The problem of communication among nodes in an is considered, where radio power decay and interference are limiting factors. It has been shown previously that, with simple multi-hopping, the achievable total communication rate in such a network is at most @math . In this work, we study the benefit of node cooperation in conjunction with multi-hopping on the network capacity. We propose a multi-phase communication scheme, combining distributed MIMO transmission with multi-hop forwarding among clusters of nodes. We derive the network throughput of this communication scheme and determine the optimal cluster size. This provides a constructive lower bound on the network capacity. We first show that in a rate of @math can be achieved with transmission power scaling of @math , where @math is the signal path-loss exponent. We further extend this result to , where we show a rate of @math can be achieved with transmission power scaling of @math in a random network with unit node density. In particular, as @math approaches 2, only constant transmission power is required. Finally, we study a random network with density @math and show that a rate of @math is achieved and the required power scales as @math .
@cite_0: We study wireless ad hoc networks with a large number of nodes. We first focus on a network of n immobile nodes, each with a destination node chosen in random. We develop a scheme under which, in the absence of fading, the network can provide each node with a traffic rate spl lambda sub 1 (n)=K sub 1 (nlog n) sup -1 2 . This result was first shown in J. Hightower and G. Borriello (2001) under a similar setting, however the proof presented here is shorter and uses only basic probability tools. We then proceed to show that, under a general model of fading, each node can send data to its destination with a rate spl lambda sub 2 (n)=K sub 2 n sup -1 sup 2 (log n) sup -3 2 . Next, we extend our formulation to study the effects of node mobility. We first develop a simple scheme under which each of the a mobile nodes can send data to a randomly chosen destination node with a rate spl lambda sub 3 (n)=K sub 3 n sup -1 2 (log n) sup -3 2 , and with a fixed upper bound on the packet delay d sub max that does not depend on n. We subsequently develop a scheme under which each of the nodes can send data to its destination with a rate spl lambda sub 4 (n)=K sub 4 n sup (d-1) 2 (log n) sup -5 2 provided that nodes are willing to tolerate packet delays smaller than d sub max (n)<K sub 5 n sup d , where 0<d<1. With both schemes, a general model of fading is assumed. In addition, nodes require no global topology or routing information, and only need to coordinate locally. The above results hold for an appropriate choice of values for the constants K sub i , and with probability approaching 1 as the number of nodes n approaches infinity.
@cite_5: When n identical randomly located nodes, each capable of transmitting at W bits per second and using a fixed range, form a wireless network, the throughput spl lambda (n) obtainable by each node for a randomly chosen destination is spl Theta (W spl radic (nlogn)) bits per second under a noninterference protocol. If the nodes are optimally placed in a disk of unit area, traffic patterns are optimally assigned, and each transmission's range is optimally chosen, the bit-distance product that can be transported by the network per second is spl Theta (W spl radic An) bit-meters per second. Thus even under optimal circumstances, the throughput is only spl Theta (W spl radic n) bits per second for each node for a destination nonvanishingly far away. Similar results also hold under an alternate physical model where a required signal-to-interference ratio is specified for successful receptions. Fundamentally, it is the need for every node all over the domain to share whatever portion of the channel it is utilizing with nodes in its local neighborhood that is the reason for the constriction in capacity. Splitting the channel into several subchannels does not change any of the results. Some implications may be worth considering by designers. Since the throughput furnished to each user diminishes to zero as the number of users is increased, perhaps networks connecting smaller numbers of users, or featuring connections mostly with nearby neighbors, may be more likely to be find acceptance.
@cite_8: An achievable bit rate per source-destination pair in a wireless network of n randomly located nodes is determined adopting the scaling limit approach of statistical physics. It is shown that randomly scattered nodes can achieve, with high probability, the same 1 radicn transmission rate of arbitrarily located nodes. This contrasts with previous results suggesting that a 1 radicnlogn reduced rate is the price to pay for the randomness due to the location of the nodes. The network operation strategy to achieve the result corresponds to the transition region between order and disorder of an underlying percolation model. If nodes are allowed to transmit over large distances, then paths of connected nodes that cross the entire network area can be easily found, but these generate excessive interference. If nodes transmit over short distances, then such crossing paths do not exist. Percolation theory ensures that crossing paths form in the transition region between these two extreme scenarios. Nodes along these paths are used as a backbone, relaying data for other nodes, and can transport the total amount of information generated by all the sources. A lower bound on the achievable bit rate is then obtained by performing pairwise coding and decoding at each hop along the paths, and using a time division multiple access scheme
Toumpis in @cite_0 have proposed a gridding of a unit area network and the use of 9-TDMA scheduling to derive the same lower-bound on capacity as @cite_5 in a more straightforward manner. They further extend their model to consider the effect of node mobility and fading on the capacity. Franceschetti in @cite_8 have closed the previous gap between the capacity in and networks. They use percolation theory to show that the sum capacity of their proposed communication scheme scales as @math . None of the above utilizes cooperative transmission.