4.7 Article

Millimeter-Wave Beam Selection in Time-Varying Channels With User Orientation Changes

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
卷 20, 期 11, 页码 6987-7000

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TWC.2021.3079355

关键词

Millimeter-wave; 5G; beamforming; antenna array; spatial channel model; beam selection; beam management; beam measurement; orientation change

资金

  1. [DST/SJF/ETA-01/2014-15]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new approach is proposed for beam selection in 5G systems through modifying the Nakagami-m model to characterize channel gain statistics, along with a novel and optimal beam selection rule. These methods outperform conventional approaches and are less sensitive to user orientation changes.
The use of many narrow beams to overcome the adverse propagation conditions in millimeter-wave channels leads to large training durations and overheads in 5G systems. This causes the beam measurements to become outdated by different extents at the time the transmit and receive beams are selected. The rapid changes in user device orientation exacerbate this problem. We first present a novel modified bivariate Nakagami-m (MBN) model to tractably and accurately characterize the joint, non-stationary statistics of the channel gains seen at the times of measurement and data transmission. We then derive a novel and optimal beam selection rule that maximizes the average rate of the system. We use the MBN model to propose a near-optimal, practically amenable bound-based selection (PABS) rule. Our approach captures several pertinent aspects about the spatial channel model and 5G, such as transmission of periodic bursts of reference signals, feedback from the user to enable the base station to select its transmit beam, and the faster pace of updating the data rate compared to the transmit-receive beam pair. The PABS rule markedly outperforms the widely used conventional power-based selection rule and is less sensitive to user orientation changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据