感知無線電網路對於次要用戶採用緩衝器與頻譜租用之連結允入控制研究

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	彭思穎 Ssu-Ying Peng
論文名稱：	感知無線電網路對於次要用戶採用緩衝器與頻譜租用之連結允入控制研究 A Study on Call Admission Control with Buffer and Spectrum Leasing for Secondary Users in Cognitive Radio Networks
指導教授：	鍾順平 Shun-Ping Chung
口試委員:	鍾順平王乃堅林永松
學位類別：	碩士 Master
系所名稱：	電資學院 - 電機工程系 Department of Electrical Engineering
論文出版年：	2019
畢業學年度：	107
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	220
中文關鍵詞：	感知無線電網路、連結允入控制、頻譜租用、緩衝器、次要用戶阻塞機率、次要用戶中斷機率、成功送達率
外文關鍵詞：	Cognitive radio network, preemptive priority, spectrum leasing, buffer, call admission control,, SU blocking probability, SU dropping probability
相關次數：	點閱：315 下載：0
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

上一筆

隨著越來越多的裝置追求無線化和行動化的時代來臨，無線頻譜的需求急劇的增加。然而，由於無線頻譜資源有限，並且通常需要官方授權，因此用戶需要支付較高的成本來使用無線頻譜。另一方面，並非所有用戶的資料都需要高度即時性傳輸。為了提高頻譜的利用率，學界提出了感知無線電網路（CRN）的概念，並且定義用戶成兩種類型，即主要用戶（PU）和次要用戶（SU）。主要用戶是頻譜的擁有者，而次要用戶不是頻譜擁有者，如果主要用戶不使用頻譜，則會允許次要用戶來使用無線頻譜的服務。由於主要用戶對於次要用戶具有佔先的優先權，因此我們利用頻譜租用方案來改善次要用戶的服務品質。具體的來說，我們將無線頻譜的一部分分配為租用頻譜。在該租用頻譜中，主要用戶和次要用戶具有相同的優先權，並且次要用戶被中斷的機率降低。此外，系統配有緩衝器以容納被阻塞的次要用戶和被中斷服務的次要用戶，因此次要用戶有更多機會去使用無線傳輸服務。另外，為了增加次要用戶的成功送達率，我們應用三種連結允入控制(CAC)方案以允許SU執行通道聚合。我們分析了不同CAC方案對主要用戶和次要用戶的效能指標的影響。我們重視的效能指標包括主要用戶/次要用戶阻塞機率和次要用戶中斷機率。最後但並非最不重要的是，為了驗證解析結果的準確性，我們使用Visual Studio 2013以C ++編寫電腦模擬程式，以便用於比較解析結果和模擬結果。

As more and more equipment and devices are pursuing the usage of wireless and mobile networks, the demand for wireless spectrum has increased dramatically. However, as the wireless spectrum is limited resource and usually needs a license issued by the authorities, users need to pay a high cost to use the spectrum. On the other hand, not all users’ data require highly immediacy. For the purpose of improving spectrum utilization, the concept of Cognitive Radio Network (CRN) is proposed, and two types of users, namely the primary user (PU) and secondary user (SU) are defined. A PU is the owner of the licensed spectrum, while an SU is not a spectrum owner that is allowed to use the services of the wireless spectrum if the PU is not using it. Since a PU has a preemptive priority over an SU, spectrum leasing is utilized to improve the quality of service of SUs. Specifically, a part of the wireless spectrum is allocated as the leased spectrum. In this leased spectrum, PUs and SUs have the same priority, and the probability of SU being interrupted is reduced. In addition, the system is equipped with a buffer to accommodate the blocked SUs and the preempted SUs, so that the SUs have more opportunities to use the wireless transmission service. Furthermore, in order to increase the SU throughput, three CAC schemes are applied to allow SU to perform channel aggregation. The performance impacts of different CAC schemes on the performance measures of PUs and SUs are analyzed. The performance measures of interest include PU/SU blocking probability and SU dropping probability. Last but not least, to verify the accuracy of the analytical results, a computer simulation program is written in C++ with Visual Studio 2013 for comparing the above measurements between the analytical model and the simulation model.

摘要    I
ABSTRACT    II
CONTENTS    III
List of Tables    V
List of Figures    VI
1. Introduction    1
2. System Model    3
2.1 CAC1    4
2.2 CAC2    6
2.3 CAC3    7
3. Analytical Model    10
3.1 CAC1    10
3.1.1 Balance Equations    10
3.1.2 Steady State Probability Distribution    15
3.1.3 Performance Measures    16
3.2 CAC2    19
3.2.1 Balance Equations    19
3.2.2 Steady State Probability Distribution    28
3.2.3 Performance Measures    29
3.3 CAC3    32
3.3.1 Balance Equations    33
3.3.2 Steady State Probability Distribution    45
3.3.3 Performance Measures    46
4. Simulation Model    92
4.1 CAC1    92
4.1.1 Main Program    92
4.1.2 Timing Subprogram    93
4.1.3 PU Arrival Subprogram    93
4.1.4 PU Departure Subprogram    94
4.1.5 SU Arrival Subprogram    94
4.1.6 SU Departure Subprogram    95
4.1.7 Buffer Drop Subprogram    95
4.1.8 Performance Measures    96
4.2 CAC2    99
4.2.1 Main Program    99
4.2.2 Timing Subprogram    99
4.2.3 PU Arrival Subprogram    100
4.2.4 PU Departure Subprogram    100
4.2.5 SU Arrival Subprogram    101
4.2.6 SU Departure Subprogram    101
4.2.7 Buffer Drop Subprogram    102
4.2.8 Performance Measures    102
4.3 CAC3    105
4.3.1 Main Program    105
4.3.2 Timing Subprogram    105
4.3.3 PU Arrival Subprogram    106
4.3.4 PU Departure Subprogram    106
4.3.5 SU Arrival Subprogram    107
4.3.6 SU Departure Subprogram    108
4.3.7 Buffer Drop Subprogram    109
4.3.8 Performance Measures    109
5. Numerical Results    128
5.1 Comparison of CAC1 and CAC2    129
5.1.1 PU Mean Arrival Rate    129
5.1.2 PU Mean Departure rate    133
5.1.3 SU Mean Arrival Rate    137
5.1.4 SU Mean Departure rate    141
5.2 Comparison of CAC1, CAC2, and CAC3    146
5.2.1 PU Mean Arrival Rate    146
5.2.2 PU Mean Departure rate    151
5.2.3 SU Mean Arrival Rate    156
5.2.4 SU Mean Departure rate    162
5.2.5 Buffer Size    168
6. Conclusions    218
References    219



List of Tables

Table 3-1    49
Table 3-2    50
Table 3-3    58
Table 3-4    73

List of Figures

Fig. 2-1 The illustration of the licensed spectrum for a CRN with spectrum leasing    4
Fig. 4-1 The flow chart of main program for CAC1, CAC2, and CAC3    112
Fig. 4-2 The flow chart of timing subprogram for CAC1, CAC2, and CAC3    113
Fig. 4-3 The flow chart of PU arrival subprogram for CAC1    114
Fig. 4-4 The flow chart of PU departure subprogram for CAC1    115
Fig. 4-5 The flow chart of SU arrival subprogram for CAC1    116
Fig. 4-6 The flow chart of SU departure subprogram for CAC1    117
Fig. 4-7 The flow chart of buffer dropping subprogram for CAC1, CAC2, and CAC3     118
Fig. 4-8 The flow chart of PU arrival subprogram for CAC2    119
Fig. 4-9 The flow chart of PU departure subprogram for CAC2    120
Fig. 4-10 The flow chart of SU arrival subprogram for CAC2    121
Fig. 4-11 The flow chart of SU departure subprogram for CAC2    122
Fig. 4-12 The flow chart of PU arrival subprogram for CAC3    123
Fig. 4-13 The flow chart of PU departure subprogram for CAC3    124
Fig. 4-14 The flow chart of SU arrival subprogram for CAC3    125
Fig. 4-15 The flow chart of SU departure subprogram for CAC3    126
Fig. 5-1-1-1 PU blocking probability vs. PU mean arrival rate     173
Fig. 5-1-1-2 SU blocking probability vs. PU mean arrival rate     173
Fig. 5-1-1-3 SU dropping probability vs. PU mean arrival rate    174
Fig. 5-1-1-4 PU throughput vs. PU mean arrival rate    174
Fig. 5-1-1-5 SU throughput vs. PU mean arrival rate    175
Fig. 5-1-1-6 average number of PUs in system vs. PU mean arrival rate    175
Fig. 5-1-1-7 average number of SUs in system vs. PU mean arrival rate    176
Fig. 5-1-1-8 average PU system delay vs. PU mean arrival rate    176
Fig. 5-1-1-9 average SU system delay vs. PU mean arrival rate    177
Fig. 5-1-2-1 PU blocking probability vs. PU mean departure rate    178
Fig. 5-1-2-2 SU blocking probability vs. PU mean departure rate    178
Fig. 5-1-2-3 SU dropping probability vs. PU mean departure rate    179
Fig. 5-1-2-4 PU throughput vs. PU mean departure rate    179
Fig. 5-1-2-5 SU throughput vs. PU mean departure rate    180
Fig. 5-1-2-6 average number of PUs in system vs. PU mean departure rate    180
Fig. 5-1-2-7 average number of SUs in system vs. PU mean departure rate    181
Fig. 5-1-2-8 average PU system delay vs. PU mean departure rate    181
Fig. 5-1-2-9 average SU system delay vs. PU mean departure rate    182
Fig. 5-1-3-1 PU blocking probability vs. SU mean arrival rate    183
Fig. 5-1-3-2 SU blocking probability vs. SU mean arrival rate    183
Fig. 5-1-3-3 SU dropping probability vs. SU mean arrival rate    184
Fig. 5-1-3-4 PU throughput vs. SU mean arrival rate    184
Fig. 5-1-3-5 SU throughput vs. SU mean arrival rate     185
Fig. 5-1-3-6 average number of PUs in system vs. SU mean arrival rate    185
Fig. 5-1-3-7 average number of SUs in system vs. SU mean arrival rate    186
Fig. 5-1-3-8 average PU system delay vs. SU mean arrival rate    186
Fig. 5-1-3-9 average SU system delay vs. SU mean arrival rate    187
Fig. 5-1-4-1 PU blocking probability vs. SU mean departure rate    188
Fig. 5-1-4-2 SU blocking probability vs. SU mean departure rate    188
Fig. 5-1-4-3 SU dropping probability vs. SU mean departure rate    189
Fig. 5-1-4-4 PU throughput vs. SU mean departure rate    189
Fig. 5-1-4-5 SU throughput vs. SU mean departure rate    190
Fig. 5-1-4-6 average number of PUs in system vs. SU mean departure rate    190
Fig. 5-1-4-7 average number of SUs in system vs. SU mean departure rate    191
Fig. 5-1-4-8 average PU system delay vs. SU mean departure rate    191
Fig. 5-1-4-9 average SU system delay vs. SU mean departure rate    192
Fig. 5-2-1-1 PU blocking probability vs. PU mean arrival rate     193
Fig. 5-2-1-2 SU blocking probability vs. PU mean arrival rate     193
Fig. 5-2-1-3 SU dropping probability vs. PU mean arrival rate    194
Fig. 5-2-1-4 PU throughput vs. PU mean arrival rate    194
Fig. 5-2-1-5 SU throughput vs. PU mean arrival rate    195
Fig. 5-2-1-6 average number of PUs in system vs. PU mean arrival rate    195
Fig. 5-2-1-7 average number of SUs in system vs. PU mean arrival rate    196
Fig. 5-2-1-8 average PU system delay vs. PU mean arrival rate    196
Fig. 5-2-1-9 average SU system delay vs. PU mean arrival rate    197
Fig. 5-2-1-10 average number of channels occupied by each SU vs. PU mean arrival rate    197
Fig. 5-2-2-1 PU blocking probability vs. PU mean departure rate    198
Fig. 5-2-2-2 SU blocking probability vs. PU mean departure rate    198
Fig. 5-2-2-3 SU dropping probability vs. PU mean departure rate    199
Fig. 5-2-2-4 PU throughput vs. PU mean departure rate    199
Fig. 5-2-2-5 SU throughput vs. PU mean departure rate    200
Fig. 5-2-2-6 average number of PUs in system vs. PU mean departure rate    200
Fig. 5-2-2-7 average number of SUs in system vs. PU mean departure rate    201
Fig. 5-2-2-8 average PU system delay vs. PU mean departure rate    201
Fig. 5-2-2-9 average SU system delay vs. PU mean departure rate    202
Fig. 5-2-2-10 average number of channels occupied by each SU vs. PU mean departure rate    202
Fig. 5-2-3-1 PU blocking probability vs. SU mean arrival rate    203
Fig. 5-2-3-2 SU blocking probability vs. SU mean arrival rate    203
Fig. 5-2-3-3 SU dropping probability vs. SU mean arrival rate    204
Fig. 5-2-3-4 PU throughput vs. SU mean arrival rate    204
Fig. 5-2-3-5 SU throughput vs. SU mean arrival rate     205
Fig. 5-2-3-6 average number of PUs in system vs. SU mean arrival rate    205
Fig. 5-2-3-7 average number of SUs in system vs. SU mean arrival rate    206
Fig. 5-2-3-8 average PU system delay vs. SU mean arrival rate    206
Fig. 5-2-3-9 average SU system delay vs. SU mean arrival rate    207
Fig. 5-2-3-10 average number of channels occupied by each SU vs. SU mean arrival rate    207
Fig. 5-2-4-1 PU blocking probability vs. SU mean departure rate    208
Fig. 5-2-4-2 SU blocking probability vs. SU mean departure rate    208
Fig. 5-2-4-3 SU dropping probability vs. SU mean departure rate    209
Fig. 5-2-4-4 PU throughput vs. SU mean departure rate    209
Fig. 5-2-4-5 SU throughput vs. SU mean departure rate    210
Fig. 5-2-4-6 average number of PUs in system vs. SU mean departure rate    210
Fig. 5-2-4-7 average number of SUs in system vs. SU mean departure rate    211
Fig. 5-2-4-8 average PU system delay vs. SU mean departure rate    211
Fig. 5-2-4-9 average SU system delay vs. SU mean departure rate    212
Fig. 5-2-4-10 average number of channels occupied by each SU vs. SU mean departure rate    212
Fig. 5-2-5-1 PU blocking probability vs. buffer size    213
Fig. 5-2-5-2 SU blocking probability vs. buffer size    213
Fig. 5-2-5-3 SU dropping probability vs. buffer size    214
Fig. 5-2-5-4 PU throughput vs. buffer size    214
Fig. 5-2-5-5 SU throughput vs. buffer size     215
Fig. 5-2-5-6 average number of PUs in system vs. buffer size    215
Fig. 5-2-5-7 average number of SUs in system vs. buffer size    216
Fig. 5-2-5-8 average PU system delay vs. buffer size    216
Fig. 5-2-5-9 average SU system delay vs. buffer size    217
Fig. 5-2-5-10 average number of channels occupied by each SU vs. buffer size    217


                                

[1] G. Staple and K. Werbach, “The End of Spectrum Scarcity,” IEEE Spectrum, vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 48-52, Mar. 2004.
[2] B. D. Omkarappa, J. B. Quintana, and H. Hämmainen, “Study of Spectrum Scarcity and Community Wireless Network Operators in India,” 2017 IEEE Conference on Internet of Things Business Models, Users, and Networks, DOI: 10.1109/CTTE.
2017.8260995, Copenhagen, Denmark, Nov. 2017.
[3] A. Petrin and P. G. Steffes, “Measurement and Analysis of Urban Spectrum Usage,” Int. Symposium on Advanced Radio Technologies, Mar. 2004.
[4] FCC, “Spectrum Policy Task Force Report,” Tech. Rep. Report of the Spectrum Efficiency Working Group, no. 02-155, Washington, DC, USA, Nov. 2002.
[5] M. Matinmikko-Blue, S. Yrjölä, V. Seppänen, P. Ahokangas, H. Hämmäinen, and M. Latva-aho, “Analysis of Spectrum Valuation Approaches: The Viewpoint of Local 5G Networks in Shared Spectrum Bands,” 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Dynamic Spectrum Access Networks (DySPAN), DOI: 10.1109/ DySPAN.2018.8610409, Oct. 2018.
[6] F. A. P. D. Figueiredo, X. Jiao, W. Liu, R. M., I. Jabandžić, I. Moerman, “A Spectrum Sharing Framework for Intelligent Next Generation Wireless Networks,” IEEE Access, vol. 6, pp. 60704 – 60735, Oct 2018.
[7] J. Mitola III, “Cognitive Radio: An Integrated Agent Architecture for Software Defined Radio,” Ph.D. dissertation, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, 2000.
[8] J. Mitola III and G. Q. Maguire Jr., “Cognitive Radio: Making Software Radios More Personal,” IEEE Personal Commun., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 13-18, Aug. 1999.
[9] I. A. M. Balapuwaduge, F. Y. Li, A. Rajanna, M. Kaveh, “Channel Occupancy-Based Dynamic Spectrum Leasing in Multichannel CRNs: Strategies and Performance Evaluation” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 64, pp. 1313-1328, Jan. 2016.
[10] A. Y. Zakariya, S. I. Rabia, “Analysis of an Interruption-Based Priority for Multi-Class Secondary Users in Cognitive Radio Networks,” 2016 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), DOI: 10.1109/ICC.2016. 7511542, May 2016
[11] Y. Wu, F. Hu, S. Kumar, M. Guo, K. Bao, “Spectrum Handoffs with Mixed-Priority Queueing Model over Cognitive Radio Networks,” 2013 IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing, DOI: 10.1109/ GlobalSIP.2013.6737121, Dec. 2013.
[12] S. Gunawardena, W. Zhuang, “Capacity Analysis and Call Admission Control in Distributed Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 10, pp. 3110-3120, July. 2011.
[13] P. Garg, R. M. Sharma, “Spectrum aggregation in cognitive radio network,” 2016 International Conference on Computing, Communication and Automation (ICCCA), DOI: 10.1109/CCAA.2016.7813977, Noida, India, April 2016

全文公開日期 2024/08/05 (校內網路)
全文公開日期 2024/08/05 (校外網路)
全文公開日期 2024/08/05 (國家圖書館：臺灣博碩士論文系統)

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文