4.4 Article

Performance analysis of PDMA-based hybrid satellite-terrestrial networks with decode-and-forward relaying

期刊

PHYSICAL COMMUNICATION
卷 52, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.phycom.2022.101628

关键词

Ergodic capacity; DF relaying; HSTRNs; Outage probability; PDMA

资金

  1. Tangshan science and technology plan project, China [19130207g]
  2. Tangshan University Doctoral Innovation Fund, China [1402006]
  3. scientific research program of Hebei Provincial De-partment of Education, China [QN2020508]
  4. applying basic research program of Tangshan City, China [19130219g]
  5. natural science foundation of Hebei Province, China [F2019105108]
  6. talent engineering training funds of Hebei Province, China [A202101106]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This letter investigates the application of PDMA in satellite-terrestrial networks and compares the outage probability, ergodic capacity, and system throughput between PDMA and conventional OMA technologies. The results demonstrate that PDMA-based hybrid satellite-terrestrial relay networks outperform other systems in terms of OP and ergodic capacity.
As one of the most promising non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA) technologies in 5G communication, pattern division multiple access (PDMA) has theoretically higher spectrum utilization and a larger communication capacity than conventional orthogonal multiple access (OMA) technologies. In this letter, PDMA is applied to hybrid satellite-terrestrial networks with decode-and-forward (DF) relaying in the downlink, and an in-depth study on the performance of outage probability (OP), ergodic capacity and system throughput is performed. For a more comprehensive analysis, hybrid satellite-terrestrial relay networks (HSTRNs) with conventional OMA technology are used in the comparative analysis. Analysis and simulation results show that PDMA-based hybrid satellite-terrestrial relay networks outperform the other system in terms of OP and ergodic capacity. (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.4
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