Evaluation of Cellular Distributed Power Control Algorithms in Wireless Ad Hoc Networks

Roya Haratian, Mehdi Rasti, and Ahmad R. Sharafat

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract We evaluate the performances of existing distributed power control schemes which were originally proposed for cellular networks (i.e. the target-tracking, and the opportunistic algorithms) in wireless ad hoc networks. In contrast to wireless ad hoc networks, there is no need to exchange pricing packets in cellular networks. We demonstrate that these schemes perform satisfactorily in ad hoc networks as well. We also compare their performances in terms of the achieved quality of service, the consumed power, and the outage ratio; and show that the combination of target tracking and opportunistic power control schemes outperforms each individual algorithm in solo in wireless ad hoc networks. Index Terms Distributed power control, User-centric criteria, Network-centric criteria, Wireless ad hoc networks.

I.

INTRODUCTION

OWER CONTROL can significantly reduce power consumption and interference in wireless ad hoc networks, where a set of nodes access a shared medium in a distributed manner to communicate with each other. Power control can also be used to minimize the probability of link outage, reduce the transmit power required to obtain a given quality of service (QoS), and maximize the QoS of each user or the aggregate QoS of the network. In IEEE 802.11 standard which is the main protocol in wireless ad hoc networks, users send data and control packets with maximum power. Consequently, power control for reducing interference or power consumption has been neglected. Although various power control schemes have been proposed for wireless ad hoc networks, they usually require that control packets be exchanged between users. These schemes have been studied as per their effects on layers above the physical layer. Power control affects the performance of different layers. Power control at the physical layer maintains the signal-tointerference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) on the link above a required threshold, and achieves a certain QoS [1]. It has a significant impact on the protocols above the physical layer. Protocols for accessing the network can be made more efficient and in a distributed manner by utilizing power control [2]. The level of transmitter power defines the transmitter neighborhood and thus in turn defines the context in which access, routing and other higher-layer protocols operate. The power control will therefore play a key role in the development of efficient

networking protocols [3]. In this paper we will focus on power control in the physical layer. In a distributed power control scheme, users may not have detailed information about the status of other users. We focus on such schemes that do not require exchanging status information between users (in contrast to [4], in which users exchange pricing signals). Although it might be thought that distributed power control schemes in cellular networks are similar to ad hoc distributed power control schemes, in cellular networks users only exchange data and control packets via base station while in ad hoc networks each user is connecting to others directly without base station. So in ad hoc networks there is mutual effect of interference. Our network model is similar to that assumed in [5], which utilizes a combined power and transmission-rate control. Although the power control scheme in [5] solves a similar problem to that consider here, [5] assumes frequent updating and exchange of information between users via a flooding protocol, which we do not assume. Target tracking power control (TPC) and opportunistic power control (OPC) are two well known distributed power control algorithms for cellular wireless networks that do not need to exchange status information between users, and behave opposite to each other, as proposed in [6] and [7], respectively. In TPC, transmit power is an increasing function of interference, and the objective is to minimize the aggregate power consumption. A lower power is used when the channel is good. In OPC, transmit power is a decreasing function of interference, and the goal is to maximize the networks quality of service (QoS) that is usually an increasing function of SINR. In [8] and [9], the constraint opportunistic power control algorithm and the distributed constrained power control (DCPC) algorithm, are introduced. These algorithms in some aspects work better than OPC and TPC. We can also consider a hybrid TPC / OPC algorithm called TOPC as was proposed in [10]. In TOPC, when the channel is good (ratio of interference to path gain is lower than a threshold), TPC is utilized and when the channel is poor, OPC is employed. In this paper, we compare the performance of TPC, OPC and TOPC in wireless ad hoc networks in terms of different user-centric and network-centric performance criteria. Usercentric performance criteria include the achieved QoS, the consumed power and the achieved QoS per consumed power for each user. The aggregate of achieved QoS, the aggregate of

This work was supported in part by Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran, and in part by Iran Telecommunications Research Center, Tehran, Iran.

978-1-4244-5668-0/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE

consumed power, the aggregate of achieved QoS per consumed power, and the outage ratio, defined as the ratio of the number of non-supported users to the number of all users, are some network centric performance criteria. We also explain how TOPC can inherently mitigate jamming risks in wireless ad hoc networks as compared to TPC and OPC. This paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the system model. We review and implement existing distributed power control algorithms in Section III. Section IV contains simulation results of utilizing the existing distributed power control algorithms in ad hoc wireless networks, their and performance comparisons in terms of user-centric and networkcentric criteria. Conclusions are given in Section V. II. NETWORK MODEL An ad hoc wireless network is a collection of nodes that can communicate with each other over multi-hop wireless links. Let N:={1, , N} be the set of nodes, s be the source node, d be the destination node, and L:={1, , L} be the set of singlehop links between nodes. A sequence of connected single-hop links l L forms the route from node s with a dedicated transmitter to node d with a dedicated receiver. Consider a snapshot of such a network in which a spread spectrum signal is spread over the total bandwidth connecting fixed nodes and fixed single-path routing. In the snapshot, each user is either a transmitter or a receiver. So we consider users as transmitterreceiver pairs. We assume that the channel is time varying and is modeled as a stochastic stationary process for which, during the time-period of interest, the channel gain is constant. The channel gain between the transmitter-receiver pair i is hii and the channel gain between user i transmitter and user js receiver is hij [4]. The transmitted power for user i is pi and it is less than the maximum transmit power for the given user i. We define interference experienced by receiver i as Ii(p) = ji pjhji+i2 , where p = [p1,p2,,pm]T is the transmit power vector and i2 is the noise power at receiver i. The signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR) at receiver i is (1) i = pi hii p j h ji + i2 .

asynchronous cases, users power levels are not updated at the same time. In TPC, each user tracks its own predefined SINR, and the power updating function is i Ri (p(n)) (3) pi (n + 1) = min pimax ,

i is the target SINR of user i and Ri is obtained from where

(2). When the ratio of interference to path gain is increased, the power update algorithm in (3) results in an increased power. But this does not necessarily lead to a sufficiently improved QoS when the set of target-SIRs are infeasible, which drains the batteries, and increases interference to others [6]. In OPC, a user with a good channel transmits at a high power level, and the power updating function is i (4) pi ( n + 1) = min pimax , ( ( )) R p n i where i is a nonnegative constant called the target signalinterference product. In contrast to TPC, OPC does not guarantee a desirable SINRs for all users. Instead, the power updating algorithm in (4) significantly increases the aggregate QoS by transmitting at high power levels by users with good channels, and transmitting at low power levels by users with bad channels; and may lead to unfairness [7]. In addition, as OPC does not guarantee an average SINR, it is only suitable for non-real-time services that are tolerant to delay. In TOPC [10], either a target tracking or an opportunistic approach is used to adjust power levels, depending on whether the ratio of interference to path gain is lower or higher than a given threshold, respectively. Its power updating function is i Ri (n) if Ri (n) Rith (5) pi (n + 1) = th R ( n ) if R ( n ) R i i i i where Rith is the threshold for user i. To tune TOPC parameters in a distributed manner, the following formula is used (6) Rith = pimax i . For the power updating function of TOPC to be continuous, the parameters should satisfy the constraint Rith = i i . Users with poor channels operate in opportunistic region (reduce their transmit power as interference to path-gain ratio increases), thus favoring users with good channels, which is desirable in this case. When the set of target-SINRs is infeasible, TOPC has a lower outage ratio and each user consumes less energy compared to TPC. TOPC also improves the achieved QoS per transmit power for each user as compared to TPC. To implement these algorithms in ad hoc networks each user should be aware of its SINR i, and channel gain hii. SINR and hii can be measured at the receiver and fed back to the transmitter. IV. SIMULATIONS We consider an ad hoc network in a 1000m 1000m square area. Ten pairs of users (transmitter and receiver) are randomly placed with a uniform distribution and the corresponding receiver is randomly placed within a 600m

j i

( )

The interference to path gain ratio for user i, denoted by Ri is (2) Ri = p j h ji + i2 hii .

j i

This represents the channel status for the corresponding receiver, i.e. a higher interference and a lower path gain results in a higher Ri and vice versa. A QoS function for a given user i represents the degree of satisfaction for that user in using the resources. A QoS function is typically an increasing function of SINR [11]-[13]. We use the logarithmic function of SINR as the QoS function, i.e. qi(i)=log(1+i), which is proportional to channel capacity. A user is supported when its SINR is greater than a predefined target SINR value III. DISTRIBUTED POWER CONTROL ALGORITHMS It was shown in [6] and [7] that TPC and OPC converge in both synchronous and asynchronous cases. In synchronous cases, users update their power levels at the same time, and in

600m square centered on the transmitter, as shown Fig. 1. The path gain from transmitter i to receiver j is hij=10K/dij4 where K is a normally distributed random variable with mean 0 and variance 4 dB, which represents shadowing. The distance between transmitter i and receiver j is dij [4]. Each user start updating its power level from a random initial value, less than its maximum power, and updates its power level according to the selected power control algorithm. For OPC, we simulate the power updating function for scenarios, where OPC1

different user-centric and network centric criteria in spread spectrum ad hoc networks. Numerical results show that TOPC outperforms both TPC and OPC in terms of the chosen criteria.

= i i , while in OPC2, i is fixed (equal to 0.5) according to [7]. We simulate the network for 1000 different random snapshots, and average the results. Fig. 2 shows the average value of the networks aggregate QoS for each iteration Note that OPCs achieve a higher aggregate QoS, but is unfair to those users with bad channels. On the other hand, TOPC attains a higher aggregate QoS than TPC, but below those of OPCs. As expected, to improve the aggregate QoS, OPCs consume more power as compared to TPC and TOPC. Note that the TOPC results in the least aggregate power consumption, outperforms TPC in terms of the aggregate QoS with less aggregate power consumption. Average outage ratio versus target SINR is shown in Fig. 3. Note that a higher target SINR results in a higher outage ratio. This is because as the target SINR increases, it will be hard for power control algorithms to achieve desirable SINR, so more users may not be supported in the network. Note that the outage ratio for TOPC is less than those of OPCs and TPC. We also compare the performances of TPC, OPC, and TOPC in terms of average QoS, average power consumption, and average QoS per power consumption for each user. Again the results are the average values for 1000 snapshots. Fig. 4 shows that OPCs achieve a higher QoS for each user, and that OPC2 consumes more power. It also shows that TOPC consumes less power. TOPC can better mitigate the risk of jamming as compared to TPC and OPC. Jamming may be caused by some users employing OPC by increasing their power levels. By establishing a threshold, TOPC can prevent such cases. In a noisy environment caused by jamming, TPC increases power consumption by each user, which leads to a waste of available power. In a noisy environment, OPC can prevent a significant number of users from using the network. In contrast, TOPC mitigates such cases.
V. CONCLUSIONS We simulated the existing distributed algorithms for power control in cellular wireless networks in wireless ad hoc networks. In this way, we do not need to exchange pricing packets as it is the case for some existing power control algorithms devised for wireless ad hoc networks. Because of the differences between cellular wireless networks and ad hoc wireless networks, the algorithms that were devised for wireless cellar networks may act differently in ad hoc networks. It was shown that various algorithms devised for cellular wireless networks can also work satisfactorily in wireless ad hoc networks. We demonstrated this by comparing

updates its power with i according to Rith

( )

Fig.1. A Specific random topology of a wireless ad hoc network (transmitters are in gray and receivers are in white)

REFERENCES
M. S. Alouini and A.J. Goldsmith, Capacity of rayleigh fading channels under different adaptive transmission and diversity-combining techniques, IEEE Trans. Vehic. Tech., vol.48, no.4, pp. 116581, July 1999. [2] N. Bambos, Toward power-sensitive network architectures in wireless communications: concepts, issues, and design Aspects, IEEE Pers. Commun., vol.5, no.3, pp. 5059, June 1998. [3] V. Kawadia and P. R. Kumar, Principles and protocols for power control in wireless ad hoc networks, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 23, pp. 76- 88, Jan 2005. [4] J. Huang, R. A. Berry, and M. L. Honig, Distributed interference compensation for wireless networks, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 10741084, May 2006. [5] M. Chiang, Balancing transport and physical layers in wireless multihop networks: jointly optimal congestion control and power control, IEEE Journal on Selected Area in Communications, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 104116, Jan. 2006. [6] R. D. Yates, A framework for uplink power control in cellular radio systems, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1341-1348, Sept. 1995. [7] K. K. Leung and C. W. Sung, An opportunistic power control algorithm for cellular network, IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking, vol. 14, no. 3, June 2006. [8] M. Rasti and A. R. Sharafat, Constrained opportunistic power control International in wireless networks, Proceedings of 19th IEEE Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pp.1-4, Sept. 2008. [9] M. Rasti, A. R. Sharafat, and J. Zander, A distributed and efficient power control algorithm for wireless networks, Proceedings of 19th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pp.1-6, Sept. 2008. [10] M. Rasti and A. R. Sharafat, Less outage, less power, and prioritization: a selective target-SIR-tracking or opportunistic power control algorithm for wireless networks, submitted to IEEE/ACT Transactions on Networking, 2009. [11] V. Sirvastava, J. Neel, A. B. Mackenzie, R. Menon, L. A. Dasilva, J. E. Hicks, J. H. Reed, and R. P. Gilles, Using game theory to analyze wireless ad hoc networks, IEEE Communication Surveys and Tutorials, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 46-56, Fourth Quarter 2005. [1]

Average Outage Ratio

[12] C. U. Saraydar, N. B. Mandayam, and D. J. Goodman, Pricing and power control in a multicell wireless data network, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 18831892, Oct. 2001. [13] M. Chiang, C. W. Tan, D. P. Palomar, D. Oneil, and D. Julian, Power control by geometric programming, IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 26402651, July 2007. [14] M. Barbeau and E. Kranakis, Principles of Ad hoc Networking, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2007.

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 TPC OPC1 OPC2 UTOPC TOPC

30

Average Aggregate QoS

25
0.1

20 15

Fig.3. Average outage ratio versus target SINR for different algorithms.
3.5 3

10

15

20

10 5

Average QoS

TPC OPC1 OPC2 UTOPC TOPC

2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 TPC OPC1 OPC2 UTOPC TOPC

3 4 Iteration Number

(a)
20 18 Average Total Power Consumption 16 14 12
Average Power Consumption 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Users Index 7 8

5 6 Users Index

10

(a)

10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 4 Iteration Number TPC OPC1 OPC2 UTOPC TOPC 5 6

TPC OPC1 OPC2 UTOPC TOPC 9 10

Average Aggregate QoS/Average Total Power Consumption

(b)
3

(b)
Average QoS/Average Power Consumption 3 2.5

2.5

2 1.5

1.5

1 0.5

0.5

TPC OPC1 OPC2 TOPC UTOPC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Users Index 8 9 10

1 TPC

2 OPC1

3 OPC2

4 UTOPC TOPC

(c) Fig. 2. (a) Average aggregate QoS, (b) total power consumption, and (c) the ratio of aggregate QoS to thetotal power consumption for different algorithms.

(c) Fig. 4. (a) Average aggregate QoS, (b) total power consumption, and (c) QoS per power for each user for different algorithms.