You are on page 1of 5

2005 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications

RANDOM ACCESS FOR MULTIPLE DESTINATIONS WITH PHYSICAL LAYER CONSIDERATIONS


Anthony Ephremides Electrical and Computer Eng. Dept. and Institute for Systems Research University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 etony(umd.edu

Gam D. Nguyen Code 5521 Information Technology Division Naval Research Laboratory Washington, DC 20375 nguyen ( itd.nrl.navy.mil

Jeffrey E. Wieselthier Code 5521 Information Technology Division Naval Research Laboratory Washington, DC 20375 wieselthier@ itd.nrl.navy.mil

Abstract - Most studies of wireless random-access systems have addressed single-destination networks (e.g., an isolated base station in a cellular network). Here, we consider networks with many users and multiple destinations, where omnidirectional antennas are used for communication over a common channel, and transmissions intended for one destination can interfere with those intendedfor others. Our previous work on such networks assumed a simplified model for the physical layer, under which communication and interference ranges were characterized by fixed values and capture was not possible. In this paper, we use a morerealistic threshold modelfor the physical layer, under which a packet is successfully received if its received signal strength is sufficiently greater than the combined power of all other packets transmitted in the same slot. We use simulation to evaluate the maximum throughput that can be achieved by Slotted Aloha for multiple-destination networks. Throughput performance results demonstrate the impact of the degree of overlap of these clusters, as well as the impact of capture.

communication range and the same fixed interference range (which can be greater than the communication range). Additionally, we assume that omnidirectional antennas are used and that the channel has uniform propagation characteristics. Background noise and fading are neglected. These assumptions result in the circular regions shown in Figure 1. The analysis for two-destination systems presented in [4], [5] actually applies to regions with arbitrary shapes.
Group 3
Group I

Figure 1. The idealized physical-layer model: Multiple access in two overlapping regions with fixed communication and interference ranges
To facilitate the discussion, we define Group 1 to be the set of nodes that are within communication range of only D l, and which do not interfere with D2. Similarly, Group 2 is the set of nodes within range of only D2, and which do not interfere with D1. Nodes that are within communication range of both Dl and D2 (i.e., the intersection of the two circular regions) are said to be in Group 3. Transmissions by nodes in Group 3 are heard by both Dl and D2, and can thus cause interference (collisions) with packets for either destination. We further divide Group 3 into Group 31 and Group 32, depending on the desired destination. Packets received without collision at the wrong destination are not considered to be successful. Finally, Group 41 consists of nodes that are within communication range of only D1, but which can interfere with D2 (with the corresponding

I. INTRODUCTION Although the operation of random-access protocols in singledestination systems is well understood [1], [6], there have been few studies of these schemes in networks with multiple destinations. Our previous work on such networks [4], [5] assumed a simplified model for the physical layer, under which communication and interference ranges were characterized by fixed values and capture was not possible. In this paper we use a more-realistic threshold model for the physical layer, under which a packet is successfully received if the ratio of its received signal strength to the combined power of all other packets transmitted in the same slot is sufficiently great. We begin by briefly reviewing the idealized model studied in [4], [5], and then extend it to the physical-layer model studied in this paper. Doing so permits us to highlight the differences introduced by consideration of a moreaccurate physical-layer model. In all cases, we make the common assumption of an infinite population of unbuffered users with Poisson packet generation [2]. Figure 1 shows a network with two destinations (Dl and D2) and a number of nodes that are within communication range of them. Under the idealized model, we assume that all nodes, regardless of destination, have the same fixed

definition for Group 42). Each destination broadcasts temary feedback information (i.e., success, collision, or empty slot) immediately following each slot, which is used in the stabilization algorithm that controls transmission probability [2], [3]. We assume that nodes in Group 1 and Group 3 receive DI's feedback, and that nodes in Group 2 and Group 3 receive D2's feedback. However, nodes in Group 1 (Group 2) do not receive feedback from D2 (Dl). In [4], [5] we obtained analytical results for symmetrical two-destination Slotted Aloha systems, i.e., systems in which

offered traffic levels and interference levels are the same at

978-3-8007-2909-8/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

1 264

2005 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications

both destinations. We demonstrated an invariance property that states that the maximum value of throughput is achieved only when the expected total channel traffic is G = 1 packet per slot at each of the destinations. This result is independent of the degree of overlap of the populations, and applies even when interference range exceeds communication range. Although it has long been known that this result holds for single-destination systems [2], it had not previously been shown for two-destination systems with overlapping populations of users. Moreover, we demonstrated via simulation that a similar result holds for larger, more-general networks under certain conditions.
II. A PHYSICAL CHANNEL MODEL FOR MULTIPLE DESTINATION SYSTEMS We assume that all users transmit with the same value of RF power, p, independently of their distance from the desired destination. (Our future studies will address the possibility of using power control to improve random-access performance.) We assume a free-space propagation model, under which the received power at the destination is proportional to pra, where r is the distance between the user and the destination and x is the propagation constant, which is typically between 2 and 4. Without loss of generality we take the value of the proportionality constant to be 1. At destination D, the received strength of the packet transmitted by user i is

received successfully, regardless of the interference in the slot. At the other extreme, T = oo corresponds to the case of no capture, i.e., all collisions are destructive even when the interfering users are extremely far away. This thresholdbased physical-layer model has often been used by others for single-destination Slotted-Aloha networks (e.g. [ 1], [6]), but not previously for multiple-destination networks.
III. PERFORMANCE RESULTS We first consider the operation of stabilized Slotted Aloha with a realistic physical-layer model in a single-destination system, and then address multiple destination systems. In all cases, we make the common assumption of an infinite population of unbuffered users with Poisson packet generation [2]. In our simulations, we assume that the x and y coordinates of the users with packets intended for destination D are randomly distributed according to a Gaussian distribution centered about D, where the variance 2 of this distribution determines how tightly the users are clustered about the desired destination. (Altemative user distributions are certainly possible. For example, the users could be uniformly distributed in a circle centered at the destination, or they could be uniformly distributed throughout some specified region.)
343..

Pr i,

This packet is assumed to be received correctly if two criteria are satisfied: * User i is the closest user to destination D that transmits in that particular slot. * The received signal strength of user i is sufficiently large to capture the receiver at destination D (possibly in the presence of other packets).

(j, D) ra (i, D)

2-

2-

j. '.

1II

03

1I

Suppose that N users, designated as 1, 2, ... N, transmit packets in a slot. Further, suppose that the received power at destination D from user i is the greatest of these, i.e., Pr (i, D) = maXl.<,.,N Pr (m, D) We assume that at most one packet can be successful in a slot, and we use the following criterion on the signal-tointerference ratio to declare the packet transmitted by user i to be successful:

(a)

2=
8-i 64-

0.1

-1

(b) (a2 1.0

.. .1
-,

".
. . .

2-

...*
.

0-

.c ,. 1 '.1 '-Il i%
v,

jq.#- i
:

4,pt.

..

-2-4-

JI

SIR-

N P (i, D)

P,$(m,D)

.T

where the threshold T is a parameter that is based on the characteristics of the signal (e.g., modulation, coding, and spreading) and the receiver. (Here we neglect background noise, and consider only the interference produced by other users. It is straightforward to incorporate such background noise as an additive term in the denominator.) When T= 0, capture is perfect, i.e., the largest signal (closest user) is

(C)&= 10 Figure 2. User distributions for two-destination network

-6 1- ,4 -2 0

10

Specifically, in a two-destination network, the destinations are separated by a distance d = 1, as shown in Figure 2, where we show distributions of users for C = 0.1, 1, and 10. In all three examples, the coordinates of Dl and D2 are (1, 2) and (2, 2), respectively. Triangles designate

978-3-8007-2909-8/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

1 265

2005 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications

users with packets intended for Dl, and squares designate users with packets intended for D2. When a52 is small, there is little interaction among the groups of users. However, when a52 is large, the location of a user provides little information regarding the likely identity of the desired destination. For example, when C > 10, the users are almost equally likely to prefer either destination regardless of their location.
A. A Single-Destination Network In the absence of capture (T = oo), the optimal transmission policy for slotted Aloha is for each user with a packet to transmit with probability [2], [3]

which all newly arriving packets are put into the backlog, and all backlogged users transmit with probability Ptrans, which can be chosen to maximize throughput. As a consequence of capture, it is appropriate to use higher values Of ptrans. We have arbitrarily set the form of the transmission probability to be similar to (1):
Ptrans
=

min

Ptrans = min 1, backlog

(1)

where the "backlog" includes all packets that previously suffered collisions as well as new arrivals (i.e., new arrivals are placed into the backlog rather than transmitting them immediately upon their arrival). An estimate of the backlog can be obtained from the channel feedback (i.e., success, collision, or idle) [2], [3]. The resulting maximum value of throughput that can be sustained is S = lie = 0.368 packets/slot. The corresponding value of expected total channel traffic (i.e., first attempts plus retransmissions) is G = 1 packet/slot. The introduction of capture changes the optimal transmission probability. For example, when capture is perfect (T = 0), throughput is maximized when ptrans = 1. For intermediate values of the capture threshold T, the optimal transmission probability (as a function of backlog) can be determined empirically via simulation. Figure 3 shows throughput S as a function of the capture threshold T. For the single-destination network, we observe that the results do not depend on the value of a'. When T = 0, capture is perfect (i.e., a packet is received successfully in every non-idle slot), and S = 1 can be achieved. As T increases, the achievable throughput decreases until it reaches l/e = 0.368 when T = o (the standard collision channel with no capture).

where w > 1 is a weight, whose optimal value w* depends on the value of the threshold T, i.e., w* = w*(T). Without capture (i.e., T = oo), it is well known that the maximum value of throughput is achieved when w*(o) = 1, which results in G = 1. Thus, (2) is a heuristic choice that is based on the known optimal result for the case of no capture. For finite values of T, the best value of w (which yields the corresponding value of G) can be determined empirically via simulation. When there is no capture, the optimal transmission probability depends only on the size of the backlog. However, in the presence of capture, the optimal transmission probability also depends on the locations of the backlogged users (which determines the received signal strength). Since knowledge of these locations is assumed to be unavailable to the users, we have chosen a form for the transmission policy that does not depend on knowledge of the locations. To determine an appropriate value for w, we simulated network operation over a long period of time for many values of w, and picked the value that appears to work best. For example, when T = 1, the best value found to be w*(1) 2.5. Figure 4 shows S as a function of G for different values of T. In particular, when T = 1, the maximum value of throughput is achieved for G 2.5.

backlog

(2)

Figure 4. S vs G for a single-destination network


0.4-

channel traffic (G)

0.20 0.01

0.1

Figure 3. S vs T for a single-destination network


As noted above, we assume a control policy under

threshold (T)

10

100

Figure 5 shows the ratio S/G, which represents the number of successfully received packets per transmitted packet, and which is a measure of energy efficiency. When T = 1, we observe that the maximum value of throughput (approximately 0.8 packets/slot) is obtained when S/G z 0.3. Thus, operation at or near maximum throughput levels results in energy-inefficient behavior (approximately 3.3 transmissions per successful packet).

978-3-8007-2909-8/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

1 266

2005 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications

0.1

Figure 5. SIG vs G for a single-destination network


Note that when the new-packet generation rate is greater than the achievable throughput, the system is not really stable because the backlog will become unbounded. We use the term "stabilization" in a looser sense, to refer to the choice of a retransmission policy that will maintain throughput at or near its maximum attainable value, without regard to the size of the backlog. Here, for completeness, we consider a wide range of T values. However, we realize that the most interesting and practical range for T consists of values between 0 and slightly above 1.
B. A Two-Destination Network We now address the throughput performance of a twodestination network, in which the users are clustered about their destinations according to a Gaussian distribution with specified variance (see Figure 2). Figure 6 shows S vs T for two values of variance: a2 = 1 and 10.

100 10 channel traffic (G)

1000

situation in which a user that is located close to the wrong destination can prevent packets that are actually intended for that destination to be captured there. Thus, it is necessary to lower the retransmission probability by reducing the weight w in (2). The results of Figure 6 are based on empirically chosen weights, e.g., w*(0) 80, w*(l) z 3.3, and w*(oo) z I when a2 = 1. We also observe that throughput decreases as a2 increases. This is certainly expected, because larger values of a2 result in greater overlap of the user populations, and hence in a higher likelihood that a packet that is intended for the other destination will be captured. As T approaches oo (the no-capture case), the throughput per destination approaches 1/2e. Figure 7 shows S vs G for different values of T. When capture is perfect (T = 0), throughput is considerably higher, and is less sensitive to the value of G (and hence to the retransmission probability). Figure 8 shows S/G vs G for different values of T. We again observe that S/G decreases as G increases, and that the difference in performance for these values of T is greatest between G 1 and 10.
a

0.8
0.6-

T=G

eo

Ii

=o.

oo o

Figure 7. S vs G for a two-destination network

channel traffic per destination (G)

Figure 6. S vs T for a two-destination network with two different values of variance of user distribution
Now let a2 = 1, which corresponds to Figure 2b. First, note that the perfect-capture case (T = 0) no longer yields S = 1. To understand this behavior, observe that, in a twodestination system, it is possible that a packet that is captured by destination Dl is actually intended for destination D2 (and hence is not considered to be a successful packet at Dl). Further, this same packet may not be successfully captured by D2. Thus, it is no longer optimal (from the perspective of maximizing throughput) for each backlogged user to transmit with probability 1. Doing so can result in a deadlock
Io)
0
0 0

threshold (T)

Figure 8. S/G vs G for a two-destination network


C. A Six-Destination Network Finally, we consider a larger network with six destinations as shown in Figure 9 (which does not show the users). The x and y coordinates of the users with packets intended for a destination are randomly distributed according to a Gaussian distribution centered about that destination with variance a2. Here we let a2 = 1. The performance in terms of throughput

LO~0 channel traffic per destination (G)

978-3-8007-2909-8/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

1267

2005 IEEE 16th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications

per destination (S) and energy efficiency (S/G) is shown in Figures 10, 11, and 12, where G is the channel traffic per destination. The results are based on empirically chosen weights, e.g., w*(0) z100, w*(l) z 12, and w*(oo) z 1. Qualitatively, the results are similar to those of the twodestination network. In particular, the throughput is highest when the threshold T is near 0, and is lowest for very large T (Figures 10 and 11). Also, the network is more energy efficient (i.e., better S/G) at lower values of T(Figure 12).

i:

..

2:

.....

..

6: 4:

Figure 9. A general network with six destinations

IV. CONCLUSIONS In this paper, we have addressed the problem of random access over a common channel to multiple destinations, where the primary goal is to maximize throughput. We have extended our earlier model by providing a more-realistic threshold-based characterization of the physical layer, and we have shown how such a physical-layer model impacts upon the throughput performance of stabilized Slotted Aloha. We use simulation to evaluate throughput performance for different networks, and demonstrate the impact of the capture threshold as well as the impact of the user distribution. In our model, we assume that the spatial distribution of users that intend to communicate with a specific destination is Gaussian and centered at that destination. The degree of overlap among these populations of users is determined by the variance of this Gaussian distribution. The novelty of our approach includes capture under a realistic physical layer model and under the multiple-destination architecture that creates interference among users who transmit to different destinations.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research. REFERENCES

- ~~~. 0

00

Figure I 1. S vs G for a six-destination network

channel traffic per destination (G)

[1] J. C. Ambak and W. van Blitterswijk, "Capacity of Slotted ALOHA in Rayleigh-Fading Channels," IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm., vol. SAC-5, pp. 261-269, Feb. 1987. [2] D. Bertsekas and R. Gallager, Data Networks, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1992. [3] R. L. Rivest, "Network Control by Bayesian Broadcast," MIT/LCS/TM-285, MIT Laboratory for Computer Science, 1985. [4] J. E. Wieselthier, G. D. Nguyen, and A. Ephremides, "Invariance Properties of Slotted Aloha in Multihop Networks," Proc. Modeling and Optimization in Mobile, Ad Hoc and Wireless Networks (WiOpt'04), Mar. 2004. [5] J. E. Wieselthier, G. D. Nguyen, and A. Ephremides, "Performance Evaluation of Random Access in Wireless Networks with Multiple Destinations," Proc. IEEE MILCOM 2004, Nov. 2004. [6] M. Zorzi, "Mobile Radio Slotted Aloha with Capture and Diversity," Wireless Networks, vol. 1, pp. 227-239, 1995.

Figure 12. S/G vs G for a six-destination network

channel traffic per destination (G)

80

978-3-8007-2909-8/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

1 268