireless Networks,” in Proc. Of IEEE Globecom, New Orleans, USA, Dec. 2008.

[12] Z. Zhou, S. Zhou, J. Cui, and S. Cui, “Energy-Efficient Cooperative Communications based on

Power Control and Selective Relay in Wireless Sensor Networks,” IEEE Journal on Wireless

Communications, vol. 7, no. 8, pp. 3066-3078, Aug.2008.

[13] K.-S. Hwang and Y.-C. Ko, “An Efficient Relay Selection Algorithm for Cooperative Networks”,

IEEE 66th Vehicular Technology Conference, pp. 81-85, 2007.

[14] W. P. Siriwongpairat, T. Himsoon, W. Su and K. J. R. Liu, “Optimum Threshold-Selection Relaying

for Decode-and-Forward Cooperation Protocol,” in Proc. Of IEEE WCNC, Las Vegas, USA, Apr. 2006.

[17] H. Adam, C. Bettstetter, and S. M. Senouci, “Adaptive Relay Selection in Co- operative Wireless

Networks,” in Proc. of IEEE PIMRC, Cannes, France, Sep.2008.

[18] A. Bletsas, A. Lippman, and D. P. Reed, “A simple distributed method for relay selection in

cooperative diversity wireless networks based on reciprocity and channel measurements,” in Proc. 61st

IEEE Semiannu. Vech. Technol. Conf, vol. 3, Stockholm, Sweden, May 30– Jun, 1 2005, pp. 1484–1488.