Er. Vishakha Sood* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No.

7, Issue No. 1, 070 - 076

Capacity Optimization Using Cognitive Radios Networks

ECE department Student, R.I.E.I.T. Railmajra S.B.S. Nagar, Punjab, India vishakha.sood@rediffmail.com
Abstract: - The increased demand for mobile communications and new wireless applications raises the need to efficiently use the available spectrum resources. However, measurements have shown that a large portion of frequency bands are unoccupied or only partially occupied. Hence, the problem of spectrum scarcity as perceived today is due to inefficient spectrum management rather than spectrum shortage. In a cognitive radio network, the secondary users are allowed to utilize the frequency bands of primary users when these bands are not currently being used. To support this spectrum reuse functionality, the secondary users are required to sense the radio frequency environment, and once the primary users are found to be active, the secondary users are required to vacate the channel within a certain amount of time. Therefore, spectrum sensing is of significant importance. Two parameters associated with spectrum sensing are: probability of detection and probability of false alarm. The higher the probability of detection, the better the primary user is protected. The lower the probability of false alarm, the more chances the channel can be reused when it is available, thus the higher the achievable throughput for the secondary network. Our approach is to see the effects of varying noise on .

Er. Vishakha Sood1

1

ECE department Faculty, R.I.E.I.T. Railmajra S.B.S. Nagar, Punjab, India singh.manwinder@gmail.com The core technology behind spectrum reuse is cognitive radio, which consists of three essential components: (1) Spectrum sensing: The secondary users are required to sense the radio spectrum environment within their operating range to detect the frequency bands that are not occupied by primary users. (2) Dynamic spectrum management: Cognitive radio networks are required to dynamically select the best available bands for communications. (3) Adaptive communications: A cognitive radio device can configure its transmission parameters to opportunistically make best use of the ever-changing available spectrum [1], [3]. Typically, the performance of spectrum sensing is evaluated with the probability of detection and probability of false alarm. From the primary users point of view, the probability of detection is critical as it determines how often primary user is susceptible to potential interference from the cognitive radio system. This is because the time of failures in detecting the presence of primary user depends on the probability of detection. Therefore, we are interested in the probability of detection as a measure for spectrum sensing performance. In this model, the SU first sense the frequency band allocated to the PU to detect the state of the PU and then adapts its transmitting power according to the detection result. If the PU is inactive, the SU allocates the transmit power based on its own benefit to achieve a higher transmission rate. If the PU is active, the SU transmits with a lower power to avoid causing harmful interference to the PU.

Er. Manwinder Singh2

2

I.

The last decade has witnessed the increasing popularity of wireless services. In fact, recent measurements by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have shown that 70% of the allocated spectrum in US is not utilized. CR is a kind of intelligent wireless device, which is able to adjust its transmission parameters, such as transmit power and transmission frequency band, based on the environment. In a CR network, ordinary wireless devices are referred to as primary users (PUs), and CRs are referred to as secondary users (SUs). CR is defined as an intelligent wireless communication system that provides more efficient communication by allowing secondary users to utilize the unused spectrum segments.

IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818

A
INTRODUCTION

Keywords: - cognitive radio (CR), Probability of detection ( ), Probability of false alarm ( ).Primary User (PU), Secondary User (SU).

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

ES

In cognitive radio networks, the criterion considered so far is in terms of protecting the primary user, i.e., maximizing the probability of detection under the constraint of probability of false alarm. Detection of primary user by the secondary system is critical in a cognitive radio environment. However this is rendered difficult due to the challenges in accurate and reliable sensing of the wireless environment. Secondary users might experience losses due to multipath fading, shadowing, and building penetration which can result in an incorrect judgment of the wireless

Page 70

Er. Vishakha Sood* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No. 7, Issue No. 1, 070 - 076

environment, which can in turn cause interference at the licensed primary user by the secondary transmission [2]. As we now that spectrum is not scarce but it is not used properly or efficiently. It is shown in figure-1 that the total available spectrum is 0-6 GHZ but only up to 2 GHZ is used properly.

incorrectly inferring the presence of a PU in a vacant spectrum band. Several spectrum sensing methods have been proposed which require some knowledge of the potential interferer, including matched filter detection for specific systems and cyclostationary detectors for known modulations based on spectral correlation theory developed by Gardner. These methods will be helpful for detecting known primary systems [3]. A basic cognitive radio cycle is shown in figure2.According to this figure the RF environment is sensed by CR and on the basis of sensing the spectrum is accessed.

II.

SPECTRUM SENSING

Spectrum sensing is one of the key enabling functions in CR networks that are used to explore vacant spectrum opportunities and to avoid interference with the PUs. The two main approaches for spectrum sensing techniques for CR networks are primary transmitter detection and primary receiver detection. The primary transmitter detection is based on the detection of the weak signal from a primary transmitter through the local observations of CR users. The primary receiver detection aims at finding the PUs that are receiving data within the communication range of a CR user. In this approach, the main objective is to find the sensing that minimizes the missed detection probability, i.e. determining the spectrum to be unoccupied when there is an active PU, and conversely, the false alarm probability, i.e.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we present the spectrum sensing techniques. In Section III, we introduce the threshold selection and decision rule. In Section IV, we describe in brief about performance of spectrum sensing. Section V describe statistical model of energy detector. Section VI explores cognitive radio transmission scenarios. In Section VII, we present some simulation results of probability of detection w.r.t SNR while taking two parameters Pnoise & Bessel function in to account. We conclude in Section VIII.

ES

Figure 1 Measurement of 0~6 GHz spectrum Utilization at Berkeley Wireless Research Center [21]

The higher the probability of detection, the better the primary users is protected. Suppose that we are interested in the frequency band with carrier frequency fc and bandwidth W and the received signal is sampled at sampling frequency fs. When the primary user is active, the discrete received signal at the secondary user can be represented as: Y (n) = s (n) + u (n) (1)

IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818

This is the output under hypothesis H1. When the primary user is inactive, the received signal is given by: Y (n) = u (n) (2) And this case is referred to as hypothesis H0.As equation (1) and (2) referred from [1]. Two probabilities are of interest for spectrum sensing: probability of detection, which is defined, under hypothesis H1 i.e. the probability of the algorithm correctly detecting the presence of primary user; and probability of false alarm,

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

T
Figure 2 spectral functions at the CR MAC [4]

A .General Model for Spectrum Sensing

Page 71

Er. Vishakha Sood* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No. 7, Issue No. 1, 070 - 076

which is defined, under hypothesis H0 i.e. the probability of the algorithm falsely declaring the presence of primary user. The lower the probability of false alarm, there are more chances for which the secondary users can use the frequency bands when they are available. For a good detection algorithm, the probability of detection should be as high as possible while the probability of false alarm should be as low as possible. B. Probability of Detection ( ) The probability of detection is the time during which the PU (licensed) is detected. The throughput of system depends upon Pd. If the sensing time is increased then PU can make better use of its spectrum and the limit is decided that SU cant interfere during that much of time. More the spectrum sensing more PUs will be detected and lesser will be the interference because PU can make best use of their priority right. Secondary users might experience losses due to multipath fading, shadowing, and building penetration which can result in an incorrect judgment of the wireless environment, which can in turn cause interference at the licensed primary user by the secondary transmission. This raises the necessity for the cognitive radio to be highly robust to channel impairments and also to be able to detect extremely low power signals. These stringent requirements pose a lot of challenges for the deployment of CR networks [4]. C .Probability of false alarm ( )

lower threshold, and one for accepting H1, upper threshold are positive constants. The test will be evaluated as follows:
1 => accept H1 0 => accept H0

3(a) 3(b)

] 0, 1 [=> take another observation. From the fundamental relations of Wald's theory, the values 0 and 1 is approximated based on requirements of false alarm probability, and detection probabilities as: 0 (4) (5)

Where and are specified probabilities of detection and false alarm respectively. The above equations are referred from [5]. IV. PERFORMANCE OF SPECTRUM SENSING

In order to find when to accept two hypotheses either H0, H1 or continue without any decision, two thresholds are chosen. These two thresholds, one for accepting the H0,

IJ
III.
ISSN: 2230-7818

Probability of the sensing algorithm mistakenly detecting the presence of PUs while they are inactive. Low probability of false alarm should be targeted to offer more chances for SUs to use the sensed spectrum. The lower the probability of false alarm, the more chances the channel can be reused when it is available, thus the higher the achievable throughput for the secondary network. From the secondary users perspective, however, the lower the probability of false alarm, there are more chances for which the secondary users can use the frequency bands when they are available. Obviously, for a good detection algorithm, the probability of detection should be as high as possible while the probability of false alarm should be as low as possible [5]. THRESHOLD SELECTION AND DECISION RULE

ES

The performance of spectrum sensing is typically characterized with ROC that captures the relations of the probability of detection and the probability of false alarm that are interrelated. The probability of false alarm describes how efficiently the spectrum opportunities can be perceived. The probability of detection measures how well the cognitive radio system notices the presence of primary systems [6]-[8]. The probability of detection is a critical performance measure because the sensing methods to be deployed in the future cognitive radio systems should protect the primary users from harmful interference if they are deployed on the same spectrum bands. From the primary users point of view the performance measure is the time between the potential appearance of sources for harmful interference that correspond to failing in detecting the presence of primary user. To fulfill the requirements set by the primary user, the time between failures in detection should be kept low. Following the radar literature where the time between false alarms (i.e. time between detecting a target when there is no target) is critical, we can derive the time between failures in detection Tfd from the probability of detection as: = (6)

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

T
0

Page 72

Er. Vishakha Sood* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No. 7, Issue No. 1, 070 - 076

Where denotes as time between sensing decisions in periodic spectrum sensing. Depends on the primary users tolerance to harmful interference. The above equation is referred from [6].

VI.

COGNITIVE RADIO TRANSMISSION SCENARIOS

A) Constant Primary User Protection (CPUP) Scenario This transmission mode is viewed from the PUs perspective [7], [10] - [15]. It guarantees a minimum level of interference to PUs who by right, should not be affected by the SUs transmission. This scenario can be realized by fixing at a satisfactory level, e.g. 90%, and trying to minimize Pf as much as possible. Thus, Pf is derived to be: { ( ) } (14)

V.

STATISTICAL MODEL OF ENERGY DETECTOR

The energy detector is known as a suboptimal detector, which can be applied to detect unknown signals as it does not require a prior knowledge on the transmitted waveform as the optimal detector (matched filter) does. The decision statistic, T, for energy detector is given by T= (7)

H0: X[n] =W[n]

: if PU is absent

H1: X[n] =W[n] + S[n] : if PU is present Resulting pair of ( , ) that is estimated: = P (T > | H0) = P (T > | H1)

Where in equation (10) and (11) is a particular threshold that tests the decision statistic. Since we are interested in low signal-to-noise ratio of primary user, large number of samples should be used [7]-[9] Thus, the test statistic chisquare distribution can be approximated as Gaussian based on the central limit theorem. Then:

ES
(8) (9) (10) (11) VII. (12) (13)

It is well known that under the common Neyman-Pearson detection performance criteria, the likelihood ratio yields the optimal decision. Hence, the energy detector performance can be characterized by taking two hypotheses:

Where the number of samples, K, is the product of sensing time times sampling frequency. It is clear that can be minimized by increasing the sensing time. However, at the same sensing time, increasing the Pus protection level by stating higher values leads to increase and consequently, fewer chances for SUs to utilize the spectrum. Therefore, there will be a tradeoff between these two conflicting objectives. B) Constant Secondary User Spectrum Utilization (CSUSU) Scenario

This mode is taken from the SUs perspective; it aims to standardize the spectrum utilization by SUs [7],[16]-[21] As such, the Pf values should be fixed at lower values (e.g. 10%) while keep maximizing which can be written in terms of a desired Pf as follows: (
( )

(15)

IJ
= Q{ } = Q{

SIMULATION RESULTS

Here in simulation firstly we will decide a range for and SNR.Then we will keep the value of fixed by doing so we will find the threshold value. Then by making use of SNR formula we will calculate signal to noise ratio of the system. Now we will keep on changing the values of Pnoise and correspondingly see the effects of noise on .Finally we will calculate Psignal by multiplying SNR with Pnoise and plot Vs. SNR for different values of Pnoise. Here we have obtained six graphs by making use of Bessel function and simple function. Here for our calculation we have used values of from 0.1 to 0.9999 and SNR from 1

ISSN: 2230-7818

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

Page 73

Er. Vishakha Sood* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No. 7, Issue No. 1, 070 - 076

to 20.we are varying noise from value 1 to 10,in fig-1& 2 we can see that at SNR value=10 we are getting a constant level in both cases. In fig -3.we can see that we are getting constant level at SNR=5 .where as in case of Fig-4.we are getting constant level at SNR=5 to SNR=14 and after that there is a steep decline in values. In figure-5.we are getting constant level at SNR=3 while in case of figure-6 we are getting constant values in between SNR=2 to SNR=10 and after that there is again a steep decline in values.

Figure 3 Probability of detection VS signal to noise ratio at Pnoise=1, using Bessel function.

In Figure 3, we are applying Bessel function to see the effect of varying noise on probability of detection. As we can see from the fig. that we are getting constant values at SNR=12.

A IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818

Figure 4 Probability of detection VS signal to noise ratio at Pnoise=1, without using Bessel function.

In Figure 4, we are not applying Bessel function. We can see the effect of varying noise on probability of detection. As we can see from the fig. that we are getting constant values at SNR=1.

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

ES

In Figure 5, we are not applying Bessel function. We can see the effect of varying noise on probability of detection. Here we are getting constant values at SNR=5.

Figure-6Probability of detection VS signal to noise ratio at Pnoise=5, Using Bessel function.

In Figure 6, we are applying Bessel function to see the effect of varying noise on probability of detection. As we can see from the fig. that we are getting constant values from SNR=5 to SNR=14 after that the curve is gradually declines to zero value i.e. after SNR16. Here the slop at SNR=14 clearly distinguishes between the probability of detection of primary user and noise.

Figure-5Probability of detection VS signal to noise ratio at Pnoise=5, Without Using Bessel function.

Page 74

Er. Vishakha Sood* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No. 7, Issue No. 1, 070 - 076

VIII

CONCLUSION

Figure-7 Probability of detection VS signal to noise ratio at Pnoise=10, Without Using Bessel function.

Figure-8 Probability of detection VS signal to noise ratio at Pnoise=10, Using Bessel function.

In Figure 8, we are applying Bessel function to see the effect of varying noise on probability of detection. As we can see from the fig. that we are getting constant values in between SNR=2 to SNR=10 and after that there is a sharp decline in graph. I.e. after SNR13 .Here the slop at SNR=13 clearly distinguishes between the probability of detection of primary user and noise.

IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818

@ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved.

ES
[1]

In Figure 7, we are not applying Bessel function. We can see the effect of varying noise on probability of detection. As we can see from the fig. that we are getting constant values at SNR=3 and from that value onwards the graph remains constant.

Ying-Chang Liang, Sensing-Throughput Tradeoff for Cognitive Radio Networks, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7, NO. 4, APRIL 2008. [2] Dr Yohannes, Sensing techniques for Cognitive Radio, State of the art and trends - A White Paper, April 15th 2009. [3] Claudia Cormio, A survey on MAC protocols for cognitive radio networks, 1570-8705/$ see front matter _ 2009 ElsevierB.V.Allrightsreserved. doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2009. [4] Xin Kang, Sensing-Based Spectrum Sharing in Cognitive Radio Networks, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 58, NO. 8, OCTOBER 2009. [5] Ayse Kortun,On the Performance of Eigenvalue-Based Cooperative Spectrum Sensing for Cognitive Radio, IEEE JOURNAL OF SELECTED TOPICS IN SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 5, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2011. [6] Marja Matinmikko, Performance of Spectrum Sensing Using Welchs Periodogram in Rayleigh Fading Channel, PROCEEDINGS OF THE 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CROWNCOM 2009. [7] Ayman A. El-Saleh, Capacity Optimization for Local and Cooperative Spectrum Sensing in Cognitive Radio Networks, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 50 2009. [8] Federal Communications Commission, Spectrum policy task force report, FCC 02-155, Nov. 2002. [9] Federal Communications Commission, Facilitating opportunities for flexible, efficient, and reliable spectrum use employing cognitive radio technologies, FCC 03-322, Dec. 2003. [10] J. Mitola and G. Q. Maguire, Cognitive radios: Making software radios more personal, IEEE Pers. Commun., vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 13-18, Aug. 1999. [11] J. Mitola, Cognitive radio: An integrated agent architecture for software defined radio, PhD. diss., Royal Inst. Technol. (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, 2000. [12] S. Haykin, Cognitive radio: Brain-empowered wireless communications, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 201 220, Feb. 2005.

T
REFERENCES

In this paper, The CR system performance has been investigated using spectrum sensing and two operational modes, namely, CPUP and CSUSU .This paper includes basics of CR and spectrum sensing. Statistical model for energy detection is provided here which uses two approaches to calculate and Pf .Here we have varied noise values and the Effect of varying noise on can be seen. Here we have made use of two functions simple function and Bessel function. In the above six figures the effects of varying noise values can be seen clearly by making use of simple function and Bessel function. We can conclude from here that by varying noise the Probability of detection will keep on changing. We have taken into account up to Pnoise= 10 i.e. 10 values of noise and have presented our results here, it can further be extended to any no. of values. Here we have concluded that by making use of simple function we cant distinguish between the probability of detection of primary user and noise while making use of Bessel function we can see the effect of noise on probability of detection of primary users.

Page 75

Er. Vishakha Sood* et al. / (IJAEST) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED ENGINEERING SCIENCES AND TECHNOLOGIES Vol No. 7, Issue No. 1, 070 - 076

IJ
ISSN: 2230-7818 @ 2011 http://www.ijaest.iserp.org. All rights Reserved. Page 76

ES

[13] Q. Zhao and A. Swami, A decision-theoretic framework for opportunistic spectrum access, IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag.Special Issue on Cognitive Wireless Networks, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1422, Aug. 2007. [14] A. Ghasemi and E. S. Sousa, Fundamental limits of spectrum-sharing in fading environments, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 649658, Feb. 2007. [15] R. Etkin, A. Parekh, and D. Tse, Spectrum sharing for unlicensed bands, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 517528, Apr. 2007. [16] Ekram Hossain, Cognitive Wireless Communication Networks. [17] Ayman A. El-Saleh, Mahamod Ismail, Omar B. A. Ghafoor, and Anwar H. Ibrahim, Comparison between Overlay Cognitive Radio and Underlay Cognitive Ultra Wideband Radio for Wireless Communications, Proc. of the Fifth IASTED (AsiaCSN 2008), pp. 4145, April 2-4, 2008, Langkawi, Malaysia. [18] IEEE 802.11 wireless RAN, Functional requirements for the WRAN standard, IEEE 802.11 05/0007r46 Oct. 2005. [19] Z. Chair and P.K. Varshney, Optimal data fusion in multiple sensor detection systems, IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Elect. Syst., vol.22 pp.98-101, January 1986. [20] P. K. Varshney, Distributed Detection and Data Fusion. Springer, 1997. [21] Seung Jong Kim, Dynamic Spectrum Allocation with Variable Bandwidth for Cognitive Radio Systems, IEEE 2009.