Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
6, AUGUST 2004
1089
I. INTRODUCTION
Manuscript received July 15, 2003; revised February 1, 2004. This work was
supported in part by funds from National Semiconductor.
S. Cui and A. J. Goldsmith are with the Wireless System Laboratory, Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9515
USA (e-mail: shuguang@wsl.stanford.edu; andrea@wsl.stanford.edu).
A. Bahai is with National Semiconductor, Santa Clara, CA, 95051, USA, and
also with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9515 USA (e-mail: bahai@stanford.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/JSAC.2004.830916
[1] that multi-inputmulti-output (MIMO) systems can support higher data rates under the same transmit power budget
and bit-error-rate performance requirements as a single-input
single-output (SISO) system. An alternative view is that for
the same throughput requirement, MIMO systems require
less transmission energy than SISO systems. However, direct
application of multiantenna techniques to sensor networks is
impractical due to the limited physical size of a sensor node
which typically can only support a single antenna. Fortunately,
if we allow individual single-antenna nodes to cooperate on information transmission and/or reception, a cooperative MIMO
system can be constructed such that energy-efficient MIMO
schemes can be deployed.
Energy-efficient communication techniques typically focus
on minimizing the transmission energy only, which is reasonable in long-range applications where the transmission energy
is dominant in the total energy consumption. However, in
short-range applications such as sensor networks where the
circuit energy consumption is comparable to or even dominates
the transmission energy, different approaches need to be taken
to minimize the total energy consumption. Here, the circuit
energy consumption includes the energy consumed by all the
circuit blocks along the signal path: analog to digital converter
(ADC), digital to analog converter (DAC), frequency synthesizer, mixer, lower noise amplifier (LNA), power amplifier, and
baseband DSP. Some joint energy-minimizing techniques have
been proposed for SISO systems in [2][6], where multimode
operation with optimized system parameters is investigated.
This problem becomes more significant in MIMO systems since
the circuit complexity of MIMO structures is much higher
than that of SISO structures and it is not clear whether MIMO
systems are more energy-efficient than SISO systems due to the
high circuit complexity associated with the MIMO structure.
In this paper, we first model the energy consumption of
simple MIMO systems and compare the value with that of reference SISO systems under the same throughput and bit-error
rate (BER) requirement. The energy efficiency is compared
over different transmission distances. We assume that Alamouti
diversity codes are used for the MIMO systems. For the rest
of this paper, unless otherwise stated, all the statements about
MIMO systems are referring to the ones coded with Alamouti
diversity codes. We fist consider binary phase-shift keying
(BPSK)-based systems, where we show SISO systems may be
more energy-efficient than MIMO systems when transmission
distance is short. We then show that if we allow the constellation
size to be optimally chosen, the energy efficiency of MIMO
systems can be dramatically increased. For the data transfer
in sensor networks, we show that if we allow the cooperation
1090
IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 22, NO. 6, AUGUST 2004
Fig. 1.
CUI et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENCY OF MIMO AND COOPERATIVE MIMO TECHNIQUES IN SENSOR NETWORKS
1091
TABLE I
SYSTEM PARAMETERS
per bit for both the MISO system and the reference SISO system
according to (1) and (4). Thus, we can obtain
(9)
1092
IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 22, NO. 6, AUGUST 2004
Fig. 4. Total energy consumption per bit over d, MISO versus SISO.
Fig. 5.
with the 2 1 MISO system under the same performance requirement. However, since the circuit energy consumption dominates the transmission energy when is small, and the extra
receiver branch in the 2 2 MIMO adds more circuit energy
consumption than in the 2 1 MISO, as shown in Fig. 7 the
critical distance below which SISO is more energy-efficient is
even larger than the MISO case.
C. Variable-Rate Systems
So far we have compared the performance between the
MIMO and SISO systems under a fixed-rate assumption, where
the data rate is 10 kb/s and the modulation scheme is BPSK.
We have shown that SISO can beat MIMO in terms of energy
efficiency for short-range applications. However, for a data network the traffic is usually bursty and the data is communicated
bits in the
on a packet-by-packet basis. Suppose we have
transmitter buffer, and we have a deadline to finish the transmission of these bits. It has been shown in [4] that the optimal
Fig. 6.
Total energy consumption (bound) per bit over d, MISO versus SISO.
CUI et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENCY OF MIMO AND COOPERATIVE MIMO TECHNIQUES IN SENSOR NETWORKS
1093
time
where
is defined by the target BER and the underlying
constellation size according to the following relationship [7]
(11)
for
and
(12)
, where
and
.
for
For simplicity, here we use the error probability formula for
MQAM with square constellations (when the value of is
for all the
an even number [7]) to approximate the
cases. The introduced error when is odd is negligible for
our purpose.
case we can apply the Chernoff bound to
For the
obtain
as shown
(13)
2 1.
1094
Fig. 9.
IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 22, NO. 6, AUGUST 2004
Fig. 11. Total power consumption over d, the optimized system versus the
unoptimized system.
TABLE II
OPTIMIZED CONSTELLATION SIZE (MISO VERSUS SISO)
TABLE III
OPTIMIZED CONSTELLATION SIZE (MIMO VERSUS SISO)
Fig. 12. Information flow in a sensor network.
in Fig. 11. This increased power consumption may not be desirable in some peak-power limited applications.
III. MIMO WITH MULTINODE COOPERATION
Fig. 10.
CUI et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENCY OF MIMO AND COOPERATIVE MIMO TECHNIQUES IN SENSOR NETWORKS
1095
(15)
where
is the total number of symbols
the constellation size (bits per symbol) used
received with
in the Alamouti code.
The total delay required is defined as the total transmission
delay. For a fixed transmission bandwidth , we assume the
. For the noncoopsymbol period is approximately
is given as
erative approach, the total delay
(16)
where is the constellation size used by node . For the MIMO
approach, the total delay
includes both the local transmission delay and the long-haul transmission delay. Accordis given by
ingly,
(17)
where and are the constellation sizes used during the local
transmission on the Tx side and the Rx side, respectively. The
first and the third terms in the total delay are the local delay
values contributed by the Tx side and the Rx side, respectively,
and the second term is the delay caused by the long-haul MIMO
transmission.
m,
To give numerical examples, we assume that
kHz,
, and all the transmitting nodes have the same
kb. We will discuss the
number of bits to transmit, i.e.,
MISO, SIMO, and MIMO cases in more detail below.
A. MISO Case
We first consider the case where only transmitter cooperation
and
. The total
is allowed. For simplicity, we set
energy consumption of the MISO approach and the noncooperative approach is plotted over the long-haul transmission distance
1096
IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 22, NO. 6, AUGUST 2004
Fig. 14.
Fig. 15.
Fig. 16.
CUI et al.: ENERGY-EFFICIENCY OF MIMO AND COOPERATIVE MIMO TECHNIQUES IN SENSOR NETWORKS
Fig. 19.
1097
IV. CONCLUSION
Fig. 18.
C. MIMO Case
We finally consider the case where cooperation on both sides
and
. The total energy consumpis allowed with
tion of the MIMO approach and the noncooperative approach
is drawn over the long-haul transmission distance in Fig. 17.
Since the MIMO structure involves more local energy consumption compared with the MISO or SIMO structure, the threshold
distance above which MIMO becomes more energy-efficient is
increased. However, since MIMO requires less transmission energy for the long-haul transmission, the total energy consumption will become smaller compared with MISO or SIMO when
is large enough. The total energy consumption values of MIMO
and MISO are drawn over in Fig. 18, where we see that MIMO
becomes more energy-efficient than MISO when the distance is
larger than 100 m for this example. The delay performance of
MIMO is drawn in Fig. 19. Similar to MISO and SIMO cases, a
sweet window also exists where we can reduce both energy and
delay.
1098
IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 22, NO. 6, AUGUST 2004
[8] S. Alamouti, A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless communications, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 16, pp. 14511458,
Oct. 1998.
[9] T. H. Lee, The Design of CMOS Radio-Frequency Integrated Circuits,
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1998.
[10] M. Steyaert, B. De Muer, P. Leroux, M. Borremans, and K. Mertens,
Low-voltage low-power CMOS-RF transceiver design, IEEE Trans.
Microwave Theory Tech., vol. 50, pp. 281287, Jan. 2002.
[11] S. Willingham, M. Perrott, B. Setterberg, A. Grzegorek, and B. McFarfrequency synthesizer with 5 s setland, An integrated 2.5 GHz
tling and 2 Mb/s closed loop modulation, in Proc. ISSCC 2000, 2000,
pp. 138139.
[12] P. J. Sullivan, B. A. Xavier, and W. H. Ku, Low voltage performance
of a microwave CMOS Gilbert cell mixer, IEEE J. Solid-Sate Circuits,
vol. 32, pp. 11511155, July 1997.
[13] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization. Cambridge,
U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2003.
61
Andrea J. Goldsmith (S90M93SM99) received the B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from University of California, Berkeley,
in 1986, 1991, and 1994, respectively.
She was an Assistant Professor in the Department
of Electrical Engineering at California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, from 1994 to 1999. In 1999,
she joined the Electrical Engineering Department
at Stanford University, Stanford, CA, where she is
currently an Associate Professor. Her industry experience includes affiliation with Maxim Technologies,
Santa Clara, CA, from 1986 to 1990, where she worked on packet radio and
satellite communication systems, and with AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel,
NJ, from 1991 to 1992, where she worked on microcell modeling and channel
estimation. Her research includes work in capacity of wireless channels and
networks, wireless information and communication theory, multiantenna
systems, joint source and channel coding, cross-layer wireless network design,
communications for distributed control, and adaptive resource allocation for
cellular systems, ad hoc wireless networks, and sensor networks.
Dr. Goldsmith is the Bredt Faculty Development Scholar at Stanford University and a recipient of the Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship, the National Academy
of Engineering Gilbreth Lectureship, a National Science Foundation CAREER
Development Award, the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award,
a National Semiconductor Faculty Development Award, an Okawa Foundation
Award, Stanfords Terman Faculty Fellowship, and the David Griep Memorial
Prize from U.C. Berkeley. She was an Editor for the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
COMMUNICATIONS from 1995 to 2001 and has been an Editor for the IEEE Wireless Communications Magazine since 1995. She is also an Elected Member of
Stanfords Faculty Senate and the IEEE Board of Governors.
Ahmad Bahai (S91M93) received the M.S. degree from Imperial College, University of London,
London, U.K., in 1988 and the Ph.D. degree from
University of California at Berkeley in 1993, all in
electrical engineering.
From 1992 to 1994, he worked as a Member of
Technical Staff in the Wireless Communications
Division of TCSI Corporation, Berkeley, CA. He
joined AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, in
1994, where he was Technical Manager of Wireless
Communication Group in Advanced Communications Technology Laboratory until 1997. He was involved in research and
design of several wireless standards such as PDC, IS-95, GSM, and IS-136
terminals and base stations, as well as ADSL and cable modems. He is one
of the inventors of multicarrier CDMA (OFDM) concept and proposed the
technology for high-speed wireless data systems. He was the Cofounder and
Chief Technical Officer of ALGOREX Inc., San Francisco, CA, and currently
is a Fellow and the Chief Technologist of National Semiconductor, Santa Clara,
CA. He is an Adjunct/Consulting Professor at Stanford University, Stanford,
CA, and University of California at Berkeley. He is the author of more than 50
papers and reports. He is the author of Multi-Carrier Digital Communications
(Norwell, MA: Kluwer, 1999). He holds five patents in communications and
signal processing field. His research interest includes adaptive signal processing
and communication theory.
Dr. Bahai was an Editor of the IEEE COMMUNICATION LETTERS.