 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Performance analysis and power control for fullduplex relaying with largescale antenna array at the destination
EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking volume 2017, Article number: 41 (2017)
Abstract
Fullduplex relaying can increase the spectral efficiency by allowing the relay to transmit and receive at the same time and over the same frequency. To overcome the challenge that the destination treats the sourcedestination link as interference, we employ largescale antenna array at the destination. By using the fact that the sourcedestination channel vector and relaydestination channel vector become pairwise orthogonal, the sourcedestination link can be converted to useful signal. We first derive the achievable rates and outage probabilities for direct transmission, halfduplex relaying, and fullduplex relaying, respectively. Two relaying protocols, i.e., amplifyandforward (AF) and decodeandforward (DF), are considered. Then, based on the channel state information (CSI) availability, the optimal transmit power of the fullduplex relay node is obtained by maximizing the achievable rates or minimizing the outage probabilities of fullduplex relaying. Numerical results show that the fullduplex relaying performs better than halfduplex relaying when the residual selfinterference is small, and the performance of fullduplex relaying can be improved by using power control.
1 Introduction
In recent years, the fourthgeneration (4G) mobile communication system has been deployed and used worldwide. However, with an explosion of wireless devices and services, there is growing demand for data traffic that cannot be accommodated by 4G. Therefore, the fifthgeneration (5G) mobile communication system, which is expected to be commercially available by 2020, has become a hot research topic in both academia and industry [1, 2].
As one of the most promising technique for the 5G mobile communication system, largescale antenna array or massive multipleinput multipleoutput (MIMO) has drawn significant research interests [3–6]. The concept of massive MIMO was first proposed by Marzetta [7], showing that by employing unlimited number of antennas at a base station (BS), the effect of thermal noise and smallscale fading can be averaged out, the channel vectors between the users and the BS become pairwise orthogonal, and the interuser interference can be eliminated. In [8], the authors compared two linear precoding schemes, i.e., conjugate beamforming and zero forcing (ZF), with respect to spectral efficiency and energy efficiency in a singlecell downlink scenario, and showed that for high spectral efficiency and low energy efficiency, ZF outperforms conjugate beamforming, while at low spectral efficiency and high energy efficiency, the opposite holds. In [9], the transmit power scaling laws and lower capacity bounds for maximum ratio combining (MRC), ZF, and minimum meansquare error (MMSE) detection were derived. It was shown that when the number of BS antennas M grows without bound, the transmitted power of each user could be reduced proportionally to M if the BS has perfect channel state information (CSI) and 1/M if CSI is estimated from uplink pilots. In [10], the authors investigated how massive MIMO performs in real propagation environments and showed that the performance is close to that in independent and identically distributed (iid) Rayleigh channels, so the theoretical advantages of massive MIMO can be obtained in real channels.
On the other hand, encouraged by the advance in selfinterference cancelation (SIC) algorithms [11, 12], fullduplex relaying, which can transmit and receive at the same time and over the same frequency, has also attracted great research interests. In [13], the authors proposed a fullduplex relay system which shares the time resource as well as the antennas at the relay node and eliminates the underlying interferences using precoding. In [14], the exact outage probability of fullduplex decodeandforward (DF) relay systems was derived by considering the selfinterference as a Rayleigh fading channel. It was shown that the fullduplex relaying is superior to halfduplex relaying in terms of the outage probability as the signaltointerference ratios (SIRs) are higher and the signaltonoise ratio (SNR) is lower. Riihonen et al. derived an optimal gain control scheme for fullduplex amplifyandforward (AF) relaying which considered the effect of residual loop interference in [15], investigated three spatial domain SIC solutions for fullduplex MIMO relay systems in [16], and proposed a hybrid relaying which could switch between fullduplex and halfduplex mode in [17]. Reference [18] derived the outage performance of multihop fullduplex relaying by considering all the interrelay interference and echointerference. Reference [19] investigated the power and location optimization for fullduplex DF relay systems. From the above references, it is clear that there are two main challenges facing the use of fullduplex relaying. The first challenge is how to mitigate or cancel the selfinterference at the relay due to signal leakage between the relay transmit and receive antenna [12–19], and the second challenge is how to deal with the signal from the source since the destination always treats the direct link from the source to the destination as interference [14, 17–19].
Since low complexity linear signal processing would achieve near optimal performance in massive MIMO systems, some researchers have introduced massive antennas into fullduplex relay systems. In [20], the authors investigated a multipair fullduplex relay system, where the relay is equipped with massive arrays and uses ZF and MRC/MRT to process the signals, and showed that the large number of spatial dimensions available can be effectively used to suppress the loop interference in the spatial domain. In [21], the authors studied the hardware impairments aware transceiver design for massive MIMO fullduplex relaying, where multiple sourcedestination pairs communicate simultaneously with the help of a fullduplex relay equipped with very large antenna arrays. Note that these works assume the relay is equipped with massive arrays, and there is no work considering the destination is equipped with massive arrays in fullduplex relay systems.
In this paper, we investigate the performance of fullduplex AF and DF relaying with largescale antenna array at the destination. Since the sourcedestination channel vector and relaydestination channel vector become pairwise orthogonal, the destination can treat the sourcedestination link as useful signal and therefore the performance can be improved. Furthermore, we optimize the transmit power of the fullduplex relay node by maximizing the achievable rates or minimizing the outage probabilities.
2 System model
We consider a threenode relay channel, where a singleantenna source communicates with an Nantenna destination through a fullduplex relay, as depicted in Fig. 1. We assume the relay is equipped with two antennas, one for receiving and the other for transmitting. In cellular networks, the source can be a user and the destination can be a BS.
Denote the channel of the sourcerelay, sourcedestination, and relaydestination links as h _{sr}, \(\mathbf {h}_{{\text {sd}}}\in {\mathbb {C}^{N \times 1}}\), and \(\mathbf {h}_{{\text {rd}}}\in {\mathbb {C}^{N \times 1}}\), respectively, which are modeled to be frequency flat and quasi static. All the channel elements are assumed to be zeromean complex Gaussian random variables (Rayleigh fading), and the variance for h _{sr}, each element of h _{sd}, and each element of h _{rd} are given as η _{sr}, η _{sd}, and η _{rd}, respectively. Since the selfinterference cannot be completely canceled, we denote the residual selfinterference channel as h _{rr}, which is also assumed to be zeromean complex Gaussian random variables with variance η _{rr}.
The transmit signals from the source and the relay in time slot t are denoted as x _{s}(t) and x _{r}(t), respectively. We assume the transmit power of the source and the relay are P _{s} and P _{r}, respectively, i.e., E[x _{s}(t)^{2}]=P _{s} and E[x _{r}(t)^{2}]=P _{r}.
2.1 Direct transmission
For the direct transmission, the source transmit the signal directly to the destination. In time slot t, the received signal at the destination is given as
where n _{d}(t) denotes the complex additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) at the destination with zeromean and covariance matrix \(E\left [ {{{\mathbf {n}_{\mathrm {d}}}}\left (t \right){{\mathbf {n}_{\mathrm {d}}}}{{\left (t \right)}^{H}}} \right ] = \sigma _{\mathrm {d}}^{2}{\mathbf {I}_{N}}\).
2.2 Halfduplex relaying
For the halfduplex relaying, the transmission is carried out in two time slots. In the time slot t (assumed to be odd), the source transmits a signal to the relay and the destination. The received signal at the destination is the same as (1), and the received signal at the relay is given as
where n _{r}(t) denotes the AWGN at the relay with zeromean and covariance \(\sigma _{\mathrm {r}}^{2}\). In the time slot t+1, the relay transmit a signal to the destination, and the received signal at the destination is given as
When the AF protocol is used, the relay amplifies the received signal y _{r} by a scaling factor β, so the transmit signal at the relay is x _{r}(t+1)=β y _{r}(t). To satisfy the instantaneous transmit power at the relay, the scaling factor is chosen as
When the DF protocol is used, the relay decodes its received signal and checks if it is correct. If the relay can decode the received signal successfully, the transmit signal at the relay is \({x_{\mathrm {r}}}\left ({t + 1} \right) = \sqrt {\frac {{{{P_{\mathrm {r}}}}}}{{{{P_{\mathrm {s}}}}}}} {x_{\mathrm {s}}}\left (t \right)\).
2.3 Fullduplex relaying
For the fullduplex relaying, the received signal at the relay and the destination in time slot t are given by
and
respectively.
When the AF protocol is used, the processing at the relay is similar to that in the halfduplex mode. As the instantaneous received power at the relay is \(E\left [ {{{\left  {{y_{\mathrm {r}}}\left (t \right)} \right }^{2}}} \right ] = {{P_{\mathrm {s}}}}{\left  {{h_{{\text {sr}}}}} \right ^{2}} + {{P_{\mathrm {r}}}}{\left  {{h_{{\text {rr}}}}} \right ^{2}} + \sigma _{\mathrm {r}}^{2}\), the scaling factor is chosen as
Assume the processing delay at the relay is τ time slot, then the transmit signal at the relay is x _{r}(t)=β y _{r}(t−τ).
When the DF protocol is used, the processing at the relay is also similar to that in the halfduplex mode except there is processing delay τ. If the relay can decode the received signal successfully, then the transmit signal at the relay is \({x_{\mathrm {r}}}\left (t \right) = \sqrt {\frac {{{{P_{\mathrm {r}}}}}}{{{{P_{\mathrm {s}}}}}}} {x_{\mathrm {s}}}\left ({t  \tau } \right)\).
3 Performance analysis
In this section, we analyze the performance of the direct transmission, halfduplex relaying, and fullduplex relaying, respectively. We assume matched filter (MF) processing is used at the destination, i.e., the destination processes the signal vector by multiplying the conjugatetranspose of the channel [4]. For large N, the channel vectors h _{sd} and h _{rd} are asymptotically orthogonal, so we have hsdH h _{sd}→N η _{sd}, hrdH h _{rd}→N η _{rd}, hsdH h _{rd}→0 and hrdH h _{sd}→0.
3.1 Direct transmission
When MF is used at the destination, we have
Therefore, the achievable rate is given by
where \({{\bar \gamma }_{\mathrm {s,d}}} = {{P_{\mathrm {s}}}{\eta _{\mathrm {s,d}}}} \left / {\sigma _{\mathrm {d}}^{2}} \right.\).
Outage probability is defined as the probability that the achievable rate falls below a target transmission rate R _{0}, so the outage probability can be given by
3.2 Halfduplex relaying
In the odd time slot t, the processing at the destination is the same as in (8). In the even time slot t+1, by using MF, we have
We assume the maximum ratio combining (MRC) is applied at the destination, then the endtoend instantaneous SNR for the AF protocol is given as
where \({{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} = {{P_{\mathrm {r}}}{\eta _{\mathrm {r,d}}}} / {\sigma _{\mathrm {d}}^{2}} \) and \({\gamma _{{\text {sr}}}} = {{{P_{\mathrm {s}}}}{{\left  {{h_{{\text {sr}}}}} \right }^{2}}} \left / \sigma _{\mathrm {r}}^{2} \right.\). The achievable rate for the AF protocol is given as
where the factor 1/2 is due to the use of two time slots. The outage probability for the AF protocol is given as
where \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}{\delta _{{\text {HD}}}} = {2^{2{R_{0}}}}  1\). If \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\), we have pHD,AFout=0; if \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\), we have pHD,AFout=1; otherwise, we have
where \({{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sr}}}} = {{P_{\mathrm {s}}}{\eta _{{\text {sr}}}}} \left / {\sigma _{\mathrm {r}}^{2}} \right.\).
Similarly, the endtoend instantaneous SNR and achievable rate for the DF protocol are given as
and
respectively. The outage probability for the DF protocol is given as
If \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\), we have pHD,AFout=0; if \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\), we have pHD,DFout=1; otherwise, we have
3.3 Fullduplex relaying
At the relay, the signaltointerferenceplusnoise ratio (SINR) can be written as
At the destination, by using MF to (6), we can obtain
When the AF protocol is used, (22) can be further written as
The destination can delay (21) by τ time slots and combine it with (23), then the endtoend instantaneous equivalent SNR and achievable rate are given as
and
respectively. The outage probability is given as
where \(\phantom {\dot {i}\!}{\delta _{{\text {FD}}}} = {2^{{R_{0}}}}  1\). If \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\), we have pFD,AFout=0; if \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\), we have pFD,AFout=1; otherwise, we have
where \({{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rr}}}} = {{P_{\mathrm {r}}}{\eta _{{\text {rr}}}}} \left / {\sigma _{\mathrm {r}}^{2}} \right.\).
Similarly, the endtoend instantaneous equivalent SNR and achievable rate for the DF protocol are given as
and
respectively. The outage probability for the DF protocol is given as
If \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\), we have pFD,DFout=0; if \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\), we have pFD,DFout=1; otherwise, we have
3.4 Condition for the superiority of fullduplex relaying over halfduplex relaying
In this subsection, we derive the condition that fullduplex relaying outperforms halfduplex relaying based on the outage probability. Five cases are considered.

Case 1: \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\). In this case, we have pHD,AFout=pHD,DFout=pFD,AFout=pFD,DFout=0, which means that fullduplex relaying and halfduplex relaying will obtain the same outage performance.

Case 2: \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\). In this case, we have pHD,AFout=pHD,DFout=pFD,AFout=pFD,DFout=1, which means that fullduplex relaying and halfduplex relaying will obtain the same outage performance.

Case 3: \({\delta _{{\text {FD}}}} \le N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\). In this case, we have pFD,AFout=pFD,DFout=0 and pHD,AFout=pHD,DFout>0, so fullduplex relaying outperforms halfduplex relaying.

Case 4: \({\delta _{{\text {FD}}}} \le N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\). In this case, we have pHD,AFout=pHD,DFout=1 and pFD,AFout=pFD,DFout<1, so fullduplex relaying outperforms halfduplex relaying.

Case 5: \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\) and \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\). In this case, fullduplex relaying outperforms halfduplex relaying when pFD,AFout≤pHD,AFout for AF protocol and pFD,DFout≤pHD,DFout for DF protocol. Using the results (15) and (27), the average residual selfinterference for AF protocol should satisfy
$$\begin{array}{*{20}l} {{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{rr}}}} \le & \frac{{{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{sr}}}}\left({N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{rd}}}}  {\delta_{{\text{FD}}}}} \right)}}{{\left({N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{rd}}}} + 1} \right)\left({{\delta_{{\text{FD}}}}  N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{sd}}}}} \right)}}\\ & \times \left\{ {\exp \left[ {\frac{{N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{rd}}}}\left({N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{rd}}}} + 1} \right)}}{{{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{sr}}}}\left({N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{rd}}}}  {\delta_{{\text{HD}}}}} \right)}}} \right.} \right.\\ &\left. { \times \left. {\frac{{\left({{\delta_{{\text{HD}}}}  {\delta_{{\text{FD}}}}} \right)}}{{\left({N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{rd}}}}  {\delta_{{\text{FD}}}}} \right)}}} \right]  1} \right\}. \end{array} $$(32)Using the results (19) and (31), the average residual selfinterference for DF protocol should satisfy
$$ {{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{rr}}}} \le \frac{{{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{sr}}}}}}{{{\delta_{{\text{FD}}}}}}\left[ {\exp \left({\frac{{{\delta_{{\text{HD}}}}  {\delta_{{\text{FD}}}}}}{{{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text{sr}}}}}}} \right)  1} \right]. $$(33)
4 Power control
In this section, we propose power control to improve the system performance. We assume independent power constraint at both the source and the relay, i.e., \({P_{\mathrm {s}}} \le P_{\mathrm {s}}^{\max }\) and \({P_{\mathrm {r}}} \le P_{\mathrm {r}}^{\max }\). For halfduplex relaying, it is obvious that the system performance is optimized when the source and the relay use the maximum allowed transmit power, so we focus on power control for fullduplex relaying.
For fullduplex relaying, the source should also use the maximum transmit power because as P _{s} increases, the achievable rates (25) and (29) increase and the outage probabilities (27) and (31) decrease. As such, we concentrate on power control for the relay. Two scenarios are considered based on the CSI availability.
4.1 Instantaneous CSI of h _{ sr } and h _{ rr }
In this scenario, we assume the relay has the instantaneous CSI of h _{sr} and h _{rr}, and the statistical CSI of h _{sd} and h _{rd}, then the power control is to maximize the achievable rates.
For the AF protocol, the power control can be formulated as an optimization problem
By taking the first derivative of object function with respect to P _{r} and setting the first derivative equal to zero, we obtain the only one positive root
Therefore, the optimal transmit power of the relay is \(P_{\mathrm {r}}^{\text {opt}} = \min \left ({P_{\mathrm {r}}^{*},P_{\mathrm {r}}^{\max }} \right)\).
For the DF protocol, the power control can also be formulated as an optimization problem
The optimal solution should satisfy
By solving this equation, we can obtain the only one positive root
Similarly, the optimal transmit power of the relay for DF protocol is \(P_{\mathrm {r}}^{\text {opt}} = \min \left ({P_{\mathrm {r}}^{*},P_{\mathrm {r}}^{\max }} \right)\).
4.2 Statistical CSI of h _{sr} and h _{ rr }
In this scenario, we assume the relay only has the statistical CSI of h _{sr}, h _{rr}, h _{sd,} and h _{rd}, then the power control is to minimize the outage probabilities. Note that power control does not help if \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\) or \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\), so we only need to consider the case that \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} < {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\) and \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\).
For the AF protocol, minimizing the outage probability (27) is equivalent to minimizing − ln(1−pFD,AFout), so the power control can be formulated as an optimization problem
where \(c = {N \left / {\left ({{\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}  N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}}} \right)}\right.} \). By taking the first derivative with respect to P _{r} and setting the first derivative equal to zero, we can obtain \(P_{\mathrm {r}}^{*}\). However, it is difficult to find the closed form solution, so we need to use iterative rootfinding algorithms such as the bisection method or the Newton’s method to find the numerical solution.
For the DF protocol, to ensure \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\), we should set the transmit power at the relay as high as possible. However, after \(N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sd}}}} + N{{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {rd}}}} \ge {\delta _{{\text {FD}}}}\) is satisfied, the outage probability increases as P _{r} increases. Therefore, the optimal transmit power of the relay is
5 Numerical results
In this section, we present some numerical results to validate our analysis. For simplicity, we assume N=100, \(P_{\mathrm {s}}^{{\text {max}}} = 1\), \(P_{\mathrm {r}}^{{\text {max}}} = 1\), η _{sd}=10^{−7}, η _{rd}=2×10^{−6}, \(\sigma _{\mathrm {d}}^{2} = \sigma _{\mathrm {r}}^{2} = {10^{ 6}}\), and R _{0}=5 bps/Hz.
In Fig. 2, we plot the achievable rates as a function of γ _{sr} for direct transmission, halfduplex relaying, and fullduplex relaying, where h _{rr}^{2}=4×10^{−6}. From Fig. 2, we can see that (1) the achievable rates of both halfduplex relaying and fullduplex relaying increase as γ _{sr} increases; (2) the fullduplex AF relaying perform better than fullduplex DF in the low SNR regime, but perform worse than fullduplex DF in the high SNR regime; and (3) the achievable rates of fullduplex relaying can be improved by using power control.
In Fig. 3, we plot the achievable rates as a function of h _{rr}^{2} for direct transmission, halfduplex relaying, and fullduplex relaying, where γ _{sr}=30 dB. It is observed from Fig. 3 that as h _{rr}^{2} increases, the achievable rates of fullduplex relaying decrease significantly. When h _{rr}^{2} is high enough, the achievable rates of halfduplex relaying will outperform that of fullduplex relaying. Moreover, we can also see that power control can improve the achievable rates of fullduplex relaying.
Figure 4 shows the outage probabilities versus \({{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sr}}}}\) for fullduplex relaying with E(h _{rr}^{2})=4×10^{−6}, while Fig. 5 shows the outage probabilities versus E(h _{rr}^{2}) for fullduplex relaying with \({{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sr}}}} = 40\) dB. Note that \(N{P_{\mathrm {s}}^{\max }{\eta _{{\text {sd}}}}} \left / {\sigma _{\mathrm {d}}^{2}}\right. + {{NP}_{\mathrm {r}}^{\max }{\eta _{{\text {rd}}}}} \left / {\sigma _{\mathrm {d}}^{2}} < {\delta _{{\text {HD}}}}\right. \), so the outage probabilities for halfduplex relaying equal to 1. From Figs. 4 and 5, we can see that (1) the outage probabilities of fullduplex relaying decrease as \({{\bar \gamma }_{{\text {sr}}}}\) increases and increase as E(h _{rr}^{2}) increases; (2) the fullduplex DF relaying with power control will obtain the best performance and the fullduplex DF relaying without power control will obtain the worst performance; and (3) the outage probabilities of fullduplex relaying can be improved by using power control.
6 Conclusions
In traditional fullduplex relaying, the destination always treats the sourcedestination link as interference, which degrades the system performance. In this paper, we investigated the system performance of fullduplex relaying by considering largescale antenna array at the destination. Using the property that the sourcedestination channel vector and relaydestination channel vector become pairwise orthogonal, we converted the sourcedestination link to useful signal. We derived the achievable rates and outage probabilities for direct transmission, halfduplex relaying, and fullduplex relaying, respectively. By maximizing the achievable rates or minimizing the outage probabilities based on the CSI availability, we obtained the optimal transmit power of the fullduplex relay node. Numerical results showed that the performance of fullduplex relaying is determined by the residual selfinterference, and power control can improve the performance of fullduplex relaying.
References
JG Andrews, S Buzzi, W Choi, SV Hanly, et al., What will 5G be?. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 32(6), 1065–1082 (2014).
M Agiwal, A Roy, N Saxena, Next generation 5G wireless networks: a comprehensive survey. IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. 18(3), 1617–1655 (2016).
F Boccardi, RW Heath, A Lozano, TL Marzetta, P Popovski, Five disruptive technology directions for 5G. IEEE Commun. Mag. 52(2), 74–80 (2014).
F Rusek, D Persson, BK Lau, EG Larsson, TL Marzetta, et al., Scaling up MIMO: opportunities and challenges with very large arrays. IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 30(1), 40–60 (2013).
E Larsson, O Edfors, F Tufvesson, TL Marzetta, Massive MIMO for next generation wireless systems. IEEE Commun. Mag. 52(2), 186–195 (2014).
L Lu, GY Li, AL Swindlehurst, A Ashikhmin, Z Rui, An overview of massive MIMO: benefits and challenges. IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process. 8(5), 742–758 (2014).
TL Marzetta, Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 9(11), 3590–3600 (2010).
H Yang, TL Marzetta, Performance of conjugate and zeroforcing beamforming in largescale antenna systems. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 31(2), 172–179 (2013).
HQ Ngo, EG Larsson, TL Marzetta, Energy and spectral efficiency of very large multiuser MIMO systems. IEEE Trans. Commun. 61(4), 1436–1449 (2013).
X Gao, O Edfors, F Rusek, F Tufvesson, Massive MIMO performance evaluation based on measured propagation data. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 14(7), 3899–3911 (2015).
S Hong, J Brand, C Jung, et al., Applications of selfinterference cancellation in 5G and beyond. IEEE Commun. Mag. 52(2), 114–121 (2014).
M Heino, D Korpi, T Huusari, et al., Recent advances in antenna design and interference cancellation algorithms for inband full duplex relays. IEEE Commun. Mag. 53(5), 91–101 (2015).
H Ju, E Oh, D Hong, Improving efficiency of resource usage in twohop full duplex relay systems based on resource sharing and interference cancellation. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 8(8), 3933–3938 (2009).
T Kwon, S Lim, S Choi, D Hong, Optimal duplex mode for DF relay in terms of the outage probability. IEEE Trans. Veh. Techol. 59(7), 3628–3634 (2010).
T Riihonen, S Werner, R Wichman, Optimized gain control for singlefrequency relaying with loop interference. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 8(6), 2801–2806 (2009).
T Riihonen, S Werner, R Wichman, Mitigation of loopback selfinterference in fullduplex MIMO relays. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 59(12), 5983–5993 (2011).
T Riihonen, S Werner, R Wichman, Hybrid fullduplex/halfduplex relaying with transmit power adaptation. IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. 10(9), 3074–3085 (2011).
TK Baranwal, DS Michalopoulos, R Schober, Outage analysis of multihop full duplex relaying. IEEE Commun. Lett. 17(1), 63–66 (2013).
B Yu, L Yang, X Cheng, R Cao, Power and location optimization for fullduplex decodeandforward relaying. IEEE Trans. Commun. 63(12), 4743–4753 (2015).
HQ Ngo, HA Suraweera, M Matthaiou, EG Larsson, Multipair fullduplex relaying with massive arrays and linear processing. IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun. 32(9), 1721–1737 (2014).
X Xia, D Zhang, K Xu, et al., Hardware impairments aware transceiver for fullduplex massive MIMO relaying. IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 63(24), 6565–6580 (2015).
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the 863 Program of China (2015AA01A703), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2014ZD0302), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61571055), the China Scholarship Council (201508120012), and the Doctoral Foundation of Tianjin Normal University (5RL135).
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Han, L., Shi, B. & Zou, W. Performance analysis and power control for fullduplex relaying with largescale antenna array at the destination. J Wireless Com Network 2017, 41 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1363801708280
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1363801708280
Keywords
 Fullduplex relaying
 Amplifyandforward
 Decodeandforward
 Achievable rate
 Outage probability
 Power control