Fuzzy-Based Handover Decision Scheme For Next-Generation Heterogeneous Wireless Networks

Fuzzy-Based Handover Decision Scheme for Next-Generation Heterogeneous Wireless Networks
Shih-Jung Wu
Journal of Convergence Information Technology, Volume 6, Number 4. April 2011
Fuzzy-Based Handover Decision Scheme for Next-Generation

Heterogeneous Wireless Networks
Shih-Jung Wu
Department of Innovative Information and Technology, Tamkang University,
180 Linwei Road., Chiao-hsi Shiang, I-lan County, 26247, Taiwan R.O.C.
Phone: +886 -3-987-3088 ext.7121
E-mail: wushihjung@mail.tku.edu.tw
doi:10.4156/jcit.vol6. issue4.31
Abstract
In the development of the wireless communication of the future, mobility management and existing
heterogeneous wireless networks integration in next generation or 4G wireless networks are
developing trend. Such an environment poses a significant challenge: how can we choose an
appropriate Network Access Point (NAP) to achieve load balance and offer high quality
communication in heterogeneous wireless handover decisions? However, mobility management as well
as the integration and interworking are a complex task due to their specific characteristics. This paper
we apply fuzzy logic in heterogeneous wireless network handover decisions and introduce the fuzzy
normalization concept to make parameters for heterogeneous wireless network normalization. Using a
simulation, we determine under what conditions our handover decision algorithm can balance network
system loading better than the traditional fuzzy algorithms applied in heterogeneous wireless network
handover decisions.
Keywords: Wireless, Handover Decision, Fuzzy, NGWN/4G
1. Introduction
The main concern of the next-generation wireless networks (NGWN/4G) is the integration of
heterogeneous wireless technologies. This integration invokes some challenges, such as handover
decision making and mobility management. Provisioning of seamless handover is one of the key topics
in NGWN/4G. Vertical handover decisions evaluate candidate NAPs based on different standards.
Making a suitable handover decision according to different standard based parameters of NAPs in
heterogeneous wireless networks is worth researching. Whether roaming or handover is occurring,
situations where target NAPs are overloaded and cause failure of the handover procedure happen easily
in homogeneous wireless networks. But the failure will not easily occur in heterogeneous works
because some heterogeneous NAPs have the same coverage areas, which we can be implemented to
balance the load among the NAPs. Obviously if we do not consider the load balance of target NAPs, it
will cause some NAPs that offer good channel conditions to overload. We should take account of the
load balance in the handover decision mechanism. Every NAP has different capabilities of MN velocity
and RSS (received signal strength) in heterogeneous wireless networks. For example, IEEE 802.11
NAPs only can accept human walk speed, whereas 3G can accept cars moving on highways.
Consequently, there is a need to consider the velocity requirements and RSS. To obtain system loading
balance and to avoid failures caused by MN handovers to NAPs with lower velocity capabilities and
weaker RSS requirements, we present the FUzzy Normalization - HandOver Decision Strategy
algorithm (FUN-HODS). We apply the characteristics of fuzzy normalization to handover decisions to
solve questions of parameter comparison and preprocessing. We make vertical handover decisions as
simple as horizontal decisions.
Section 2 introduces related work, and acquaints readers with how fuzzy theory is applied in
handovers. The application of FUN-HODS in heterogeneous wireless networks will be discussed in
detail in Section 3. Section 4 presents a simulation of FUN-HODS and a traditional fuzzy algorithm.
The simulation results verify FUN-HODS efficiency. Finally, conclusions are stated in Section 5.
- 285 -
Shih-Jung Wu
2. Related work
2.1. Mobility management
In order to enhance the experience of mobile users by facilitating handovers between heterogeneous
wireless networks, the IEEE 802.21 Working Group does an effort to ratify the Media Independent
Handover (MIH) [1] standard. The MIH framework offers the common interface and provides link
layer and other related network information to upper layers. The MIH Function (MIHF) offers three
types of services: MIES (Media-Independent Event Service), MICS (Media-Independent Command
Service) and MIIS (Media-Independent Information Service). Moreover, mobility management is one
of the most important issues in the mobile communication, and it affects efficiency of the whole
mobility network apparently. The reaching of mobility can be implemented though handover and
mobility management protocol, containing Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) at application layer and
Mobile IP (MIP) at network layer. Meanwhile, the protocol can improve the efficiency that
heterogeneous wireless network integrated.
2.2. Interworking architecture for NGWN
In order to satisfy seamless mobility in heterogeneous wireless network, we need a heterogeneous

mobile integrated architecture in Figure 1. Which utilizes MIH in mobility management protocol.[2] In
the following further details on this architecture are provided. The Mobile Node (MN) has
IEEE802.11/WiFi, WiMAX and E-UTRAN (contain 3G) network interfaces, which support MIHF and
mobility. The Correspondent Node (CN) has IEEE 802.3 network interfaces without MIHF and
mobility. Moreover, a number of various access networks, such as IEEE802.11/WiFi, WiMAX and E-
UTRAN, are connected to a common core network (the EPC) based on IP technology through different
interfaces. All 3GPP networks are connected through the serving gateway 1 (S-GW1), and all non-
3GPP networks are connected through the S-GW2. Different paths also are used in the case of
IEEE802.11/WiFi and WiMAX. A WiMAX network is considered trusted non-3GPP accesses and
directly connected to the S-GW2. On the other hand, a IEEE802.11/WiFi network is considered as
distrusted access connects to the evolved packet data gateway (ePDG) and then to the S-GW2. For E-
UTRAN, the S-GW1 is directly connected to it. The Mobility Management Entity (MME) is
incorporated in the architecture for handling control functions such as authentication, security, and
mobility. For distrusted non-3GPP accesses, the ePDG secures the access of the MN to the EPC by
means of an IPSec tunnel between itself and the MN. All data paths from the access networks are
combined at the P-GW, which incorporates functionality such as packet filtering, QoS policing,
interception, charging, and IP address allocation, and routes traffic control. Besides, EPC also contains
network control entities for keeping user subscription information (home subscriber server [HSS]),
determining the identity and privileges of a user and tracking his/her activities (authentication,
authorization, and accounting [AAA] server), and enforcing charging and QoS policies through a
policy and charging rules function (PCRF). In order to achieve seamless handover of the architecture,
extra functionality is needed in the network elements, based on the IEEE 802.21 protocol. The MIH
functionality placed at the mobile node (MN), the wireless accesses networks (MIH PoSs), and the
operator’s IP network (MIIS server).
- 286 -
Shih-Jung Wu
Figure 1.Interworking architecture for NGWN
2.3. Vertical Handover
There are descriptions about varied handovers presented in [3-8, 10, 30]. According to network type,
handovers can be classified as horizontal handovers and vertical handovers. In this paper we emphasize
the importance of vertical handovers and handover management. Handover procedures consist of three
phases: handover detection, handover decision and handover execution. In handover detection, we need
to collect some handover parameters (e.g., RSS, system loading, velocity and latency, etc.) about the
NAPs of candidate networks. Our methodology, FUN-HODS, considers three parameters, RSS, loading
and velocity, in heterogeneous wireless networks.
2.3.1 Fuzzy System Applied to Handover Decisions
Fuzzy systems are one of the most popular methods for processing imprecise values. In [9]-[29]
various fuzzy systems applied in handover decisions are presented. In Figure 2, the role of the fuzzifier
in a fuzzy system is to convert a crisp input variable into a fuzzy set that is ready to be processed by the
inference engine. The inference engine, using the fuzzifier inputs and the if-then rules stored in the rule
base, processes the incoming data and produces a fuzzy output. The defuzzifier converts fuzzy
variables to crisp variables. In traditional fuzzy systems applied to heterogeneous wireless network
handover decisions, we can understand the merit of traditional fuzzy algorithms. We will present some
traditional fuzzy algorithms in handover decisions and present improvements to these algorithms in the
following discussion.
Figure 2. Flow chart of the proposed classification of vertical handover decisions.
In Majlesi and Khalaj [11], the author makes use of the Doppler frequency and a fuzzy logic system
in the handover decision algorithm called the Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Based Handover Algorithm for
Hybrid Networks. As you can see in Figure 3, the initial process proceeds from Measurement through
Averaging to Start Handover. The author considers the Doppler frequency in Averaging. When
- 287 -
Shih-Jung Wu
Averaging compares the MN speed, which it gets in Measurements, if the MN speed is higher, Start
Handover will decrease trigger handover times to avoid handover delay, or else Start Handover would
increase trigger handover times to get more suitable networks. MN speed and Traffic of WLAN (TRw)
would transfer HYSw and HYSm by fuzzy logic. The algorithm does not consider MN speed
compatibility to NAPs with different wireless technologies, so when the MN speed is higher than the
MN speed compatibility of the WLAN NAP, the handover will fail. The algorithm also does not
consider system loading and complex preprocessing. System loading overload will lead to a handover
fail.
The author presents the multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) concept in [12]. It uses a different
threshold in every network technology of a heterogeneous network. We should give a handover
decision criterion for every network technology of a heterogeneous network. In Figure 4 MCDM uses a
fuzzy logic system and a muti-input single output (MISO) method to simplify the handover decision
complexity. There are signal strength (SS), network load (NL), network cost (NC) and bandwidth
requirements (BR) used to in the fuzzifier of the MCDM method. He uses fuzzy logic to transform
different parameters into parameters that can be compared across different network technologies.
Figure 3. Adaptive Fuzzy Logic Based Handover Algorithm for Hybrid Networks
Figure 4. Block diagram of the access network selection base on MCDM fuzzy.
The algorithm in [11] did not use a normalization of the fuzzy logic system to normalize the
parameters of the heterogeneous wireless network. The algorithm in [12] does not have the
preprocessing step and parameter normalization of heterogeneous wireless networks. These two
algorithms can actually be improved through the use of fuzzy normalization.
3. FUN-HODS
There are several types of main wireless technologies, including 3G, IEEE 802.11 and WiMAX, in
the present wireless network trends. We use some important and significant parameters, including the
- 288 -
Shih-Jung Wu
RSS, velocity of MN (velocity), the system loading of an NAP (loading). We aspire to balance the
system load of every system for all internet service providers (ISPs). In heterogeneous wireless
networks, there are different velocity capabilities of MN velocity; for example, the normal MN velocity
for communications of IEEE 802.11 is slower than that of GSM. So, we can't only consider receive
signal strength as the basis in the heterogeneous wireless network, we should consider the MN velocity
compatibility of different networks as well. We present the FUN-HODS algorithm, which includes
three main components as shown in Figure 5. They are Environment Information Obtain, Fuzzy
Normalization, Handover Decision Strategy and Handover execution. The first part is Information
Obtain, which involves the collection of the environmental information that is needed to obtain fuzzy
normalization and make a handover decision. In this part, we collect the system loading of the
candidate NAP, the MN velocity capability of the candidate NAP, and the RSS between the candidate
NAP and the MN; then we put non-process information into a FUzzy Normalization (FUN). FUN gives
loading, velocity, and RSS different member functions to fulfill parameter normalization and
implements a defuzzifier according to fuzzy logic if-then rules. Then it generates the rank of the NAPs
to choose the suitable NAP in the handover decision.
Fuzzy normalization of FUN-HODS is not constrained by a particular wireless network technology
or by particular parameters, so we use 3G, IEEE 802.11, and WiMAX. Parameter preprocessing of
fuzzy normalization has many advantages. It can deal with parameters of different network
technologies and allow for the comparison of parameters of different network technologies. The
normalization parameter is a relativity standard parameter and a handover decision does not need to
consider the parameter diversity.
Figure 5. FUN-HODS
The second advantage is that the design can be applied to any mobile management of heterogeneous
wireless networks. The procedure of the normalization is not confined to some particular wireless
network technology, even if the network is not 3G, IEEE 802.11 or WiMAX, as long as the required
parameters can be established. FUN-HODS can be applied to other heterogeneous wireless network
environments. The third advantage of this methodology is portability and capability. It can filter
unsuitable candidate NAPs in the fuzzy normalization procedure, reduce handover decision complexity
and increase efficiency. Section 3 will be divided into two parts: an introduction to fuzzy normalization
of FUN-HODS in section 3.1, and an explanation of how HODS makes handover decisions in section
3.2.
3.1. FUzzy Normalization (FUN)
We introduced the concept of fuzzy system logic in Section 2.3.1, in this section we will show how
to carry out normalization of the fuzzy logic system. From Figure 2, we know the three parts of the
fuzzy system. Those are the input parameter the fuzzifier, inference engine and fuzzy rule, and the
defuzzifier output parameter.
- 289 -
Shih-Jung Wu
3.1.1. Fuzzifier
We assume 3G, IEEE 802.11 and WiMAX are the available systems in our heterogeneous wireless
network integration environment. We use fuzzy normalization to normalize the handover decision
parameter. In Section III we described how our handover decision would focus on system loading of
NAPs, RSS, and velocity of the MN. Figure 6 shows all the fuzzifiers that include 3G, IEEE 802.11,
and WiMAX input parameters. After confirming the parameters that the fuzzifier needs, we should,
according to the character of the different wireless network technologies, give a suitable fuzzy set. One
can determine the fuzzy set of different wireless network technologies with different ownership
membership functions from Figure 7-9. As for the RSS parameter in Figure 7, the RSS threshold of
each wireless network technology is different, so we must set up a fuzzy set for each wireless network
technology. Figure 8 shows the fuzzifier for the velocity parameter. From it we can determine the MN
velocity compatibility of a wireless network, and the suitable fuzzy set that we offer. Figure 9 shows
the fuzzy logic for the loading parameter. Loading is measured as a percent (a relative value) for all of
the network systems. So, the fuzzy set of different networks is the same, in fact, because system
loading is a parameter that can be compared directly for each network.
Consider a MN that is moving out of the range of a WiMAX NAP, and it obtains a new WiMAX
RSS value between -155 dBm and -125 dBm. At the same time, the MN gets a 3G RSS value that is
higher than -100 dBm and an IEEE 802.11 RSS value that is lower than -105 dBm. The MN can’t
direct compare to decide which should be the target NAP. If the handover goes to the 3G NAP after
direct comparison of RSS, handover may not fail, but if the handover goes to the IEEE 802.11 NAP,
the handover must fail because the RSS drop down. The fuzzifier in this process will give the WiMAX
RSS a low grade, the IEEE 802.11 RSS gets a low grade, and the 3G RSS gets a high grade. The MN
will choose the 3G NAP with the high grade, to avoid choosing the IEEE 802.11 NAP with the low
grade.
Figure 6. Fuzzy system of fuzzy normalization.
Figure 7. Membership function of RSS for 3G、WiMAX、and IEEE 802.11.
- 290 -
Shih-Jung Wu
Figure 8. Membership function of velocity for 3G、WiMAX、and IEEE 802.11.
Figure 9. Membership function of loading for 3G、WiMAX、and IEEE 802.11.
3.1.2. Fuzzy Rule Base, Inference Engine and Defuzzifier
After the fuzzifier procedure, all parameters are distinguished in the fuzzy sets. The same type
parameters of different wireless networks can be directly compared after the fuzzifier procedure,
because the parameters will be normalized to the same comparison base. The fuzzifier just processes
the parameters of different wireless networks to directly compare them, then the inference engine
references the rules of the fuzzy rule base to infer a result. The inference engine is based on the if-then
rules defined as listed in Table 1. We will estimate the RSS, velocity, and loading parameters in every
NAP. Every parameter has high, medium and low subsets, so there are 27 rules in the fuzzy rule base.
Due to experience requirements of the system subscriber and repeated simulations, we can simplify this
to 14 rules. Finally, according to the fuzzy rules we divide the quality into five ranks. We do simple
quantification in the defuzzifier.
Table 1. Fuzzy Rules
- 291 -
Shih-Jung Wu
3.2. HandOver Decision Strategy (HODS)
Figure 10. Handover decision strategy.
After the fuzzy normalization, every estimated NAP would get a rank value, this value distributed in
subset of defuzzifier, and then we take the NAP with the best rank subset of the defuzzifier. That can
filter out unsuitable NAPs that have low RSS, who could not satisfy the MN velocity requirement, or
whose loading is too heavy. The above situations will be filtered out after fuzzy normalization.
In Figure 10, after the fuzzy normalization, all NAPs have a rank value. The handover decision first
preserves the NAPs that have the best rank. Then, handover decision considers user preference. If user
didn’t assign a wireless technology, the handover decision would judge whether the NAP number is 0,
1, or more. If number is 0, decision would go back to the environment information obtained. If the
NAP number is 1, the decision would choose the NAP to execute handover procedure. If NAP number
is neither 0 nor 1, the handover decision would randomly choose a NAP to execute the handover
procedure.
If the user assigned a particular network technology, the decision would look for NAPs of the
particular network in the best subset and judge the NAP number. If the number is 1, the decision would
directly execute the handover procedure. If the NAP number neither 0 nor 1, the handover decision
would randomly choose an NAP to execute the handover procedure. If the number is 0, the decision
would go to the user none assigned procedure to decide on a NAP and avoid handover fail.
4. Simulation
Figure 11. Simulation environment.
- 292 -
Shih-Jung Wu
4.1. Simulation Environment
We assume that 3G, WiMAX, and IEEE 802.11 are the heterogeneous wireless network
environments in our algorithm. As shown in Figure 11, a WiMAX NAP, two 3G NAPs, and eighteen
IEEE 802.11 NAPs make up the simulation environment. Figure 11 also shows NAP positions and MN
movement direction clearly. We allocate 50 MNs, and every MN would set its initial location,
movement direction, movement velocity, and loading of NAPs at random. The FUN-HODS algorithm
needs the parameters and values we used in Section 3. It applies real-world needs to optimize testing
and to get the best value. We will carry out the simulation for 100 seconds in the environment
described above, and we will take a sample once every 20 seconds. Five samples (we show three
figures) are selected as to check the system loading of the NAPs, and after the simulation finishes we
calculate the handover fail probability. The handover fail probability is the number of handover fails
divided by the number of times the handover was executed. The handover fail in this simulated
environment in our paper only considers overload, too high velocity and too weak RSS in NAPs; we do
not care about the other factors that cause handover fail. The following charts are the results of 10
simulations according to the above-mentioned procedure.
The simulation results in Table 2 proves that the FUN-HODS algorithm can get better loading
balance and that it is possible for MNs to satisfy their requests and make each NAP loading amount
20%. Figure 12-14 indicate data of T0, T40 and T100 (unit: second), respectively. We can see that the
NAP system loading of the FUN-HODS algorithm are 20% in Figure 12-14; even the highest NAP
system loading is only 36%. But, for the traditional fuzzy algorithm, some NAPs are loaded at 100%
and some at 0%. So, we can prove that for a simulation executed in a certain time, the NAP system
loading of the FUN-HODS algorithm is more balanced than the NAP system loading of the traditional
fuzzy algorithm. The MN movement velocity is random in the simulation system in Table 3. We can
see that the handover fail probability in the FUN-HODS algorithm is lower than handover fail
probability in the traditional fuzzy algorithm when each MN has random velocity. In Table 4, we
assigned every MN movement a velocity between 20 and 118 km/h and increase the velocity by 2 km/h
for every next MN.
Table 2. System loading (%) for fuzzy normalization (FUN-HODS) and a traditional fuzzy algorithm
- 293 -
Shih-Jung Wu
Figure 12. System Loading (T0)
4.2. Simulation Result
We can see that the handover fail probability in the FUN-HODS algorithm is also lower than the
handover fail probability for a traditional fuzzy algorithm; when the velocity is below 70 km/h, FUN-
HODS almost avoids handover fail (handover fail probability is 0%), but the traditional algorithm has a
7%-40% handover fail probability. When the velocity is between 70 to 100 km/h, FUN-HODS only has
a 15%-50% handover fail probability, but the traditional algorithm has a 79%-99% handover fail
probability. In this velocity interval, FUN-HODS demonstrate a decreased handover fail probability
than a traditional fuzzy algorithm. When velocity is over 100 km/h, the NAP cannot accept the MN
velocity, and both algorithms cannot decrease the handover fail probability. We can clearly know that
when the velocity is below 100 km/h FUN-HODS has a lower handover fail probability than a
traditional algorithm.
- 294 -
Shih-Jung Wu
5. Conclusions and future work

We propose the FUN-HODS algorithm to process the handover decision in heterogeneous wireless
networks. Fuzzy normalization not only includes the advantage of imprecise data dealing, but also
enables the comparison of different parameters in heterogeneous networks. It can make choosing a
NAP easier and raise performance. After several simulations, we modify the inference engine values
and change the fuzzy rule base to find the most efficient decision. At last, it proves that the FUN-
HODS algorithm can balance system loading and decrease handover failure due to velocity and weak
RSS. In the future, we would like to construct robust a quantification for the defuzzifier of the FUN-
HODS algorithm. If the system subscriber has special demand, we can adjust the weight of the
parameters flexibly with quantification in the defuzzifier. We should also consider in more detail QoS
issues in FUN-HODS and cooperate with appropriate handover execution to perfect the whole
handover procedure.
Table 3. Handover fails for fuzzy normalization (FUN-HODS) and a traditional fuzzy algorithm
(random velocity).
- 295 -
Shih-Jung Wu
Table 4. Handover fails for fuzzy normalization (FUN-HODS) and a traditional fuzzy algorithm
(assigned velocity).
6. References
[1] IEEE P802.21/D14, "Draft IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks: Media
Independent Handover Services", Sep. 2008.
[2] George Lampropoulos, "Media-Independent Handover for Seamless Service Provision in
Heterogeneous Network", IEEE Commun. Mag., Vol. 46, Issue 1, pp. 64-71, Jan. 2008.
[3] M. Buddhikot, G. Chandranmenon, S. Han, Y.W. Lee, S. Miller, L. Salgarelli, "Integration of
802.11 and Third-generation Wireless Data Networks", in Proceedings of INFCOM, Vol. 1, pp.
503- 512, Apr. 2003.
[4] F. Siddiqui, S. Zeadally, S. Fowler, "Novel Architecture for Roaming between 3G and Wireless
LANs", in Proceedings of MSAN, pp.101-105, June 2005.
[5] E. Stevens-Navarro, V.W.S. Wong, "Comparison between Vertical Handover Decision Algorithms
for Heterogeneous Wireless Networks", in Proceedings of VTC, Vol. 2, pp. 947-951, May 2006.
[6] Nasser, N., Hasswa, A., Hassanein, H., "Handover in fourth generation heterogeneous networks",
IEEE Commun. Mag., Vol. 44, Issue 10, pp. 96-103, Oct. 2006.
[7] Akyildiz, I.F., McNair, J., Ho, J.S.M., Uzunalioglu, H., Wenye Wang, "Mobility management in
next-generation wireless systems", in Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol.87, Issue 8, pp. 1347-1384,
Aug. 1999.
[8] Hasina Attaullah , Muhammad Younus Javed , "QoS based Vertical handover between UMTS,
WiFi and WiMAX Networks", JCIT: Journal of Convergence Information Technology, Vol. 4, No.
3, pp. 59-64, 2009.
[9] Qian Zhang, Chuanxiong Guo, Zihua Guo, Wenwu Zhu, "Efficient mobility management for
vertical handover between WWAN and WLAN", IEEE Commun. Mag., Vol. 41, Issue 11, pp.
102-108, Nov. 2003
[10] Pyung-Soo Kim, and Yong Jin Kim, "Hierarchical Mobile IPv6 Based Fast Vertical Handover
using IEEE 802.21 Media Independent Handover Function", JCIT: Journal of Convergence
Information Technology, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp.41-45, 2007.
[11] Majlesi A., Khalaj B.H., "An adaptive fuzzy logic based handover algorithm for interworking
between WLANs and mobile networks", Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications,
Vol. 5, pp. 2446-2451, Sept. 2002.
[12] Bing Hongyan, He Chen, Jiang Lingge, "Intelligent signal processing of mobility management for
heterogeneous networks", in Proceedings of Neural Networks and Signal Processing, Vol. 2,
pp.1578-1581, Dec. 2003.
[13] Onel Tolga, Ersoy Cem, Cayirci Erdal, Parr Gerard, "A multicriteria handover decision scheme for
the next generation tactical communications systems", Computer Networks, Vol. 46, Issue 5, pp.
695-708, Dec. 2004.
- 296 -
Shih-Jung Wu
[14] Ezzouhairi A., Quintero A., Pierre S., "A fuzzy decision making strategy for vertical handover", in
Proceedings of CCECE, pp. 583-588, May 2008.
[15] Edwards George, Kandel Abraham, Sankar Ravi, "Fuzzy handover algorithms for wireless
communication", Fuzzy Sets and Systems Vol. 110, Issue 3, pp. 379-388, March 2000.
[16] Cheng-Jian Lin, I-Ta Tsai, Chi-Yung Lee, "An adaptive fuzzy predictor based handover algorithm
for heterogeneous network", in Proceedings of NAFIPS, Vol. 2, pp. 944-947, IEEE Annual
Meeting of the June 2004.
[17] Liu Xia, Ling-ge Jiang, Chen He, "A Novel Fuzzy Logic Vertical Handover Algorithm with Aid of
Differential Prediction and Pre-Decision Method", in Proceedings of ICC, pp. 5665-5670, IEEE
International Conference on June 2007.
[18] García-Gaytán Cyntia, Munoz-Rodríguez David, Soto Rogelio, "Uncertainty in cellular fuzzy
handover", Expert Systems with Applications, Volume: 15, Issue: 3-4, pp. 391-397, Oct., 1998,
[19] Wu G, Havinga P.J.M., and Mizuno M., "MIRAI Architecture for Heterogeneous Network", IEEE
Commun. Mag., Vol. 40, Issue 2, pp. 126-134, Feb. 2002.
[20] MStemm and RH Katz, "Vertical handover in wireless overlay networks", Mobile Networks and
Applications, Vol. 3, Issue 4, pp.335-350, 1998.
[21] Christoph Niedermeier, Reiner Schmid, Eiman Mohyeldin, Markus Dillinger, "Handover
Management and Strategies for Reconfigurable Terminals", Software Defined Radio Forum
Contribution , Sept. 2002
[22] Kaveh Pahlavan, Prashant Krishnamurthy, Ahmad Hatami, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Mika
Ylianttila,etc. "Handover in hybrid mobile data networks", in Proceedings of IEEE Personal
Communications, Vol. 7, Issue 2, pp. 34-47, Apr. 2000.
[23] Shen, Xuemin, Mark, Jon W., "Mobility information for resource management in wireless ATM
networks Computer Networks", Computer Networks, Vol. 31, Issue 9-10, pp. 1049-1062, May
1999.
[24] Paolo Dadone, "Design Optimization of Fuzzy Logic Systems" ph. D Dissertation, Xrginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, May 18,2001.
[25] P.M.L.Chan, YF. Hu, R.E. Sheriff, "Implementation of Fuzzy Multiple Objective Decision
Making Algorithm in a Heterogeneous Mobile Environment", in Proceedings of WCNC, Vol. 1,
pp. 332-336, Mar. 2002.
[26] N. Tripathi, "Generic Adaptive Handover Algorithms using Fuzzy Logic and Neural Networks",
Ph.D. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, August 1997.
[27] ChoongHo Cho, YouChang Ko, Hyung Lee-Kwang, "Fuzzy adaptive guard channel assignment
strategy for handoff in PCS system", in Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference,
Vol. 3, pp. 1511-1517, Jul. 1997.
[28] Ching-Hung Lee, Chun-Jie Yu, "An intelligent handoff algorithm for wireless communication
systems using grey prediction and fuzzy decision system", in Proceedings of Networking, Sensing
and Control, Vol. 1, pp. 541-546, March 2004 IEEE International Conference.
[29] Kwong Chiew Foong, Chuah Teong Chee, Lee Sze Wei, "Adaptive Network Fuzzy Inference
System (ANFIS) Handoff Algorithm", in Proceedings of ICFCC, pp.195-198, Apr. 2009.
[30] Tarek Bchini , Nabil Tabbane , Emmanuel Chaput , Sami Tabbane & Andre-Luc Beylot ,
"Interconnection & Handover between IEEE 802.16e & UMTS", IJACT : International Journal of
Advancements in Computing Technology, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 99-09, 2009.
- 297 -

Fuzzy-Based Handover Decision Scheme For Next-Generation Heterogeneous Wireless Networks

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuzzy-Based Handover Decision Scheme For Next-Generation Heterogeneous Wireless Networks

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fuzzy-Based Handover Decision Scheme for Next-Generation Heterogeneous Wireless Networks

Fuzzy-Based Handover Decision Scheme for Next-Generation

Keywords: Wireless, Handover Decision, Fuzzy, NGWN/4G

2.1. Mobility management

2.2. Interworking architecture for NGWN

In order to satisfy seamless mobility in heterogeneous wireless network, we need a heterogeneous

Figure 1.Interworking architecture for NGWN

2.3. Vertical Handover

2.3.1 Fuzzy System Applied to Handover Decisions

Figure 2. Flow chart of the proposed classification of vertical handover decisions.

3.1. FUzzy Normalization (FUN)

Figure 6. Fuzzy system of fuzzy normalization.

Figure 7. Membership function of RSS for 3G、WiMAX、and IEEE 802.11.

Figure 8. Membership function of velocity for 3G、WiMAX、and IEEE 802.11.

Figure 9. Membership function of loading for 3G、WiMAX、and IEEE 802.11.

3.1.2. Fuzzy Rule Base, Inference Engine and Defuzzifier

3.2. HandOver Decision Strategy (HODS)

Figure 10. Handover decision strategy.

Figure 11. Simulation environment.

4.1. Simulation Environment

Figure 12. System Loading (T0)

4.2. Simulation Result

Figure 13. System Loading (T40)

Figure 14. System Loading (T100)

5. Conclusions and future work

You might also like