RESULTS AND DISCUSSION | IEEE 802.16j Relay Networks

The objective of these tests can be divided into two parts. One is to obtain an understanding of the scalability of the problem formulation—the basic and the state space reduction model. More specifically, the objective was to understand if this problem formulation can be used to solve problems of realistic size. Given that it is, in principle, an NP-hard problem, it is important to understand the range of problems for which standard solution techniques are appropriate and the range of problems which require the development of heuristics which employ domain knowledge.

The second is to determine how the clustering approach compares with the more rudimentary approaches. The comparison was performed based on both the time taken to obtain a solution and the quality of the resulting solution; naturally, the former relates directly to the scalability characteristics of the approach and its applicability for realistic scenarios.

A number of tests were performed in which the number of BSs, RSs, and TPs were varied. All tests were done using a standard desktop computer—Centrino Duo 2.0 GHz, 1 GB Memory, Windows Vista. Twelve tests were performed each time and the mean execution time taken. As there was some variation in the results, the minimum and maximum execution times were removed and the mean taken over the remaining ten results.

Problems were generated at random. The locations of each of the BSs, RSs, and TPs were chosen randomly from an area of size 3 × 3 km. The (x, y) coordinates of each node were chosen by selecting two random variable from the distribution U(0, 3000). For each of the problems the same set of weight parameters were used: λ₁ = 8, λ₂ = 8, and λ₃ = 20. However, it is worth noting that the values of these parameters have little impact on the time required to find solutions. In each of the problems, the BS cost was chosen at random and was three times the cost of the RS.

In all of the following tests, the branch and bound method found the optimal solution to the given problem. Figure 1 shows one possible result for planning a network with 20 candidate BSs, 60 candidate RSs, and 200 TPs. In the solution, 10 BSs are selected with 36 RSs

 
Figure 1: A typical output of the planning tool.

RELAY STATION CAPABILITIES | IEEE 802.16J

As the standard is still evolving, it is not clear what the final variant will look like. However, at present, it appears that two categories of RS will be defined: low capability RS (simple RS) and high capability RS (full function RS). The simple RS is used for low cost deployment, and operates on one OFDMA channel. It contains no control functionality (i.e., control functions are centralized in the MMR-BS) with one transceiver and optionally supports multiple input multiple output (MIMO). The full function RS can operate on multiple OFDMA channels, implement distributed control functions, and support MIMO. This type of RS has a further two variants: fixed/nomadic full function RS and mobile full function RS. Mobile RSs add support for handover and the ability to deal with a varying channel due to mobility. Table 1 summarizes the different RSs capabilities.

Table 1: RS Capabilities 

	Simple RS	Full Function Fixed/Nomadic RS	Mobile RS
Number of OFDMA channels	1	≥1	≥1
Duplexing on MMR and access links	TDD	TDD or FDD	TDD or FDD
Frequency sharing between access and MMR links	Yes	Yes or No	Yes or No
Mobility	Centralized in MMR-BS	Centralized in MMR-BS or distributed in RSs	Centralized in MMR-BS or distributed in RSs
Antenna support	SISO or MIMO	MIMO	MIMO

At present, it is considered that an MMR network could be composed of multiple usage models including multiple RS types specifically deployed. But at present, there is only a little work about the heterogeneous functionalities of the RSs in different scenarios.

For example, an MS can move from the coverage provided inside a building by fixed/nomadic RS to a train where the coverage is provided by a mobile RS. Furthermore, there is no direct mapping between the usage models and the types of RS. An operator may deploy a variety of different RS types depending on traffic, mobility, topology (two hops or more) within the area of each RS location for a specific usage model.

In fact, the future standard will not answer all the issues raised by the RS incorporation to provide vendor differentiation. For instance, intelligent scheduling either at the BS (in a centralized approach) or at the BS and RSs (in a distributed approach) are required to minimize the interference that occurs at the RSs.

OVERVIEW OF IEEE 802.16J

In IEEE 802.16j low cost RSs are introduced to provide enhanced coverage and capacity. Using such stations, an operator could deploy a network with wide coverage at a lower cost than using only (more) expensive BSs to provide good coverage, and increasing significantly the system throughput. As network utilization increases, these RSs could be replaced by BSs as required. The mesh architecture defined in WiMAX is already used to increase the coverage and the throughput of the system. However, this mode is not compatible with the point-to-multipoint (PMP) mode with no support of the OFDMA PHY, fast route change for mobile station (MS), etc. Hence, the standards organization has recognized this as an important area of development, and today a task group is charged with drafting a new standard: the IEEE 802.16j mobile multihop relay design to address these issues. The first draft of the IEEE 802.16j standard has just finished in August 2007.

IEEE 802.16J SCOPE

The IEEE 802.16j is aiming to develop a relay mode based on IEEE 802.16e by introducing RSs depending on the usage model:

• Coverage extension
• Capacity enhancement

In other words, the relay technology is first expected to improve the coverage reliability in geographic areas that are severely shadowed from the BS or to extend the range of a BS. In both cases, the RS enhances coverage by transmitting from an advantageous location closer to a disadvantaged SS than the BS. Second, it is expected to improve the throughput for users at the edges of an 802.16 cell. It has been recognized in previous 802.16 contributions that subscribers at the edges of a cell may be required to communicate at reduced rates. This is because received signal strength is lower at the cell edge. Finally, it is expected to increase system capacity by deploying RSs in a manner that enables more aggressive frequency reuse. Figure 1 illustrates the different scenarios in which relay mode could be used. However, introducing such RSs considerably alters the architecture of the network and raises many issues and questions. It is still unclear what system design is appropriate and can be realized at a low cost while still providing good coverage with an enhancement of the throughput.

 
Figure 1: IEEE 802.16j example use cases.

The 802.16j task group’s scope is to specify OFDMA PHY and MAC enhancement to the IEEE 802.16 standards for licensed bands. These specifications aim to enable the operation of fixed, nomadic, and mobile RSs by keeping the backward compatibility with SS/MS. In other words, the standard will define a new RS entity and modify the BS to support Mobile Multihop Relay (MMR) links and aggregation of traffic from multiple sources. An MMR link represents a radio link between an MMR-BS and an RS or between a pair of RSs. Such link can support fixed, portable, and mobile RSs and multihop communications between a BS and RSs on the path. An access link is a radio link that originates or terminates at an SS/MS. Table 1 illustrates the main scope of the project.

Table 1: IEEE 802.16j Project Scope 

		Define New
No Change	Changes to BS	RS Entity	“802.16j Relay” Link Air Interface
To SS/MS To 802.16e OFDMA PMP link	Add support for MMR links Add support for aggregation of traffic from multiple RSs	Supports PMP links Supports MMR links Supports aggregation of traffic from multiple RSs	Support fixed, portable, and mobile RSs Based on OFDMA PHY MAC to support multi-hop communication Security and management