 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Performance analysis of fixedgain AF dualhop relaying systems over Nakagamim fading channels in the presence of interference
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking volume 2011, Article number: 190 (2011)
Abstract
This article presents an analytical investigation on the performance of interferencelimited fixedgain amplifyandforward dualhop relaying systems over Nakagamim fading channels. Assuming the fading parameter m of the two hop channels being integer, we derive a closedform expression of the cumulative distribution function of a new type of random variables involving a number of independent gamma random variables, based on which, the outage performance and symbol error rate of the system are examined, and two important performance metrics at the high signaltonoise ratio regime, namely, diversity order and coding gain, are characterized. Moreover, expressions of the general moments of the endtoend signaltointerferenceandnoise ratio are derived and then applied in the analysis of the ergodic capacity of the system. In addition, the impact of interference power distribution on the ergodic capacity of the system is studied with the aid of a majorization result. Our findings suggest that the diversity of the system is limited by the hop experiencing severer fading, and cochannel interferences do not reduce the diversity order of the system, instead, they degrade the outage performance by affecting the coding gain of the system.
1 Introduction
Dualhop relaying transmission, as a means to improve the throughput and extend the coverage of the wireless communication system, has recently received enormous interests in the context of cooperative communications [1, 2], where an intermediate mobile device acts as a relay node and helps forward the signal received from the source node to the intended destination node. Among various relaying protocols proposed in [2], amplifyandforward (AF) relaying scheme, where the relay node simply forwards a scaled version of the received signal, has received a great deal of attention because of its simplicity and ease of implementation.
Depending on the availability of instantaneous channel state information (CSI) at the relay node, AF relaying scheme generally falls into two categories, i.e. variablegain relaying [3] and fixedgain AF relaying [4]. A large number of studies has been conducted to understand the performance of AF dualhop systems in various popular fading channel models [5–12]. In [5, 6], the outage probability and error rate of dualhop AF systems were studied in Rayleigh fading channels, while [7–10] investigated the performance of dualhop AF systems in Nakagamim fading channels. The performance of dualhop AF system in more general fading channels was considered in [11, 12]. While these studies have greatly improved our knowledge on the topic, they all assume that the communication takes place in an interferencefree environment. However, because of aggressive reuse of frequency, wireless communications are generally affected by cochannel interference (CCI) [13, 14]. Hence, there is a strong need to understand the impact of CCI on the performance of dualhop systems.
In the presence of CCI, there has been very few studies on the performance of dualhop systems, most in Rayleigh fading channels. In [15, 16], the outage probability of opportunistic decodeandforward relaying dualhop system was studied, and in [17], the outage probability of a fixedgain AF relaying system with interferencelimited destination has been investigated. The study [18] analyzed the outage and error performance of dualhop AF relaying with interference at the relay node, while [19, 20] studied the more general model where both the relay and the destination are corrupted by CCIs. In [21], the authors investigated fixedgain AF relaying system in the presence of CCIs at the relay and destination assuming Rayleigh faded dualhop channels with Rician fading interfering channels.
While Rayleigh fading channel is an important channel model, understanding the performance of dualhop systems in the more general Nakagamim fading channels has also received much attention [7–10]. Assuming Nakagamim fading channels, [22] investigated the outage and average symbol error rate (SER) of variablegain AF dualhop systems with interferencelimited relay and noisy destination. While [22] improved our knowledge on the topic, the impact of CCIs at the destination and the effect of fixedgain relaying scheme in Nakagamim fading channels have not been well understood. Motivated by this, in this article, we present a detailed analytical investigation on the performance of fixedgain AF dualhop relaying system with noisy relay and interferencelimited destination in Nakagamim fading channels.
The main contribution of the article is the derivation of the cumulative distribution function (c.d.f.) of a new type of random variable involving sum of multipleindependent gamma random variables. Based on which, we present closedform expressions for the outage probability and average SER of the system. A closedform expression for the general moments of the endtoend signaltointerferenceandnoise ratio (SINR) is derived, which is then applied to investigate the ergodic capacity of the system. Moreover, to gain further valuable insights into the system, we also provide simple expressions for outage probability of the system at high signaltonoise ratio (SNR) regime, which enable efficient characterization of the diversity order and coding gain achieved by the system.
The remainder of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 introduces the system model. Section 3 presents closedform analytical expressions for various important system performance metrics, i.e., outage probability, SER and ergodic capacity. In Section 4, numerical results are provided to verify the accuracy of our analysis and examine the impact of CCI on the performance of dualhop AF relaying systems. Finally, we conclude the article in Section 5.
2 System Model
Consider a dualhop relay where a source node S transmits to a destination node D with the assistance of a relay node R. The entire communication takes place in two separate phases. In the first phase, S transmits the signal to R and hence the received signal at the relay node can be written as
where x_{0} is the transmitted symbol with $\mathbb{E}\left\{\mid {x}_{0}{\mid}^{2}\right\}={P}_{0}$ and h_{ sr } is the channel coefficient or the SR link, ${n}_{\text{sr}}~\mathcal{C}\mathcal{N}\left(0,{N}_{1}\right)$ denotes the additive white Gaussian noise, and $E\text{{}\cdot \text{}}$ denotes the expectation operation. In the second phase, the received signal at R is first scaled with a fixed gain $G\triangleq \sqrt{\frac{{P}_{r}}{{P}_{0}{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}+{N}_{1}}}$ and then forwarded to D. The signal at the destination is corrupted by interfering signals from N cochannel interferers ${\left\{{x}_{i}\right\}}_{i=1}^{N}$, each with an average power of P_{ i }. As in [17], we consider the interferencelimited destination case, therefore, the signal received at the destination can be expressed as
where h_{rd} denotes the channel coefficient for the RD link, ${\left\{{h}_{i}\right\}}_{i}^{N}$ are the channel coefficients from interferers to D. We assume that the channel gains h_{sr}^{2} and h_{rd}^{2} follow the gamma distribution with different fading parameters 1/Ω_{1}, 1/Ω_{2} and fading severity parameters m_{1}, m_{2}, respectively. Similarly, the channel gains h_{ i }^{2}, i = 1, . . . , N, are assumed to follow independent gamma distribution with parameters ${m}_{{I}_{i}}$ and $1\u2215{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{{I}_{i}}$.
After some algebraic manipulations, the endtoend SINR can be expressed as
where ${X}_{1}\triangleq \phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\mid {h}_{\text{sr}}{\mid}^{2},{X}_{2}\triangleq \phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\mid {h}_{\text{rd}}{\mid}^{2}$ and $Y\triangleq {\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\mid {g}_{i}{\mid}^{2}$, where g_{ i }^{2} = P_{ i }h_{ i }^{2} is gamma distributed with parameters ${{m}_{I}}_{i}$ and $1\u2215{\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{i}}$, with ${\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{i}}={P}_{i}{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{{I}_{i}}$.
3 Endtoend performance
In this section, we present a detailed performance investigation of interferencelimited dualhop AF relaying system in Nakagamim fading channels by studying several important performance measures, i.e., outage probability, general moments of the endtoend SINR, average SER and ergodic capacity of the system. For notational conveniencewe define ${\rho}_{1}=\frac{{P}_{0}}{{N}_{1}}$, and ${\rho}_{2}=\frac{{P}_{r}}{{N}_{1}}$.
Before getting into the details, we find it is convenient to first present the following theorem.
Theorem 1: Let $X=\frac{{U}_{1}{U}_{2}}{{U}_{2}+uY}$, where U_{ i }, i = 1, 2, are gamma distributed random variables with parameters m_{1}, 1/Ω_{1} and m_{2}, 1/Ω_{2}, respectively. $Y={\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}{Y}_{i}$ with Y_{ i }, i = 1, . . . , N being independent gamma random variables with parameter ${m}_{{I}_{i}}$ and $1/{\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{i}}$. u is a positive constant. Then the c.d.f. of X is given by^{a}
where ${a}_{1}={m}_{{I}_{k}}+{m}_{2},{a}_{2}={m}_{{I}_{k}}+j$, ${a}_{3}={m}_{2}j+1,{m}_{{I}_{k}},{\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{k}}$ and ${\beta}_{t}^{k}$ are defined in Appendix A, and U(a, b, x) is the confluent hypergeometric function of the second kind [[23], Eq. 9.210.2].
Proof: See Appendix A.
3.1 Outage probability
The outage probability is an important system performance metric, and is defined as the probability that the instantaneous SINR γ_{d} falls below a predefined threshold, γ_{th}.^{b} Mathematically, the outage probability of the endtoend SINR γ_{d} can be presented as
To this end, utilizing Theorem 1, the outage probability of the end to end SINR γ_{d} can be obtained as
For the special case, where the interfering channels experience the same level of fading and the average received interfering powers at the destination are the same, we have the following simple result.
Corollary 1: For the case where ${m}_{{I}_{i}}={m}_{I}$ and ${\overline{\gamma}}_{{I}_{i}}={\overline{\gamma}}_{I},$ i = 1, . . . , N, the outage probability expression reduces to
where b_{1} = Nm_{ I } + m_{2}, and b_{2} = Nm_{ I } + j.
Proof: The proof is straightforward, and thus omitted.
Note that, for the case m_{1} = m_{2} = m_{ I } = 1, i.e., Rayleigh fading channels, (7) reduces to the results presented in [17].
While the above expression offers an efficient way to evaluate the outage probability of the system, the expression itself is in general too complex to give any insight. Therefore, it is of great interest to look into the high SNR regime, where simple expressions can be obtained.
Theorem 2: At the high SNR regime, the outage probability of the system can be approximated as

(1)
If ρ_{1} → ∞,
$${P}_{\text{out}}\left({\gamma}_{\text{th}}\right)\approx 1{\left(\frac{{m}_{1}{m}_{2}{\gamma}_{\text{th}}{\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{I}}{{\rho}_{2}{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{2}{N}_{1}{m}_{I}}\right)}^{{m}_{2}}\sum _{i=0}^{{m}_{1}1}\frac{1}{i!}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma}\left({b}_{1}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma}\left(N{m}_{I}+i\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma}\left(N{m}_{I}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma}\left({m}_{2}\right)}\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}U\left({b}_{1},{m}_{2}i+1,\frac{{m}_{1}{m}_{2}{\gamma}_{\text{th}}{\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{I}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{2}{m}_{I}{\rho}_{2}{N}_{1}}\right).$$(8) 
(2)
If ρ_{1} → ∞,
$${P}_{\text{out}}\left({\gamma}_{\text{th}}\right)\approx 1\text{exp}\left(\frac{{m}_{1}{\gamma}_{\text{th}}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}{\rho}_{1}}\right)\sum _{i=0}^{{m}_{1}1}\frac{1}{i!}{\left(\frac{{m}_{1}{\gamma}_{\text{th}}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}{\rho}_{1}}\right)}^{i}.$$(9) 
(3)
If ρ_{2} = μρ_{1} and ρ_{1} → ∞,
$${P}_{\text{out}}({\gamma}_{\text{th}})\approx \{\begin{array}{l}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma}({m}_{1}+1)}{\left(\frac{{m}_{1}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}}\right)}^{{m}_{1}}{\displaystyle {\sum}_{i=0}^{{m}_{1}}}\left(i{m}_{1}\right){\left(\frac{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}}{{\mu N}_{1}}\right)}^{i}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma}(N{m}_{I}+i)}{\mathrm{\Gamma}(N{m}_{I})}{\left(\frac{{\gamma}_{I}}{{m}_{I}}\right)}^{i}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma}({m}_{2}i)}{\mathrm{\Gamma}({m}_{2})}{\left(\frac{{m}_{2}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{2}}\right)}^{i}{\left(\frac{{\gamma}_{\text{th}}}{{\rho}_{1}}\right)}^{{m}_{1}},\phantom{\rule{0.1em}{0ex}}{m}_{1}<{m}_{2},\\ \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma}({m}_{1}{m}_{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma}({m}_{2}+1)\mathrm{\Gamma}({m}_{1})}\phantom{\rule{0.1em}{0ex}}{\left(\frac{{m}_{1}{m}_{2}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{2}}\right)}^{{m}_{2}}{\left(\frac{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}}{\mu {N}_{1}}\right)}^{{m}_{2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma}(N{m}_{I}+{m}_{2})}{\mathrm{\Gamma}(N{m}_{I})}{\left(\frac{{\gamma}_{I}}{{m}_{I}}\right)}^{{m}_{2}}{\left(\frac{{\gamma}_{\text{th}}}{{\rho}_{1}}\right)}^{{m}_{2}},\phantom{\rule{0.1em}{0ex}}{m}_{1}>{m}_{2}.\end{array}$$(10)
Proof: See Appendix B.
Theorem 2 gives some intuitive results regarding the outage probability of the interferencelimited dualhop AF relaying system. For instance, the outage performance of the system is affected by both hops, increasing the power at either the transmit or relay node while keeping the other power fixed, the outage probability reaches an error floor. In particular, if the available power at the relay node is sufficiently large, then the outage performance is completely determined mined by the performance of the first hop transmission as shown in Equation 9. In addition, when both the transmit and relay powers become large, the diversity order achieved by the system is limited by the weaker links of the first and second hop channels. Moreover, the CCIs do not reduce the diversity order of the system, instead, it degrades the outage performance of the system by affecting the coding gain of the system.
3.2 General moments of the endtoend SINR
The general moments are important performance measures which can be used to obtain the endtoend average SINR, variance and amount of fading (AoF). By definition, the n th moment of γ_{ d } is given by $\mathcal{I}\left(n\right)=n{\int}_{0}^{\infty}{\gamma}^{n1}\left(1{\mathcal{F}}_{{\gamma}_{\text{d}}}\left(\gamma \right)\right)d\gamma $. With the help of [[23], Eq. 7.621.6] and the c.d.f. expression given in Equation 6, we can express the n th moments of the endtoend SIR γ_{d} as
where ϒ_{1} is given by
with $A=\frac{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{2}{m}_{{I}_{k}}{\rho}_{2}{N}_{1}}{{m}_{2}\left({\rho}_{1}{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}+1\right){\overline{\gamma}}_{{I}_{k}}}$ and β_{1} = n + m_{2} + i + j.
For the special case, where ${m}_{{I}_{k}}={m}_{I}$ and ${\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{k}}={\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{I}$, for k = 1, . . . , N, the n th moments of the endtoend SINR γ_{d} admits a simpler expression
where ϒ_{2} is given by
As a direct application, the average endtoend SINR can be obtained as $\mathcal{I}\left(1\right)$, and the AoF, which quantifies the severity of the fading, can be obtained as, $\text{AoF}=\frac{\mathcal{I}\left(2\right){\mathcal{I}}^{2}\left(1\right)}{{\mathcal{I}}^{2}\left(1\right)}=\frac{\mathcal{I}\left(2\right)}{{\mathcal{I}}^{2}\left(1\right)}1.$ It is also worth mentioning that the expression for the general moments of endtoend SINR is also very useful in the analysis of ergodic capacity of the system.
3.3 Symbol error rate
The average SER is another important performance measure. For a number of modulation schemes, the average SER admits the following expression, $\text{SER}={\int}_{0}^{\infty}{a}_{\text{mod}}Q\left(\sqrt{2{b}_{\text{mod}}\gamma}\right)f\left(\gamma \right)d\gamma $, where Q(·) is the GaussianQ function, a_{mod} and b_{mod} are modulation specific constants. For instance, binary phase shift keying (BPSK) (a_{mod} = 1, b_{mod} = 1), binary frequency shift keying (BFSK) with orthogonal signalling (a_{mod} = 1, b_{mod} = 0.5) and Mary pulse amplitude modulation (PAM) (a_{mod} = 2(M  1)/M, b_{mod} = 3/(M^{2}  1)).
To evaluate the average SER, we find it convenient to use the following alternative expression [24]
Upon substituting Equation 6 into Equation (15), with the help of [[23], Eq. 7.621.6], we obtain the SER of interferencelimited dualhop AF relaying system in Nakagamim fading channels as
where Ξ_{1} is given by
with $B=\frac{{m}_{1}{m}_{2}\left({\rho}_{1}{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}+1\right){\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{k}}}{\left({m}_{1}+{\rho}_{1}{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}{b}_{\text{mod}}\right){\mathrm{\Omega}}_{2}{m}_{{I}_{k}}{\rho}_{2}{N}_{1}}$ and $\zeta ={m}_{2}+i+\frac{1}{2}j$. For special case, where ${m}_{{I}_{i}}={m}_{I}$ and ${\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{i}}={\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{I}$, for i = 1,..., N, the SER of the system simplifies to
where Ξ_{2} is given by
3.4 Ergodic capacity
Ergodic capacity, which is defined as the maximum errorfree data rate that a channel can deliver, is another important performance metric. The ergodic capacity in (bits/seconds/hertz) is given by $C=\frac{1}{2}\text{E}\left\{{log}_{2}\left(1+{\gamma}_{d}\right)\right\}$, where $\frac{1}{2}$ accounts for the two phases required for the entire transmission. Due to the complicated form of the pdf of γ_{ d }, the exact expression for the ergodic capacity is difficult to obtain. However, by noticing that log_{2}(x) is a concave function, tight capacity upper bound can be obtained by applying Jensen's inequality, i.e.,
Alternatively, accurate approximation of the ergodic capacity can be obtained by using the Taylor expansionbased method [25, 26], i.e.,
It is worth pointing out that the above approximation works quite well across the entire SNR range of interest.
We are also interested in how the received interference power distribution affects the ergodic capacity of the system, and we have the following key result.
Theorem 3: Let vector $\mathit{r}=\left[{\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{1}},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\dots ,{\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{N}}\right]$ denotes the average received interfering powers, when the interfering channels experience the same level of fading, i.e., ${\left\{{m}_{{I}_{i}}\right\}}_{i=1}^{N}={m}_{I}$, then the ergodic capacity of the system is a Schurconvex function with respect to r. Thus, for any r_{1} ≻ r_{2},^{c}
Proof: See Appendix C.
Having established the schurconvexity for the ergodic capacity C(γ), the following example illustrates how this can be used to address the impact of the received interference power distribution on the ergodic capacity performance for the relay systems in an interferencelimited environment.
Example 1: Let us consider the case with five cochannel interferers of a total received interference power of ten units in three different scenarios: (1) with only one effective interferer r_{1} = [10 0 0 0 0], (2) with distinctpower interferers r_{2} = [6 2 1 0.75 0.25], and (3) with equalpower interferers r_{3} = [2 2 2 2 2]. Apparently, we have r_{1} ≻ r_{2} ≻ r_{3}. Therefore, from Theorem 3, we have
This example indicates that the best scenario occurs when there is only one interferer power at D, while the worst case happens when the interferers are of equal received power.
4 Numerical results
In this section, we provide numerical results to validate the analytical expressions derived from the previous section. Figure 1 illustrates the outage probability of the system when Ω_{1} = Ω_{2} = 2, in the presence of three i.i.d. interferers with m_{ I } = 3 and γ_{ I } = 5 dB. The exact agreement between the analytical results and Monte Carlo simulation results indicates the correctness of the analytical expression. Also, we observe that the high SNR approximations work well even at moderate high SNR regime, and the diversity order of the system is determined by the minimum of m_{1} and m_{2}.
In Figure 2, we fix the total channel power gain as Ω_{1} + Ω_{2} = 4, and investigate the impact of power imbalance between the two hops and fading effect of the interference links on the outage probability of the system. As we can observe, the outage probability of the system improves when the channel gain of the second hop increases, which is intuitive since the improvement of the second hop channel condition contributes more to suppressing the interference at the destination. Moreover, we see that the impact of fading level of the interference links on the outage performance depends on the SNR. For instance, for sufficiently high SNR, less severe fading interference links (i.e., large m_{ I }) results in better outage performance, otherwise, more severe fading interference links (i.e., small m_{ I }) becomes preferred in terms of outage probability.
Figure 3 shows the average SER performance of interferencelimited dualhop AF relaying systems employing BPSK modulation scheme with different number of interferers. For the simulation, we set Ω_{1} = 2, m_{1} = 3, Ω_{2} = 1.2, m_{2} = 2, ${\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{I}=15\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\text{dB}$ and m_{ I } = 3. It is easy to see that a single strong interferer significantly increases the SER of the system. In addition, when the number of interferers increases, hence the total interference power, the SER performance deteriorates further. Moreover, we see that when ρ_{2} is fixed, the SER reaches an error floor, which is intuitive since the SER performance depends on both the first and second hop channels.
Figure 4 illustrates the ergodic capacity of the system. In this simulation, we assume four CCIs N = 4 with average received power ${\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{I}=8\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\text{dB}$ fading parameter m_{ I } = 2. The values of average channel gains and the fading parameters of the two hops are set to Ω_{1} = Ω_{2} = 2, m_{1} = 3 and m_{2} = 2. We observe that the capacity upper bound performs good at the low SNR regime. However, it gets loose gradually when the SNR increases. On the other hand, we see that the capacity approximation result is almost in perfect agreement with the exact result across the whole range of SNR regime of interest, hence it can be employed as an accurate and efficient means to evaluate the ergodic capacity of the system.
Figure 5 examines the impact of interference power distribution on the ergodic capacity of the system. In the simulation, we have assume that Ω_{1} = Ω_{2} = 1, and m_{ I } = 1/2. The curves provide intuitive result that the ergodic capacity of the system increases when the channel conditions of both hops improve, i.e., m_{1} and m_{2} become larger. Moreover, as predicted by Theorem 3, we observe that the highest capacity is achieved when there is only a single strong interferer, while the lowest capacity is achieved when there are five equal power interferers.
5 Conclusion
In this article, we have provided a thorough investigation on the performance of interferencelimited fixedagain AF dualhop relaying systems in Nakagamim fading channels. Exact expressions were derived for the outage probability and average SER of the system as well as the general moments of the endtoend SINR. Moreover, the diversity order and coding gain achieved the system were analyzed, and the results suggest that the diversity order of the system is determined by the channel experiencing severer fading and is not affected by the CCIs. In addition, we examined the ergodic capacity of the system, and showed that for a given total average received interference power at the destination, the scenario with a single strong interferer yields the best capacity performance.
Appendix A
Proof of theorem 1
In this section, we derive the c.d.f. expression of random variable $X=\frac{{U}_{1}{U}_{2}}{{U}_{2}+uY}$. The p.d.f. and c.d.f. of Gamma random variables U_{ i }, i = 1, 2 are given by ${f}_{{U}_{i}}\left(\gamma \right)={\left(\frac{{m}_{i}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{i}}\right)}^{{m}_{i}}\frac{{\gamma}^{{m}_{i}1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma}\left({m}_{i}\right)}exp\left(\frac{{m}_{i}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{i}}\gamma \right)$, and ${\mathcal{F}}_{{U}_{i}}\left(\gamma \right)=1exp\left(\frac{{m}_{i}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{i}}\gamma \right){\sum}_{j=0}^{{m}_{i}1}\frac{1}{j!}{\left(\frac{{m}_{i}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{i}}\gamma \right)}^{j}$, γ > 0, respectively. $Y={\sum}_{i=1}^{N}\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}{Y}_{i}$, where ${\left\{{Y}_{i}\right\}}_{i=1}^{N}$ is a et of N independent but not necessarily identically distributed (i.n.i.d.) gamma random variables with parameters ${m}_{{I}_{i}}$ and ${\stackrel{\u0304}{\gamma}}_{{I}_{i}}$. The p.d.f. of Y is given in [13] as
${f}_{Y}\left(y\right)=\sum _{k=1}^{N}\sum _{i=1}^{{m}_{{I}_{k}}}\frac{{\beta}_{k}^{i1}{y}^{{m}_{{I}_{k}}1}}{\left(i1\right)!}exp\left(\frac{{m}_{{I}_{k}}}{{\gamma}_{{\overline{I}}_{k}}}{\alpha}_{{I}_{k}}y\right)$, (24)
where ${\beta}_{k}^{i1}=\frac{{\Pi}_{i=1}^{N}{\alpha}_{{I}_{i}}^{{m}_{{I}_{i}}}}{\left({m}_{{I}_{k}}i\right)!}\frac{{d}^{i1}}{d{s}^{i1}}{\left(\right)close="">\left[\prod _{\underset{n=1}{n\ne k}}^{N}{\left({\alpha}_{{I}_{n}}+s\right)}^{{m}_{{I}_{n}}}\right]}_{}s={\alpha}_{k}$. To this end, from the definition of c.d.f., we have ${\mathcal{F}}_{X}\left(x\right)=\text{Pr}\left({U}_{1}<\left(1+\frac{uY}{{U}_{2}}\right)x\right)$. Conditioned on U_{2} and Y, we first make use of the p.d.f expression of random variable Y presented in (24), we have,
where the integral can be solved with the help of [[23], Eq.3.351.2]. Further averaging over U_{2}, we have the unconditional c.d.f. of X as
The desired result can be obtained after some simple algebraic manipulations with the help of formula [[23], Eq. 3.383.5].
Appendix B
Proof of theorem 2
When ρ_{1} → ∞, it is easy to see that $\frac{{\rho}_{1}{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}+1}{{\rho}_{1}}={\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}$, and $exp\left(\frac{{m}_{1}{\gamma}_{\text{th}}}{{\mathrm{\Omega}}_{1}{\rho}_{1}}\right)=1,$ therefore, the outage probability can be approximated as
When ρ_{2} → ∞, we are interested in the asymptotic behavior of ${\rho}_{2}^{{m}_{2}}U\left({b}_{1},{m}_{2}k+1,\frac{A}{{\rho}_{2}}\right)$. From the asymptotic expansion of function U(a, b, x) given in [27], it is easy to observe that ${\rho}_{2}^{{m}_{2}}U\left({b}_{1},{m}_{2}k+1,\frac{A}{{\rho}_{2}}\right)$ approaches zero for k ≥ 1. Therefore, the most significant term comes from k = 0, which we compute as
To this end, the outage probability can be approximated as
Now we consider the case when ρ_{1} → ∞ and ρ_{2} = μρ_{1}. We first focus on the scenario m_{1} < m_{2}. Conditioned on X_{2} and Y, the outage probability can be expressed as
A close observation reveals that the expectation of the righthand side of Equation 30 converges as long as m_{1} < m_{2}. Hence, we can exchange the order of limitation and integration, which gives
where we have used the following asymptotic expansion of the incomplete gamma function near zero
Due to the independence of X_{2} and Y, we first apply the binomial expansion and compute the expectation in Equation 31 as follows,
To this end, the desired result can be obtained after some simple algebraic manipulations. The case for m_{1} > m_{2} can be dealt with in a similar fashion.
Appendix C
Proof of theorem 3
In order to prove Theorem 3, we need the following key lemma presented in [28].
Lemma 1: Let $G\left({p}_{1},\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\dots ,{p}_{n}\right)\triangleq \text{E}\phantom{\rule{2.77695pt}{0ex}}\left[f\left({\sum}_{k=1}^{n}{p}_{k}{w}_{k}\right)\right]$, where f : ℝ → ℝ with f(x) > 0 ∀x > 0, and ${\left\{{w}_{i}\right\}}_{i=1}^{n}$ are independent and identically distributed (i.i.d) positive random variables. If f(x) is a convex function, then, G(p) is a Schurconvex function with respect to p≜ (p_{1}, p_{2}, ..., p_{ n }). On the other hand, if f(x) is a concave function, then, G(p) is Schurconcave with respect to p.
According to the definition, we express the ergodic capacity of the system as
where ${\left\{{w}_{i}\right\}}_{i=1}^{N}$ are i.i.d. gamma random variables with parameter m_{ I } and 1. To this end, we define function
It is easy to show that the first and second derivatives of f (Z) with respect to Z can be expressed as
and
respectively. Clearly, f"(Z) ≥ 0. According to Lemma 1, C(γ) is Schurconvex function conditioned on X_{1} and X_{2}, i.e., for any two vectors γ_{1} ≻ γ_{2}, we have
Averaging over X_{1} and X_{2}, we have C(γ_{1} ≥ C(γ_{2}). To this end, from the definition of Schurconvex function given in [29], we know that the ergodic capacity C(γ) is an Schurconvex function with respect to γ.
Endnotes
^{a}Here, we derived closedform expression for the sum of nonidentical gamma random variables for the case where the fading parameters ${{m}_{I}}_{i}$ are distinct integers. For more generalized case, we can adopt the more general series representation, which applies for arbitrary ${m}_{{I}_{i}}$ [30]. For such case, it is worth pointing out that the series converges quickly, and can be efficiently evaluated in standard software such as Mathematica. ^{b}The outage probability is originally defined as the probability that the system cannot support a given target rate R_{th}. Hence, in this respect, the SINR threshold is related to the target rate by ${\gamma}_{\text{th}}={2}^{2{R}_{\text{th}}}1.$ ^{c} ≻ denotes the majorization relationship. For details regarding majorization theory and Schurconvexity, we refer the readers to [29].
References
 1.
Sendonaris A, Erkip E, Aazhang B: User cooperation diversityPart I: system description. IEEE Trans Commun 2003, 51: 19271938. 10.1109/TCOMM.2003.818096
 2.
Laneman JN, Tse DNC, Wornell GW: Cooperative diversity in wireless networks: efficient protocals and outage behavior. IEEE Trans Inf Theory 2004, 50(12):3062080. 10.1109/TIT.2004.838089
 3.
Hasna MO, Alouini MS: Endtoend performance of transmission systems with relays over Rayleigh fading channels. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 2003, 2(6):1126131. 10.1109/TWC.2003.819030
 4.
Hasna MO, Alouini MS: A performance study of dualhop transmissions with fixed gain relays. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 2004, 3(6):19631968. 10.1109/TWC.2004.837470
 5.
Tsiftsis TA, Karagiannidis GK, Kotsopoulos SA: Dualhop wireless communications with combined gain relays. IEE Trans Commun 2005, 153(5):528532.
 6.
Tsiftsis TA, Karagiannidis GK, Kotsopoulos SA, Pavlidou FN: BER analysis of collaborative dualhop wireless transmissions. Electron Lett 2004, 40(11):679681. 10.1049/el:20040393
 7.
Hasna MO, Alouini MS: Harmonic mean and endtoend performance of transmission systems with relays. IEEE Trans Commun 2004, 52(1):130135. 10.1109/TCOMM.2003.822185
 8.
Karagiannidis GK, Tsiftsis TA, Mallik RK: Bounds for multihop relayed communications in Nakagamim fading. IEEE Trans Commun 2006, 54(1):1822.
 9.
Ikki S, Ahmed MH: Performance analysis of cooperative diversity wireless networks over Nakagamim fading channel. IEEE Commun Lett 2007, 11(4):334336.
 10.
Costa DB, Yacoub MD: Dualhop transmissions with semiblind relays over Nakagamim fading channels. Electron Lett 2008, 44(3):214216. 10.1049/el:20083507
 11.
Karagiannidis GK: Performance bounds of multihop wireless communications with blind relays over generalized fading channels. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 2006, 5(3):498503.
 12.
Ikki S, Ahmed MH: Performance analysis of dualhop relaying communications over generalized Gamma fading channels. In Proc IEEE Globecom'07. Washington, DC, USA; 2007:38883893.
 13.
AbuDayya AA, Beaulieu NC: Outage probability of cellular mobile radio systems with multiple Nakagami interfers. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 1991, 40(4):757768. 10.1109/25.108387
 14.
Zhang Q: Outage probability of cellular mobile radio in the presence of multiple Nakagami interferers with arbitrary fading parameters. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 1995, 44(3):66167. 10.1109/25.406635
 15.
Lee D, Lee I: Outage probability for opportunistic relaying on multicell environment. In Proc IEEE VTC Spring 2009. Barcelona, Spain; 2009:15.
 16.
Bletsas A, Dimitriou AG, Sahalos JN: Interferencelimited opportunistic relaying with reactive sensing. IEEE Trans Wirel Commun 2010, 9(1):1420.
 17.
Zhong C, Jin S, Wong KK: Dualhop system with noisy relay and interferencelimited destination. IEEE Trans Commun 2010, 58(3):764768.
 18.
Suraweera HA, Garg HK, Nallanathan A: Performance analysis of two hop amplifyandforward systems with interference at the relay. IEEE Commun Lett 2010, 14(8):692694.
 19.
Cvetković AM, Dordević GT, Stefanovć MC: Performance of interferencelimited dualup nonregnerative relays over Rayleigh fading channels. IET Commun 2011, 5(2):135140. 10.1049/ietcom.2010.0019
 20.
Lee D, Lee JH: Outage probability for dualhop relaying systems with mutliple interferers over Rayleigh fading channels. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2011, 60(1):333338.
 21.
Suraweera HA, Michalopoulos DS, Schober R, Karagiannidis GK, Arumugan N: Fixed gain amplifyandforward relaying with cochannel interference. In IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC2011). Kyoto, Japan;
 22.
AlQahtani F, Duong T, Zhong C, Qaraqe K, Alnuweiri H: Performance analysis of dualhop AF systems with interference in Nakagami m fading channels. IEEE Siganl Process Lett 2011, 18(8):454457.
 23.
Gradshteyn IS, Ryzhik IM: Tables of Intergrals, Serious and Products. 6th edition. Acadamic Press, San Diago; 2000.
 24.
McKay MR, Grant A, Collings IB: Performance analysis of MIMOMRC in doublecorrelated Rayleigh environments. IEEE Trans Commun 2007, 55(3):497507.
 25.
Perez J, Ibanez I, Santamaria I: Closedform approximation for the outage capacity of orthogonal STBC. IEEE Commun Lett 2005, 9(11):961963. 10.1109/LCOMM.2005.11001
 26.
Costa DB, Aïssa S: Capacity analysis of cooperative system with relay selection in Nakagamim fading. IEEE Commun Lett 2009, 13(9):637639.
 27.
Abramowitz M, Stegun IA: Handbooks of Mathematical Funcations with Formuals, Gmphs, and Mathemtical Tables. 10th edition. US Department of CommerceN. B. S.; 1972.
 28.
Boche H, Jorswieck EA: On Schurconvexity of expectation of weighted sum of random variables with applications. J Inequal Pure Appl Math 5(2):114.
 29.
Marshall AW, Olkin I: Inequalities: Theory of Majorization and Its Applications. Academic Press, New York; 1979.
 30.
Alouini MS, Abdi A, Kaveh M: Sum of gamma variates and performance of wireless communication systems over Nakagamifading channels. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2001, 50(6):14711479. 10.1109/25.966578
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Qatar National Research Fund (QNRF) grant through National Priority Research Program (NPRP) No. 085772241. QNRF is an initiative of Qatar Foundation.
Author information
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ original submitted files for images
Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
AIQahtani, F.S., Zhong, C., Qaraqe, K.A. et al. Performance analysis of fixedgain AF dualhop relaying systems over Nakagamim fading channels in the presence of interference. J Wireless Com Network 2011, 190 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1186/168714992011190
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Keywords
 amplifyandforward relaying
 cochannel interference
 cooperative communications
 Nakagamim fading
 performance analysis