Packet acquisition for time-frequency hopped
asynchronous random multiple access
The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share
how this access benefits you. Your story matters.
Hoang Nguyen, and F.J. Block. “Packet Acquisition for TimeFrequency Hopped Asynchronous Random Multiple Access.”
Global Telecommunications Conference, 2009. GLOBECOM
2009. IEEE. 2009. 1-6. © Copyright 2009 IEEE
As Published
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
Final published version
Thu May 26 18:55:39 EDT 2016
Citable Link
Terms of Use
Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy
and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the
publisher's site for terms of use.
Detailed Terms
Packet Acquisition for Time-Frequency Hopped
Asynchronous Random Multiple Access
Hoang Nguyen
Frederick J. Block
Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lexington, MA 02420
Abstract— Packet acquisition for a time-frequency hopped
asynchronous random multiple access (RMA) system is investigated. A novel analytical approach to performance evaluation
is provided, which enables the waveform designer to quickly
evaluate the network performance as various waveform design
and RMA protocol parameters and are chosen. The results
show that the network throughput is estimated and upperbounded by the acquisition performance. The performance evaluation procedure is broadly general, allowing for variations in
waveform parameters, network topology, network population
and population heterogeneity (in, e.g., rate, transmit power,
and medium access behavior). To illustrate the accuracy of the
analytical results, simulations are performed over a wide range
of waveform, RMA protocol and network parameters.
Random multiple access (RMA) allows members of a
network to transmit data packets at nondeterministic and uncoordinated times. This medium access methodology can achieve
low latency and simplify network management. Well known
examples of RMA protocols are the Aloha [1]–[3], time-slotted
Aloha [4] and carrier-sense multiple access [5]. RMA also
permits time and frequency hopping to be incorporated into the
physical-layer structure of the packet to provide over-the-air
security, frequency diversity, and protection from interferences
[6]–[8]. RMA can also be used with code division multiple
access (CDMA) [9] and frequency hopped CDMA [10].
Existing performance results for RMA protocols rely on
simplifying assumptions, such as infinite-population and Poisson traffic process [1]–[3]. In [9], a broader simplification
is made by assuming a Poisson traffic process in a finitepopulation network where each user transmits packets at a
given rate and is subject to a brick-wall collision model.
Although such an analysis provides a simple performance
approximation, practical situations fail to uphold the underpinning assumptions. For a finite-population network where
each user transmits at a non-negligible rate, it is not even
mathematically consistent to impose the Poisson traffic model.
Furthermore, when packets are sent at random times, the
receiver must first detect the arrival of each packet in order
to demodulate it. This suggests that the Aloha throughput
results of [1]–[3], for instance, implicitly assume that packet
acquisition is perfect regardless of the noise level and network
This work was supported by the Department of the Air Force under Contract
FA8721-05-C-0002. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and are not necessarily endorsed by the United
States Government.
offered load. However, as shown herein, packet acquisition
performance degrades as the offered load increases when
multiple access interference (MAI) is taken into account.
In this paper we determine analytically the impact of MAI
and noise on the acquisition performance by characterizing
the MAI occurring according to the time-frequency hopped
RMA protocol used. In [11], slot-synchronous random multiple access (SSRMA) is considered. Here, we investigate
asynchronous RMA (ARMA). Like in the SSRMA protocol,
each physical layer packet is divided into equal time segments called pulses; each pulse is transmitted in only one
frequency channel whereas a packet can be transmitted over
multiple frequency channels. However, the ARMA lifts the
slot-synchronous restriction, and packets from different users
are not assumed to be time-aligned at the receiver of interest.
Throughout the paper, p· [·] denotes probability mass function (PMF). For example, pA [a] is the PMF of A evaluated at
a and pA|B [a|b] is the conditional PMF of (A|B).
Consider a system in which each user independently transmits multi-pulse packets over Nf frequency channels. The
carrier frequency for each pulse is drawn pseudo-randomly
from the set of Nf frequencies. Each pulse is transmitted in
a pulse slot (PS) having a time duration longer than that
of the pulse, and the start time of the pulse in its PS is
pseudo-randomly determined. Thus, the pulses of a packet
follow a time-frequency hopping pattern. A packet addressed
to a particular receiver follows a particular hopping pattern
known a priori to the receiver. In addition, the ARMA protocol
considered herein adopts the following:
1) Each pulse consists of Ld chips of payload data, followed by L synchronization (sync) chips followed by
another Ld chips of payload data. The pulse length is
L̄ = 2Ld + L chips. The PS duration is Tw ≥ L̄ chips.
2) Two consecutive packets transmitted by the same node
are separated in time by a random number of idle
(non-transmit) pulse slots (IPS). For user u, denote this
random variable by Ψu ≥ 0 with PMF pΨu [ψ] =
Pr[Ψu = ψ], which controls the average packet rate
of the user. Random backoff time, a way to moderate
network load, is thus incorporated into Ψu .
3) The number of pulses per packet for user u is Nu ,
allowing the packet size to vary from user to user.
978-1-4244-4148-8/09/$25.00 ©2009
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2009 proceedings.
The pulse slots of a packet are connected but nonoverlapping time intervals, each of duration Tw and
allocated to exactly one pulse.
The packet structure can be such that the sync preamble (a
collection of pulses to be used for packet acquisition) precedes
the payload; in this case Ld in item 1) above is set to zero for
the sync pulses, and each payload pulse consists of L chips
of data. The analysis below covers this case as well. From
the perspective of each transmitter, this case is similar to the
SSRMA protocol considered in [11], except that it permits
random back-off and asynchronous packet arrivals.
Item 2) above permits any traffic process that can be
generated by a transmitter. For example, a node transmits
packets at equally spaced times when Ψu is deterministic, i.e.,
held fixed at some ψ0 ; then pΨu [ψ] = δ[ψ − ψ0 ], where δ[·]
is the Kronecker delta function. In addition, when packets are
sent back to back (no backoff time), ψ0 = 0. As another
example, if each PS following the end of a transmitted packet
is associated with a Bernoulli trial with success probability
p that a new packet begins in that PS, then Ψu admits the
geometric distribution (1 − p)ψ p, ψ ∈ {0, 1, 2, . . .}.
We investigate the acquisition performance of a particular
receiver when NI interfering users also transmit using the
same Nf carriers. For complexity considerations, the receiver
may choose to process only the first Nd ≤ N pulses in
determining the arrival time of a packet, where N denotes the
number of pulses per packet for the desired user. To acquire
a packet, the receiver must tune to all the frequencies that
are used to send the Nd pulses. The down converted received
signal is sampled at the chip rate (or higher) and shifted
through a buffer at the same rate. To investigate the acquisition
performance, we examine the observed signal at the time when
the packet arrives at the receiver of interest. That is, for the
k-th sync pulse (or the sync part of the k-th pulse when each
pulse carries payload data), the sampled observed signal is
represented by
rk = sk gk + vk + nk
for k = 1, 2, ..., N . In the above, sk = [sk,1 , sk,2 , ..., sk,L ]T
represents the sampled version of the transmitted sync pulse
known a priori to the receiver; the unknown complex scalar
gk represents the channel gain; vk = [vk,1 , vk,2 , ..., vk,L ]T
represents the total interfering signal at this particular time and
nk = [nk,1 , nk,2 , ..., nk,L ]T represents the background noise,
modeled as white Gaussian noise (WGN).
NI signal vk comes from the NI interfering users, i.e.,
vk =
u=1 s̃k,u gk,u , where s̃k,u represents the interfering
contribution from the u-th user and gk,u denotes the associated
channel gain. Clearly, s̃k,u is zero when the u-th user does
not interfere with the k-th pulse of the user of interest;
this situation arises when there is no overlap, in both time
and frequency, at the packet arrival time being considered.
However, s̃k,u contains some zero and some nonzero elements
when there is a collision in frequency and partial overlap in
time. When there is a total overlap, all elements of s̃k,u are
nonzero. A key part of the analysis is to analytically determine
the probability distribution of this overlap time.
Without loss of generality, we assume for convenience
that the transmitted pulses for all users have unit modulus.
Specifically, |sk,l | = 1 for all k, l. Each nonzero element
of s̃k,u also has magnitude 1. For all practical purposes,
sync sequences belonging to different pulses are assumed
independent, and each sync sequence is assumed white.
To determine the arrival time of a packet, at each chip time
the receiver tests the following hypotheses against each other:
H1 : rk = sk gk + vk + nk ,
H0 : rk = vk + nk
for k = 1, 2, ..., Nd . In the above, nk ∼ CN (0, Nk IL ), where
IL denotes the L × L identity matrix and Nk represents the
noise variance for the k-th pulse.
A. GLRT-vote detection rule
Consider the GLRT-vote detection rule described in [11],
where each sync pulse is detected individually using the
generalized likelihood ratio test (GLRT) [12] at each chip time.
If enough pulses are declared present by the GLRT, the packet
is declared present. Otherwise, the packet is declared absent.
This can be described as follows:
||Uk rk ||2 > α||(IL − Uk )rk ||2
dk =
0, otherwise
dk D
where Uk = L−1 sk sH
k . The threshold factor α can be
controlled to tradeoff between false-alarm and detection probabilities, and D is the vote threshold, which should be chosen
jointly with α to achieve a given packet false-alarm probability
and maximize the detection probability. When D = Nd /2,
(3.2) is a majority-vote decision rule.
The k-th pulse detection probability is Pdk = Pr[dk =
1|H1 ], and the packet detection probability is Pd = Pr[D ≥
D|H1 ]. The detector performance is usually characterized in
terms of the packet missed detection probability Pm = 1−Pd .
B. Probability of detection
The variables |gk |2 and Nk can be interpreted respectively
as the received signal chip energy and the noise power spectral
density by, without loss of generality, normalizing the chip
duration to one time unit. Since the Nk ’s are allowed to be
different and, as seen below, Pdk depends on |gk |2 only via the
ratio |gk |2 /Nk , it can be assumed without loss of generality
that the signal chip energy, denoted by Ec , is the same for all
the pulses of a packet, i.e., Ec = |g1 |2 = |g2 |2 = · · · = |gN |2 .
λk =
where Ep = LEc represents the sync pulse’s energy. It is
shown in [11] that for the WGN channel, the pulse detection
978-1-4244-4148-8/09/$25.00 ©2009
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2009 proceedings.
probability is
Pdk = 1 − F (α(L − 1); 2, 2(L − 1), λk )
where F (x; n, m, λ) is the cumulative distribution function
(CDF) of the noncentral F -distribution Fn,m (λ) evaluated at
x [13]. This function can be easily evaluated using computing
software packages such as Matlab.
When N1 = N2 = · · · = NNd (i.e., all pulses experience
the same background noise power), Pdk = Pd1 for all k =
1, 2, ..., Nd and the probability of packet detection is
D−1 Nd n
(1 − Pd1 )Nd −n .
Pd = 1 −
traffic generated by the u-th interfering user, and the packet
whose time span contains the AT of the DP becomes the IPac.
Then, the DP’s arrival time Θ falls in Aψ = {1, 2, ..., (Nu +
ψ)Tw } given Ψu = ψ. Since no particular arrival time should
be considered more likely than another, the AT of the DP is
uniform, i.e.,
, θ ∈ Aψ
pΘ|Ψu [θ|ψ] = (Nu +ψ)Tw
The case where the background noises in the pulses have
different power levels requires a simple generalization and is
treated in [11].
Let S and B be independent random variables respectively
admitting the uniform distributions
, 1 ≤ s ≤ Nu + ψ
pS|Ψu [s|ψ] = Nu +ψ
, 1 ≤ b ≤ Tw
pB [b] = Tw
C. Probability of false alarm
It is easy to verify that (Θ|Ψu ) admits the PMF (4.1) if
It is shown in [11] that the k-th pulse false-alarm probability
is independent of the noise power and is given by
Pfk = Pr[dk = 1|H0 ] = fT1−L ,
where fT = α + 1. The packet false-alarm probability is
Nd Nd
(1 − Pf1 )Nd −n . (3.7)
Pf = Pr[D ≥ D|H0 ] =
A. MAI characterization
We characterize the MAI to any particular desired pulse
(DP) transmitted at some particular frequency, say f0 for
brevity; a DP is defined as a pulse belonging to the desired
user. To this end, we examine how the DP is affected by
any interfering packet (IPac) from any particular interfering
user, say the u-th user. For consistency, the IPSs immediately
following a packet are associated with that packet as illustrated
in Fig. 1. The arrival time (AT) of a packet is defined as the AT
of the first chip position of the first PS of the packet. Given that
a packet is an IPac to the DP, the earliest and latest possible
ATs of the DP are, respectively, the AT of the IPac and the
last chip position of the last IPS (or the last chip position of
the last PS when Ψu = 0).1 For a given IPac, the number Tu
of overlapped chips between the u-th user and the DP’s sync
part depends only on the arrival time difference between the
DP and the IPac. Since all users transmit independently, it is
simple to see that Tu and Tv are independent for u = v by
choosing the DP’s AT as the reference and assigning to it an
arbitrary fixed value.
The objective in this subsection is to determine the PMF of
Tu . To do so, it is more convenient to choose the IPac arrival
time as the reference by assigning to it a value of 1. This is
analogous to saying that the DP is “thrown” randomly into the
1 Note that we will not ignore the fact that the first pulse of the packet
immediately following the IPac can interfere with the DP.
Θ = (S − 1)Tw + B .
Fig. 1 depicts a random realization in which Ψu = ψ and
S = s. Given S = s, there are two pulses that can interfere
with the DP: the left interfering pulse (LIP) which occurs in
the s-th PS and the right interfering pulse (RIP) which occurs
in the (s + 1)-th PS. When s = Nu + ψ, the RIP is the first
pulse of the packet transmitted immediately after IPac. If t1
and t2 are the arrival times of two pulses, then the number of
chips that the sync part of one pulse overlaps with the other
pulse in time (regardless of frequency) is
|Δt| ≤ Ld
Ω(|Δt|) = L + Ld − |Δt|, Ld < |Δt| < L + Ld (4.5)
L + Ld ≤ |Δt|
where Δt = t1 − t2 . The arrival time of the s-th pulse of the
IPac is (s − 1)Tw + As , where As is uniformly distributed as
determined by the time hopping pattern, i.e.,
, 1≤a≤T
pAs [a] = p[a] = T
0, otherwise
T = Tw − L̄ + 1 .
Similarly, the arrival time of the (s + 1)-th pulse of the
IPac is sTw + As+1 , where As+1 and As are i.i.d. since
different pulses are jittered independently. Let is denote a
binary random variable such that is = 1 when the s-th pulse
is transmitted at frequency f0 and is = 0 otherwise. Since all
frequencies are equally likely to be chosen to carry a pulse,
the PMF of is for a given s is determined by
k = 1, 1 ≤ s ≤ Nu
⎨ 1/Nf ,
pis [k] =
1 − 1/Nf , k = 0, 1 ≤ s ≤ Nu
k = 0, Nu < s.
Note that (4.8c) follows from the fact that during an IPS of
a packet, no pulse is transmitted. Let Tu− and Tu+ denote the
978-1-4244-4148-8/09/$25.00 ©2009
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2009 proceedings.
Fig. 1: Arrival time of the DP falls in the s-th PS of the u-th user’s interfering packet with Ψu = ψ. IPSs are labelled by 0i , i = 1, 2, ..., ψ.
number of interfering chips that the DP’s sync part receives
from the LIP and RIP, respectively. We have
(Tu− |S, B, iS , Ψu ) = iS Ω(|AS − B|)
(s + 1)-th pulse slots are IPSs, respectively; (4.16c) accounts
for the interference from the first pulse of the next packet when
the DP arrives during the last IPS of the IPac.
The number of interfering chips that the DP receives is
for 1 ≤ S ≤ Nu + Ψu . Also,
(Tu+ |S, B, iS+1 , Ψu )
Tu = Tu− + Tu+ .
= iS+1 Ω(Tw + AS+1 − B)
for 1 ≤ S ≤ Nu + Ψu − 1. For S = Nu + Ψu , the RIP is the
first pulse of the following packet, so
(Tu+ |S, B, ĩ1 , Ψu ) = ĩ1 Ω(Tw + Ã1 − B)
where ĩ1 and Ã1 have the same meanings and PMFs as
those of i1 and A1 , respectively, but for the first pulse of
the following packet.
To find the PMF of Tu , we first find the PMFs of Tu− and
Tu . Define the cumulative PMF of p[·], defined in (4.6), as
P [t] = Pr[As ≤ t] =
p[τ ] .
Since different pulses are jittered independently,
and Tu+
are independent given S and B. Therefore, the PMF of
(Tu |S, B, Ψu ) is
pTu |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] = (pTu− |S,B,Ψu ⊗ pTu+ |S,B,Ψu )[t|s, b, ψ]
where ⊗ denotes the discrete time convolution in the first
argument. Note that since the LIP and RIP occupy disjoint
/ {0, 1, 2, ..., L},
time intervals, pTu |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] = 0 for t ∈
so the last L elements of the convolution can be ignored.
Although pTu |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] is a 4-variate function, pTu [t]
can be evaluated using only several bi-variate functions. To
do this, define
p± [t|b] = (p− ⊗ p+ )[t|b] .
τ =1
Also define
p− [t|b] =
P [b+L+Ld −1]−P [b−L−Ld ]
⎪1 −
⎨ p[b+t−L−Ld ]+p[b−t+L+Ld ] ,
P [b+Ld ]−P [b−Ld −1]
1 − P [b+L+Ld −Tw −1] ,
⎪ p[b+L+Ld −TNwf−t]
p+ [t|b] = P [b+Ld −T
For s ∈ {1, 2, ..., Nu − 1}, pTu− |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] and
pTu+ |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] are constant over s and ψ, leading to
pTu |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] = p± [t|b] .
When ψ = 0, (4.20) holds also for s = Nu and
pTu |Ψu [t|ψ] = p± [t] =
1 p± [t|b] .
By averaging the PMFs of (Tu− |S, B, iS , Ψu ) and
(Tu+ |S, B, iS+1 , Ψu ) over is and is+1 , it is straightforward to
show that
p [t|b], 1 ≤ s ≤ Nu (4.15a)
pTu− |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] =
⎧ +
⎨ p [t|b], 1 ≤ s < Nu
pTu+ |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] =
δ[t], Nu ≤ s < Nu + ψ (4.16b)
⎩ +
p [t|b], s = Nu + ψ. (4.16c)
When ψ = 1, (4.15) and (4.16) yield
⎧ ±
⎨ p [t|b],
pTu |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] =
p− [t|b],
⎩ +
p [t|b],
1 ≤ s < Nu (4.22a)
s = Nu
s = Nu + 1,(4.22c)
which leads to
pTu |Ψu [t|ψ] =
(Nu − 1)p± [t] + p− [t] + p+ [t]
Nu + 1
1 p [t] =
p− [t|b]
Note that (4.15b) and (4.16b) come from the fact that there
is no interference from the LIP or the RIP when the s-th and
p+ [t] =
p+ [t|b] .
978-1-4244-4148-8/09/$25.00 ©2009
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2009 proceedings.
For any ψ > 1
⎧ ±
p [t|b], 1 ≤ s < Nu
⎨ p− [t|b], s = N
pTu |S,B,Ψu [t|s, b, ψ] =
⎪ δ[t], Nu < s < Nu + ψ
⎩ +
p [t|b], s = Nu + ψ,
leading to
pTu |Ψu [t|ψ] =
(Nu − 1)p± [t] + p− [t] + (ψ − 1)δ[t] + p+ [t]
Nu + ψ
where χ2 (w; k) is the χ2k PDF and ϕ is a fine-tuning parameter, 0.7 < ϕ 1 (see [11]). Similarly, for the case where the
interferers have different chip energies,
pΩ [ω]
χ2 (w; 2)
Pfk = 1 −
); 2, 2L − 2,
α(L − 1)(1 +
Nk L
Nk L
dw. (4.32)
The packet false-alarm probability can be evaluated as described in [11].
pTu |Ψu [t|ψ]pΨu [ψ] .
pTu [t] =
An estimate of the network throughput can be obtained.
Consider a single-hop network with only unicast traffic, i.e.,
The highest data dimensions encountered in computing (4.28)
each packet is intended for just one receiver. Let rv index
are (L + 1) × Tw , which are the spans of t and b, occurring
the receiver for which packets transmitted from user v are
in (4.13) and (4.14). Thus, the evaluation of (4.28) is straightintended. From the viewpoint of receiver rv , there are NI
forward and computationally inexpensive.
interfering users and user v is the desired user.
The total number of chipsthat the DP receives from all
Let Pd,v denote the packet detection probability for transNI
interfering users is To =
u=1 Tu . Since packets from
mitting user v at its intended receiver, rv . Let Pv,suc denote
different users arrive independently, the PMF of To is
the the probability that a packet from user v is successfully
(4.29) demodulated (decoded) at receiver rv . We have Pv,suc =
pTo [τ ] = (pT1 ⊗ pT2 ⊗ · · · ⊗ pTNI )[τ ] .
Pv,suc|det,H1 Pd,v where Pv,suc|det,H1 denotes the conditional
B. Probability of detection
probability that a packet is successfully demodulated given that
To evaluate the pulse detection probability, consider first the it is detected. For a properly designed system, Pv,suc|det,H1
case where all interfering users have the same chip energy, Ei . should be reasonably close to 1, so Pv,suc Pd,v , which
implies that the network throughput is upper-bounded by the
Using the analysis in [11], we have
packet acquisition performance. Let Tc denote the chip du
2L E
ration. The instantaneous packet duration is (Nv + Ψv )Tw Tc ,
pTo [t]F α(L − 1); 2, 2(L − 1), Ei −1
Pdk = 1−
resulting in the average packet duration T̄v,pac = E[(Nv +
(4.30) Ψ )T T ] = (N + Ψ̄ )T T , where Ψ̄ =
v w c
v w c
ψ ψpΨv [ψ]
The case where interferers have different chip energies can is the expected value of Ψ . Hence, the average packet rate
be treated with a straightforward generalization. Due to space
is Rv,pac = T̄v,pac
= [(Nv + Ψ̄v )Tw Tc ]−1 ≤ (Nv Tw Tc )−1 .
limitation, we describe it here only briefly by noting that the
If there are Kv information bits per packet, then the offered
noncentrality parameter now has the form λ̃k = Nk2LE
+Ω/L ,
of user v is Rv,pac Kv (the average transmit data rate).
where Ω = u eu Tu , with eu being the chip energy of user Thus, the throughput for user v, defined as the average rate of
u. The probability distribution pΩ [ω] of Ω can be obtained successful reception by node rv , is
directly from the PMFs of the Tu ’s. The result follows by
Rv,dat = Rv,pac Kv Pv,suc Rv,pac Kv Pd,v .
taking the expectation of F (·; ·, ·, λ̃k ) over pΩ [ω].
Assuming that MAI affects different pulses independently, Summing (5.1) over v gives, for the single-hop case, the
the packet detection probability is given by (3.5) when the network throughput
Nk ’s are equal, with Pd1 given by (4.30). This independence
Rv,dat Rdet =
Rv,pac Kv Pd,v .
Rdat =
assumption is expected to hold well for all practical purposes.
We verify it in Section VI by employing simulations to
We call Rdet the detection throughput (DTP). Inequality (5.2)
evaluate Pd directly.
shows that the DTP represents an upper bound to the throughC. Probability of false alarm
put. The closer is Pv,suc|det,H1 to 1, the tighter is the bound.
throughput is
If the interferers have the same chip energy Ei , the pulse For example, if Pv,suc|det,H1 = 1 − 10 , the false-alarm probability is well approximated by
within 0.1% of the bound. The offered load = v Rv,pac Kv
can be chosen (e.g., by varying the network population) such
that the throughput reaches the network capacity
pTo [t]
χ (w; 2)
Pfk = 1 −
Ei tw
ϕEi t
); 2, 2L − 2,
α(L − 1)(1 +
Nk L
Nk L
Cdat = max Rdat Cdet = max Rdet .
dw (4.31)
We refer to Cdet as the detection capacity (DCap).
978-1-4244-4148-8/09/$25.00 ©2009
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2009 proceedings.
Rdet = Npop Rpac K0 Pd (Npop ) ,
where Npop = NI + 1 and Pd (Npop ) as a function of Npop
is the packet detection probability which is the same for all
users. Dividing by the single-user offered load Rpac K0 we get
the normalized DTP (NDTP) and normalized DCap (NDCap)
rdet = Npop Pd (Npop )
cdet = max Npop Pd (Npop ) .
For all cases shown below, INR = NI Ei /N0 and Nk = N0
for all pulse index k. The pulse duty factor is δf = L̄/Tw .
Fig. 2 shows that the analytically calculated Pm agrees with
its simulated value. The behavior of the packet false-alarm
probability Pf as a function of the threshold fT is very similar
to that of the SSRMA case of [11] and, therefore, is not shown
Packet Pm
INR= 0dB,sim
INR= 0dB,theo
Ec/Ei (dB)
Fig. 3: Normalized detection throughput rdet as a function of
transmitting population Npop for a homogeneous network described
by eq. (5.5) with L = 32, Nu = N = 48, Nd = 16, D = Nd /4,
Ld = 0, Ep /N0 = 10 dB, Ec /Ei = 0 dB, pΨu [ψ] = δ[ψ − N/2],
Pf = 10−5 for the WGN channel, and δf = 0.1.
B. Relationship between DTP and offered load
Consider a homogeneous single-hop network, where all the
users are alike in every aspect. Suppose there are NI + 1
transmitting users generating unicast traffic to NI +1 receiving
(non-transmitting) nodes, each being addressed by exactly
one transmitting user and seeing NI interferers in addition to
its desired user. Examine the case where Ec /Ei and Ec /N0
stay the same for all receiving nodes, where N0 denotes the
background noise power spectral density. Let Rv,pac = Rpac
and Kv = K0 for all transmitting nodes. Then, Rdet in (5.2)
simplifies to
Fig. 2: ARMA packet missed detection probability evaluated by direct
simulations (sim) and by theoretical analysis (theo) for Nf = 4, L =
32, Nu = N = Nd = 12, NI = 7, δf = 0.2, D = Nd /4, Ld = 32,
and Pf = 10−5 for the WGN channel and pΨu [ψ] = δ[ψ − Nu /2].
Fig. 3 shows the NDTP given by (5.5) as a function of
transmitting population Npop . It is useful to note from the
figure that the NDCap is directly proportional to the number
of frequency channels. This suggests that the network capacity
is in general proportional to its total bandwidth. However, the
throughput at an offered load that guarantees a high quality of
service (low Pm ) is only sub-linear with the bandwidth.
We have developed an analytical method for quantifying the
performance of packet acquisition in a time-frequency hopped
RMA environment, accounting for all MAI, noise and partialband interference. The results readily provide an estimate for
and upper bound on the network throughput. We have verified
the analytical results with simulations.
[1] N. Abramson, “The ALOHA system – another alternative for computer
communications,” in Proc. AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conf., vol. 37,
pp. 281–285, 1970.
[2] N. Abramson, “The throughput of packet broadcasting channels,” IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. COM-25, pp. 117–128, Jan. 1977.
[3] R. Rom and M. Sidi, Multiple Access Protocols: Performance and
Analysis. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1990.
[4] L. Kleinrock and S. Lam, “Packet-switching in a slotted satellite
channel,” in Proc. AFIPS Nat. Comput. Conf., vol. 42, (Montvale, NJ),
pp. 703–710, 1973.
[5] L. Kleinrock and F. Tobagi, “Packet switching in radio channels:
Part I–carrier sense multiple-access modes and their throughput-delay
characteristics,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. COM-23, pp. 1400–1416,
Dec. 1975.
[6] C. F. B. Goitia, “A model of interference in frequency hopping wireless multiple access,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Electro/Info. Technol.,
pp. 631–634, May 2006.
[7] C. A. Putman, S. S. Rappaport, and D. L. Schilling, “A comparison
of schemes for coarse acquisition of frequency-hopped spread-spectrum
signals,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. COM-31, pp. 183–189, Feb. 1983.
[8] S. S. Koukourlis and J. N. Sahalos, “On the capacity of an FFH-CDMA
packet radio network,” IEEE Trans. Broadcasting., vol. 41, pp. 17–22,
Mar. 1995.
[9] E. Modiano, “A dynamic adaptive multi-receiver random access protocol
for the code division multiple access channel,” in Proc. IEEE Pers.
Indoor Mobile Radio Comm., vol. 2, (Toronto, Ont.), pp. 799 – 803,
27–29 Sept. 1995.
[10] J. B. Tarr, J. E. Wieselthier, and A. Ephremides, “Packet-error probability
analysis for unslotted FH-CDMA systems with error-control coding,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 38, pp. 1987–1993, Nov. 1990.
[11] H. Nguyen and F. J. Block, “Packet acquisition for time-frequency
hopped random multiple access,” in Proc. IEEE Milcom Conf., (San
Diego, CA), 17–19 Nov. 2008.
[12] B. C. Levy, Principles of Signal Detection and Parameter Estimation.
New York, NY: Springer, 2008.
[13] J. Shao, Mathematical Statistics. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag, 1999.
978-1-4244-4148-8/09/$25.00 ©2009
This full text paper was peer reviewed at the direction of IEEE Communications Society subject matter experts for publication in the IEEE "GLOBECOM" 2009 proceedings.

Packet acquisition for time-frequency hopped asynchronous random multiple access Please share