Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
INTRODUCTION
1.1Introduction
In communication systems, aduplex communication system is a point-to-point
system composed of two connected parties or devices that can communicate
with one another in both directions, simultaneously. An example of a duplex
device is a telephone. The people at both ends of a telephone call can speak at
the same time; the earphone can reproduce the speech of the other person as
the microphone transmits the speech of the local person, because there is a
two-way communication channel between them.
Duplex systems are employed in many communications networks, either to
allow for a communication "two-way street" between two connected parties or
to provide a "reverse path" for the monitoring and remote adjustment of
equipment in the field.
Systems that do not need the duplex capability use instead simplex
communication in which one device transmits and the others just "listen."
Examples are broadcast radio and television, garage door openers, baby
monitors, wireless microphones, radio controlled models, surveillance cameras,
and missile telemetry. There are two types of duplex communications. They
are:
1. Half Duplex
2. Full Duplex
A half-duplex (HDX) system provides communication in both directions, but
only one direction at a time (not simultaneously). Typically, once a party begins
receiving a signal, it must wait for the transmitter to stop transmitting, before
replying (antennas are of trans-receiver type in these devices, so as to transmit
and receive the signal as well).
An example of a half-duplex system is a two-party system such as a walkietalkie, wherein one must use "Over" or another previously designated command
to indicate the end of transmission, and ensure that only one party transmits
at a time, because both parties transmit and receive on the same frequency.
A
full-duplex
(FDX),
or
sometimes
double-duplex
system,
allows
group
to
gain
understanding
of
the
actual
propagation
Since full-duplex relays require transmit and receive antennas that are
spatially separated, such relays are more suitable as infrastructure usage.
There are so many methods proposed to mitigate the loopback self interference
of Relays in full duplex communication. The previous approach used the
concept of time domain cancellation to mitigate the self interference; the main
drawback of this Time domain Cancellation is its blindness to the spatial
domain, e.g., low rank of channel matrix is not expected to result in better
isolation. Additionally, the scheme is sensitive to both channel estimation noise
and transmit signal noise. In fact, TDC adds a new signal in the relay input
whichmay
actually
lead
to
degraded
isolation
compared
to
pure
naturalisolation with high channel estimation noise. The one and only
advantageof time-domain cancellation is that it does not distort thedesired
signal or reduce the input and output dimensions of therelay.
1.4 Objective:
This work focuses on technical problemin full-duplex relaying: How to mitigate
the
loop
interferenceefficiently?For
investigating
and
comparing
several
1.5 Methodology:
In this work we set up a generic system model that explicitlyaccounts for the
loop interference, the relay processingdelay, and the imperfections of the side
informationexploited in the mitigation of loop interference. Thesespecifics are
important we summarize Natural isolation that is needed in order toavoid relay
receiver
saturation,
and
digital
MIMO
time-domaincancellation,
which
schemes
based
on
antenna
selection,
beam
provides
the
information
about
the
previously
used
design
methodologies for the mitigation of self interference and also gives the Newly
proposed mitigation algorithms.
Chapter5 gives the performance evaluation of the proposed approach and also
gives the comparison results between the proposed approach and previously
proposed approaches.
Finally chapter6 gives the conclusions of the work
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE OUTLINE
The literature on MIMO relaying can be classified as follows based on how the
self-interference problem is treated: 1) earlier papers, e.g., [1][11], consider
half-duplex relaying in which the loop interference is inherently avoided. Some
papers, e.g., [1][6], develop half-duplex protocols for the case in which the
direct source-destination link is blocked. Our results are directly applicable for
the full-duplex counterparts of these systems and enable more spectrallyefficient implementation once the loop interference is appropriately mitigated.
The other papers, e.g., [7][11], exploit the direct link as an extra diversity
branch. The direct link is orthogonal by design in the half-duplex mode
whereas the destination receives superposition of the direct and relayed
transmissions in the full-duplex mode. Also for these systems, the full-duplex
counterparts are feasible with proper signal separation in the destination.
2) Some information theory-oriented papers, e.g., [10][19], study various fullduplex relaying schemes without considering the deleterious effect of the loop
interference albeit otherwise presenting many seminal contributions. In
particular, these papers tend to provide minimal (if any at all) explanations and
references for the mitigation of the loop interference. Our results will support
this body of literature by providing validation and a retroactive reference for
a central baseline assumption not verified in detail before. 3) The smallest
group of earlier papers accounts explicitly for the effect of the loop interference
in
full-duplex
relaying.
The
early
results
consider
exclusively
single-
streamor
providing
suboptimal
solutions.
Moreover,
the
relay
signal
processing,and,
in
particular,
employ
multiantenna
to support the wireless link, or other mobile users that are selected to facilitate
the data transmission from the source to the destination. Relay communication
is also termed cooperative communication, which we use in this dissertation
without distinction.
From the network aspects, traditional wireless communication systems,
e.g., cellular mobile communication networks, are centralized. There, the
transmission
scenarios
are
point-to-point
(single
user),
one-to-many
cannot
achieve
in
many
practical
scenarios.
Relay
communication has drawn wide interests from both academia and industry
[35].
For
practical
systems,
we
summarize
the
advantages
of
relay
higher link reliability to the users [36,37], where multiple independently faded
signals from the source and the relay are combined at the destination.
Low costFuture cellular communication systems will move to higher frequency.
As a result, the coverage of each cell will shrink a lot compared to present
cellular communication systems. Building more base stations can be the
solution, but the cost of building those base stations will be very high. A lowcost alternative will be building relays to extend the coverage of each cell. Thus
relay communication provides low-cost solutions for future generation wireless
communication systems.
Infrastructure-less network: In traditional cellular networks, the whole
system operation depends on the centralized control, e.g., from the base
station. However, in military services or due to the disasters like earthquakes,
infrastructure-less networks such as ad hoc networks are preferable. Such
networks do not rely on a preexisting infrastructure such as dedicated routers
or base stations. Instead, each node participates in the routing by forwarding
data for other nodes. That is each node can act as a relay, and the choice of
relay nodes are determined dynamically based on the network connectivity.
Despite all those benefits that may be available by incorporating cooperative
communication into future wireless communication systems, there are also
challenges for implementing cooperative communications. Those challenges
include:
both eNodeB and UE. Therefore, the transmission duration would be half of the
time taken for one-way relaying.
Shared relaying is cost-saving as number of RNs to be deployed is reduced by
allowing the RN to be shared by three cells. Also, as mentioned in [38], shared
relay has advantage over one-way relaying compared to two-way relaying. This
is due to the interference that might occur during the simultaneous
transmissions of two-way relay, combining with the fact that the shared relay
itself has to handle the multiple signals from eNodeBs of the three adjacent
cells.
b) Shared relaying
Fig.2.2. Relaying strategies with frequency reuse of factor 6 where each cell is
divided into 6sectors. a) Frequency reuse pattern for one-way and twowayrelays deployed in one cell. b)Frequency reuse pattern for shared relay
deployed in 3 adjacent cells.
i.
Analog
repeater
which
repeats
transmit
signal
using
combination
real signalswith noise and interference. Thus, those undesired signals are also
amplified andretransmitted along with the original signals.
Another relaying strategy is decode-and-forward where the signals are decoded
bythe relay node, re-encoded and lastly forwarded to desired destination. In
this relayingstrategy, noise and interference are discarded from being
transmitted together with thereal signals but with the price of longer delay due
to decoding and re-encodingprocess. The relay structures can be categorized
into Layer 2 (L2) relay and Layer 3(L3) relay, depending on its function. The
transmissions involved can be both inbandand outband as well, as in L1 relay.
In the later chapters we will see the in brief about the relaying strategies.
CHAPTER 3
SYSTEM MODEL
Relaying, i.e., multihop communication, is a promisingtechnique to provide
lower transmit powers, higherthroughput and more extensive coverage in
future wirelesssystems. Likewise, single-hop multiple-input multiple-output
(MIMO) transmission has attracted wide research interest, andemerging
wireless systems utilize extensively MIMO techniquessuch as spatial division
multiplexing. Hence, if relaysare used, they need to be equipped with antenna
arrays aswell to avoid a key-hole effect, i.e., squashing multiple spatialstreams
through a rank-one device. This paper focuses on thecombination of MIMO and
relaying techniques and developsnew baseband signal processing techniques to
improve spectralefficiency.
An essential classification of relaying techniques is betweenfull-duplex and
half-duplex operation modes. In fact, the choiceof the operation mode is a
fundamental tradeoff between spectralefficiency and self-interference. A fullduplex relay receivesand transmits at the same time on the same channel.
Hence,spectrum resources are utilized efficiently but as a downside therelay is
subject to loop interference (LI) due to signal leakagefrom the relays
transmission to its own reception. The earlierliterature often pessimistically
sees this self-interference as aninsurmountable problem, and resorts to the
half-duplex modeby allocating separate time slots or frequency bands for
relayreception and transmission. This is a simple way to avoid interferenceby
splurging spectrum.
transmitand
equippedwith
receive and
in this special
case.
3.1.1. Signal Model
The signal model is built upon frequency-flat block-fadingchannels as in the
majority of related papers, see, e.g., [1][19],[25], [26], [28][30]. This implies
that the system exploits
, let matrices ,
and
which generates an output sample based on the sequence ofinput samples and
causes integer processing delay
delay
is
strictly
positive
because
we
consider
wideband
where
and
and in the destinations, respectively. Allsignal and noise vectors have zero
mean. Signal and noise covariancematrices are denoted by
, and
and
and
of
and
and
All elements of
and
and
such that
. The covariance
We assume that
in which
and
CHAPTER 4
MITIGATION OF LOOP INTERFERENCE
In migitation of loop interference in full duplex MIMO relays we first decouple
the mitigation of loop interferencefrom the design of the relaying protocol and
develop
solutionsthat
transform
equivalentinterference-free
the
relay.
relay
Here
to
an
and
represent the input and output dimensions (or the number of spatialstreams)
reserved for the relaying protocol.
The target is to make residual loop interference so infinitesimalthat it can be
regarded simply as additional relay inputnoise. Thus, we transform the signal
model from (2) to
where
vectors
and
of
the
equivalent
interference-freerelay
and
is
from
protocol, the relay may adopt,directly or after minor modifications, any of the
protocols designedfor cases without loop interference in [1][19]. However,the
system setup or the relaying protocol may still affect thechoice of
4.1 Reference Mitigation Schemes
and
the
line-of-sight.
For
this
purpose,
the
installationmay
exploit
. Measurements
show that naturalisolation is not often sufficient alone [20], [22], [34].
Hence,our study excludes the exceptional setups in which natural isolationis
large without any additional mitigation, e.g., a relaywith the receive array
placed outdoors and the transmit arrayproviding underground coverage in a
tunnel.
The first term includes the channel estimation error and thesecond term arises
due to the transmit signal noise. Cancellationcan only minimize the known
part of the first term by choosing
which results in
The main drawback of TDC is its blindness to the spatial domain,e.g., low rank
of
as shownby (13). In fact, TDC adds a new signal in the relay input whichmay
actually lead to degraded isolation compared to pure naturalisolation with high
channel estimation noise. The advantageof time-domain cancellation is that it
does not distort thedesired signal or reduce the input and output dimensions of
therelay, i.e.,
and
and MIMO
relatedas
and
Throughout
the
work,
we
normalizefilter
gains
to
with allschemes.
The equivalent receiver noise vector of the interference-free relay becomes
and
and
and
The optimal joint filter design is found by calculating theFrobenius norm for all
combinations and choosingthe lowest. Although one may easily
devise suboptimal methodsof lower complexity, only global search gives the
exact optimumin the general case. However, it is feasible because the numberof
antennas is in practice reasonably small.
Let us then consider the design of
).Now
not known (as in independent filter design) or not yet selected,one can
substitute
, :When
and
, is
minimized by selecting
Table 1
Algorithm for optimal joint beam selection
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Design
and
to select
rows and
columns of
as follows
all combinations pick only off-diagonal elements of . For this sub solution
=0.
Step2: To satisfy objective
smallest singular
values.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------if and
, and
, such singlecomparison is not sufficient for the optimal filter design that
issolved in the above paragraphs for different variations.
4.2.2) Beam Selection (BS):General (eigen)beam selection isbased on the
singular value decomposition (SVD) of
in which submatrices
and
as
to AS, but row and column selection isbased on the effective diagonal channel
instead of
Remark 3: Objective readily indicates that BS is superiorto AS. In (22) most row
and column combinations pickoff-diagonal elements
definition leadingto
elementsof
and such thatonly the SVD is calculated for each channel representation:
Theoptimal joint selection is obtained with the algorithm given inTable I.
If , Step 2 is omitted andBS reduces to null-space
projection discussed in the next section.On the other hand, separate and
independent filter designsapply only Step 2 for all
Let us assume that
in thefollowing. One
in which
and
, and
translates (22) to
For the general case, this shows that BS may cause residual loopinterference
even if the side information is perfect. In the nextsection, this motivates to
consider the special cases of beam selectionthat ideally eliminate all
interference.
Example 2: Compared to our general BS solution, the schemeof [28] is not only
suboptimal but also limited to the specialsymmetric case of
: The beams areselected by
and
in which is anzero
matrix andI is an
smallest
This is larger than (24) obtained with (23) because the schemedoes not exploit
the possibility to suppress interference by kicking the off-diagonal elements of
in Step 1. The suboptimalitycan be also interpreted to be the consequence
ofindependent filter design instead of joint design.
4.2.3) Null-Space Projection (NSP): Next we develop spatialsuppression
schemes that can eliminate all loop interference inthe ideal case with perfect
side information similarly to TDC.This is desirable when the loop interference is
dominating butAS or general BS does not offer sufficient attenuation.
In null-space projection,
and
to eliminate the known part of the first term in (16). Similarly,for suppressing
the transmit signal noise, the condition becomes
, partly eliminating
and
and
Firstly, atotal of
Thus,
input
and
output
beams maycorrespond to the same singular values after Step 2 and still, i.e.
, satisfying also the condition in(26). This proves that
the BS algorithm results in null-spaceprojection whenever
and
is rank deficient,
is of full rank in practicedue to the estimation noise which also causes residual
loop
interference.Thereby,
the
condition
in
(27)
can
be
alternatively
rounded to zero.
Remark 4:
For the case
is minimized
(full
rank),
or
by
selectingor
when
(minimum rank).
Choosing
is unique,
separately given
If
and
above with
and
, respectively.
Example 3:The scheme of [27] is limited to the simple specialcase of
and
guaranteed directly by
and
When
is
optimal
filter
design,
solved
in
the
above
or by
should be in
Joint design solutions satisfying the NSP condition in (26)are not unique in
most cases. For example, Step 1 in the optimaljoint BS algorithm allows to
choose rows and columns in differentways. Furthermore, general BS inherits
the same propertyexcept that the subsolution picking the nonzero diagonal
valuesof
cost can be done based on any other performance criterionas illustrated by the
next example.
Example
4:
The
scheme
of
[26]
is
limited
to
the
case
of
guaranteed
, or by
recognized in [26],also
either
by
, . Although not
, can be used if
and
(29)
Inwhich
given
condition for null-space projection givenin (26). Therefore, the evident order for
joint filter design isto firstly minimize interference at the transmit side using
anyscheme, and then secondly design the receive filter using (30).
4.2.5) Combining Cancellation and Spatial Suppression:
Time-domain cancellation suffers from residual interferencethat is due to the
transmit signal noise, while spatial suppressionmay need many extra antennas
for efficient mitigation. Hence,the combination could offer high isolation with
conservativenumber of antennas in the presence of transmit signal noise.
Combining
yields
the
residual
interference
channel
given
by
Chapter5
Results
In this chapter, the performance evaluation of the proposed method is going to
be discussed. There is also discussion about the comparison results of the
proposed approach with the previously proposed approaches.. In the
simulations, all channels aremodeled with Rayleigh fading and the transmitted
signals areassumed to be spatially white with unit power per stream. The relay
receiver noise is white andGaussian with, and imperfect side information
usedin mitigation is generated as explained in above chapter.
selected path for Communication
30
7
11
25
4
6
3
20
1
12
15
8
2
13
10
10
14
15
9
10
15
20
25
30
0.5
natural isolation
TDC(.02,.02)
NSP(.02,.02)
TDC(0,.02)
NSP(0,0.02)
TDC(.02,0)
NSP(.02,0)
half duplex
0.45
0.4
0.35
BER
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
8
10
12
P?natural[db]
14
16
18
20
1
3x4:0.94
2x4:1.88
3x3:2.20
1x4:3.25
2x3:3.63
2x2:5.75
1x3:6.18
1x2:10.05
1x1:22.63
0.9
0.8
0.7
F1?P(x)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
6
8
10
antenna selection AS
12
14
16
1
3x4:3.06
2x4:7.37
3x3:7.86
1x4:21.81
2x3:23.57
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
8
x[db]
10
12
14
16
45
NSP,2x4
NSP,3x4
NSP,3x3
NSP,2x4
NSP,3x3
TDC,4x4
BS,3x3
BS,2x4
BS,3x3
BS,2x4
BS,3x4
BS,3x4
BS,3x4
40
35
??P1 [db]
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
?H
45
NSP,4x3
NSP,4x4
NSP,3x4
TDC,3x3
BS,4x4
BS,4x3
BS,4x4
BS,3x4
BS,4x3
BS,3x4
40
35
30
??P1 [db]
F1?P(x)
0.6
25
20
15
10
5
0
5
et
1
BS(3):5.04
BS(2):8.15
MMSE(3):8.77
MMSE(2):14.76
TDC(1):25.20
TDC(2):25.30
TDC(3):25.34
MMSE(1):40.20
NSP(1):40.52
0.9
0.8
0.7
F1?P(x)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
x[db]
12
14
16
18
20
1
BS(4):7.80
BS(3):11.56
TDC(1):25.25
TDC(2):25.32
TDC(3):25.35
TDC(4):25.36
NSP(2):29.67
both(4):34.49
both(3):34.49
both(2):34.49
both(1):36.81
NSP(1):40.51
0.9
0.8
0.7
F1?P(x)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
x[db]
12
14
16
18
20
1
AS,3x4(3):1.29
AS,3x4(2):1.62
AS,4x4(4):2.20
AS,4x4(3):2.57
BS,3x4(3):5.04
BS,3x4(2):8.12
BS,4x4(4):7.86
BS,4x4(3):11.87
0.9
0.8
0.7
F1?P(x)
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10
x[db]
12
14
16
18
Chapter6
CONCLUSION
Full-duplex MIMO relaying has large potential for spectrallyefficient wireless
transmission. In this work, we concentratedon solving the main associated
technical problem, i.e., the mitigationof relay self-interference. We extended the
earlier SISOcancellation schemes for the MIMO relay case and proposednew
solutions that suppress the interference in the spatial domain:antenna and
beam selection, null-space projection, andMMSE filtering. We also discussed
the issues that need to beconsidered when combining cancellation and spatial
suppression.Errors in the side information used for mitigation wereidentified as
the practical limitation to prevent complete interferenceelimination obtainable
in the ideal case. However, oursimulations illustrated that the proposed
schemes offer significantmitigation such that the residual interference may be
regardedas mere additional noise.
References:
[1] C.-B.Chae, T. Tang, R. W. Heath, Jr, and S. Cho, MIMO relaying withlinear
processing for multiuser transmission in fixed relay networks,IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 727738, Feb. 2008.
[2] R. Zhang, C. C. Chai, and Y.-C. Liang, Joint beamforming andpower
control for multiantenna relay broadcast channel with QoSconstraints, IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 726737,Feb. 2009.
[3] B. K. Chalise and L. Vandendorpe, MIMO relay design for multipoint-tomultipoint communications with imperfect channel state information,IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 27852796,Jul. 2009.
[4] Y. Rong, X. Tang, and Y. Hua, A unified framework for optimizinglinear
nonregenerative multicarrier MIMO relay communication systems,IEEE Trans.
Signal Process., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 48374851,Dec. 2009.
[5] C. Li, X. Wang, L. Yang, and W.-P. Zhu, A joint source and relaypower
allocation scheme for a class of MIMO relay systems, IEEETrans. Signal
Process., vol. 57, no. 12, pp. 48524860, Dec. 2009.
[6] Y. Huang, L. Yang, M. Bengtsson, and B. Ottersten, A limited feedback
joint precoding for amplify-and-forward relaying, IEEE Trans.Signal Process.,
vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 13471357, Mar. 2010.
[7] O. Muoz-Medina, J. Vidal, and A. Augustin, Linear transceiver designin
nonregenerative relays with channel state information, IEEETrans. Signal
Process., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 25932604, Jun. 2007.
theorems for relay networks, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51,no. 9, pp. 3037
3063, Sep. 2005.
[17] Z. Zhang and T. M. Duman, Capacity-approaching turbo coding
anditerative decoding for relay channels, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 53,no.
11, pp. 18951905, Nov. 2005.
[18] Y. Liang, V. V. Veeravalli, and H. V. Poor, Resource allocation forwireless
fading relay channels: Max-min solution, IEEE Trans. Inf.Theory, vol. 53, no.
10, pp. 34323453, Oct. 2007.
[19] V. R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, Degrees of freedom of wireless networks
with relays, feedback, cooperation, and full duplex operation,IEEE Trans. Inf.
Theory, vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 23342344, May 2009.
[20] W. T. Slingsby and J. P. McGeehan, Antenna isolation measurements
for on-frequency radio repeaters, in Proc. 9th Int. Conf. AntennasPropag., Apr.
1995, vol. 1, pp. 239243.
[21] H. Hamazumi, K. Imamura, N. Iai, K. Shibuya, and M. Sasaki, Astudy of a
loop interference canceller for the relay stations in an SFNfor digital terrestrial
broadcasting, in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun.Conf., Nov. 2000, vol. 1.
[22] C. R. Anderson, S. Krishnamoorthy, C. G. Ranson, T. J. Lemon, W.
G.Newhall,
T.
Kummetz,
and
J.
H.
Reed,
Antenna
isolation,
and
channel
estimator
for
on-channel
repeaters
inDVB-T/H
networks, IEEE Trans. Broadcasting, vol. 53, no. 3, pp.609618, Sep. 2007.
[24] D. W. Bliss, P. A. Parker, and A. R. Margetts, Simultaneous transmission
and reception for improved wireless network performance, inProc. IEEE 14th
Workshop on Statist. Signal Process., Aug. 2007.
[25] A. Hazmi, J. Rinne, and M. Renfors, Diversity based DVB-T indoorrepeater in slowly mobile loop interference environment, in Proc. 10thInt.
OFDM-Workshop, Aug.Sep. 2005.
[26] H. Ju, E. Oh, and D. Hong, Improving efficiency of resource usagein twohop full duplex relay systems based on resource sharing andinterference
cancellation, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no.8, pp. 39333938,
Aug. 2009.
[27] B. Chun, E.-R. Jeong, J. Joung, Y. Oh, and Y. H. Lee, Pre-nulling forselfinterference suppression in full-duplex relays, in Proc. APSIPAAnn. Summit
and Conf., Oct. 2009.
[28] P. Larsson and M. Prytz, MIMO on-frequency repeater with selfinterferencecancellation
and
mitigation,
in
Proc.
IEEE
69th
Veh.
[30] Y. Y. Kang and J. H. Cho, Capacity of MIMO wireless channel withfullduplex amplify-and-forward relay, in Proc. IEEE 20th Int. Symp.Pers., Indoor
and Mobile Radio Commun., Sep. 2009.
[31] J. Ma, G. Y. Li, J. Zhang, T. Kuze, and H. Iura, A new couplingchannel
estimator for cross-talk cancellation at wireless relay stations,in Proc. IEEE
Global Commun. Conf., Dec. 2009.
[32]
T.
Riihonen,
S.
Werner,
and
R.
Wichman,
Spatial
loop
loop-back
interference
channels
for
outdoor-to-indoor
cooperation
diversity-Part
II:
Implementation
aspects
and
performanceanalysis, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 51, no. 11, pp. 19391948,
Nov. 2003
[38]. Peters, S.W., Panah, A.Y., Truong, K.T., Heath Jr., R.W.: Relay
Architectures
for
3GPPLTE-Advanced.
EURASIP
Journal
on
Wireless