This Article 
   
 Share 
   
 Bibliographic References 
   
 Add to: 
 
Digg
Furl
Spurl
Blink
Simpy
Google
Del.icio.us
Y!MyWeb
 
 Search 
   
Access Strategies for Spectrum Sharing in Fading Environment: Overlay, Underlay, and Mixed
December 2010 (vol. 9 no. 12)
pp. 1780-1793
Mohammad G. Khoshkholgh, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran
Keivan Navaie, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran
Halim Yanikomeroglu, Carleton University, Ottawa
In this paper, we analyze the achievable capacity of the secondary service for overlay and underlay access strategies. We then propose a novel mixed access strategy in which in contrast to the underlay strategy, the secondary service transmits during the idle periods without considering the interference threshold constraint. In contrast to the overlay strategy, mixed strategy makes transmission during the busy periods with a probability p_a subject to satisfying the interference threshold constraint. Parameter p_a is a secondary service parameter, which can be adjusted based on the spectrum status. Moreover, we show that the secondary service can adjust p_a to select appropriate access strategy with the objective of maximizing the achieved capacity based on the interference at the secondary service receiver, I, imposed by the primary service transmitter. The proposed spectrum-sharing technique developed in this paper based on I significantly reduces the system complexity comparing to the system in which for spectrum sharing, the imposed interference at the primary receiver is required. We further suggest a simple power allocation scheme for the mixed strategy that its achieved capacity is very close to the maximum achievable capacity of the secondary service.

[1] J.M. Peha, “Approaches to Spectrum Sharing,” IEEE Comm. Magazine, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 10-12, Feb. 2005.
[2] S. Haykin, “Cognitive Radio: Brain-Empowered Wireless Communications,” IEEE J. Selected Areas in Comm., vol. 23, no. 2, pp.201-220, Feb. 2005.
[3] Q. Zhao and B. Sadler, “A Survey of Dynamic Spectrum Access: Signal Processing, Networking, and Regulatory Policy,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 79-89, May 2007.
[4] X. Liu and S.N. Shankar, “Sensing-Based Opportunistic Channel Access,” ACM J. Mobile Networks and Applications, vol. 11, no. 4, pp.577-591, Aug. 2006.
[5] R. Tandra, S.M. Mishra, and A. Sahai, “What Is a Spectrum Hole and What Does It Take to Recognize One?” Proc. IEEE, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 824-848, May 2009.
[6] “Spectrum Policy Taskforce Report,” technical report, Fed. Comm. Commission, http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ attachmatch DOC-228542A1.pdf, Nov. 2002.
[7] M. Gastpar, “On Capacity Under Receive and Spatial Spectrum-Sharing Constraints,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 471-487, Feb. 2007.
[8] S.A. Jafar and S. Srinivasa, “Capacity Limits of Cognitive Radio with Distributed and Dynamic Spectral Activity,” IEEE J. Selected Areas in Comm., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 529-537, Apr. 2007.
[9] A. Ghasemi and E.S. Sousa, “Fundamental Limits of Spectrum-Sharing in Fading Environments,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 649-658, Feb. 2007.
[10] G. Bansal, M.J. Hossain, and V.K. Bhargava, “Optimal and Suboptimal Power Allocation Schemes for OFDM-Based Cognitive Radio Systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 7, no. 11, pp.4710-4718, Nov. 2008.
[11] L. Musavian and S. Aissa, “Capacity and Power Allocation for Spectrum-Sharing Communications in Fading Channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 148-156, Jan. 2009.
[12] S. Sridharan and S. Vishwanath, “On the Capacity of a Class of MIMO Cognitive Radios,” IEEE J. Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 103-117, Feb. 2008.
[13] D. Cabric, I.D. O'Donnell, M.S.W. Chen, and R.W. Brodersen, “Spectrum Sharing Radios,” IEEE Circuits and Systems Magazine, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 30-45, July 2006.
[14] R. Zhang, “On Peak versus Average Interference Power Constraints for Protecting Primary Users in Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2112-2120, Apr. 2009.
[15] W.Y. Lee and I.F. Akyildiz, “Optimal Spectrum Sensing Framework for Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 7, no. 10, pp. 3845-3857, Oct. 2008.
[16] Z. Quan, S. Cui, and A.H. Sayed, “Optimal Linear Cooperation for Spectrum Sensing in Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE J. Selected Topics in Signal Processing, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 28-40, Feb. 2008.
[17] S. Tang and B. Mark, “Modeling and Analysis of Opportunistic Spectrum Sharing with Unreliable Spectrum Sensing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1934-1943, Apr. 2009.
[18] Y.C. Liang, Y. Zeng, E.C.Y. Peh, and A.T. Hoang, “Sensing-Throughput Tradeoff for Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1326-1337, Apr. 2008.
[19] Y. Chen, Q. Zhao, and A. Swami, “Joint Design and Separation Principle for Opportunistic Spectrum Access in the Presence of Sensing Errors,” IEEE Trans. Information Theory, vol. 54, no. 5, pp.2053-2071, May 2008.
[20] S. Huang, X. Liu, and Z. Ding, “Optimal Transmission Strategies for Dynamic Spectrum Access in Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 1636-1648, Dec. 2009.
[21] D. Zhang, Z. Tian, and G. Wei, “Spatial Capacity of Narrowband vs. Ultra-Wideband Cognitive Radio Systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 4670-4680, Nov. 2008.
[22] M.G. Khoshkholgh, K. Navaie, and H. Yanikomeroglu, “On the Impact of the Primary Network Activity on the Achievable Capacity of Spectrum Sharing over Fading Channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 2100-2111, Apr. 2009.
[23] R. Menon, R.M. Buehrer, and J.H. Reed, “On the Impact of Dynamic Spectrum Sharing Techniques on Legacy Radio Systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 7, no. 11, pp. 4198-4207, Nov. 2008.
[24] X. Kang, Y.C. Liang, H.K. Garg, and L. Zhang, “Sensing-Based Spectrum Sharing in Cognitive Radio Networks,” IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 4649-4654, Oct. 2009.
[25] Y. Chen, G. Yu, Z. Zhang, H.H. Chen, and P. Qiu, “On Cognitive Radio Networks with Opportunistic Power Control Strategies in Fading Channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 7, no. 7, pp.2752-2761, July 2008.
[26] X. Kang, Y.C. Liang, H.K. Garg, and R. Zhang, “Optimal Power Allocation for Fading Channels in Cognitive Radio Networks: Ergodic Capacity and Outage Capacity,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Comm., vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 940-950, Feb. 2009.
[27] L. Gao and S. Cui, “Power and Rate Control for Delay-Constrained Cognitive Radios via Dynamic Programming,” IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, vol. 58, no. 9, pp. 4819-4827, Nov. 2009.
[28] T.M. Cover and J.A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory, second ed. John Wiley and Sons, 2006.
[29] M.S. Alouini and A.J. Goldsmith, “Capacity of Rayleigh Fading Channels under Different Adaptive Transmission and Diversity-Combining Techniques,” IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technology, vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 1165-1181, July 1999.
[30] A. Ghasemi and E.S. Sousa, “Spectrum Sensing in Cognitive Radio Networks: Requirements Challenges and Design Trade-Offs,” IEEE Comm. Magazine, vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 32-39, Apr. 2008.

Index Terms:
Achievable capacity, dynamic spectrum access, interference threshold, overlay strategy, spectrum sharing, underlay strategy.
Citation:
Mohammad G. Khoshkholgh, Keivan Navaie, Halim Yanikomeroglu, "Access Strategies for Spectrum Sharing in Fading Environment: Overlay, Underlay, and Mixed," IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing, vol. 9, no. 12, pp. 1780-1793, Dec. 2010, doi:10.1109/TMC.2010.57
Usage of this product signifies your acceptance of the Terms of Use.