Performance evaluation of a QoS‐aware error control scheme for multiple‐WBAN environment

Abstract

This paper presents a comprehensive performance evaluation of an error control scheme using decomposable codes while satisfying quality of service (QoS) requirements in a multiple‐wireless body area network (WBAN) environment. Our QoS control scheme comprises a multiplexing layer and decomposable error control coding used to adapt the communication parameters and satisfy the different performance requirements of different types of WBAN data traffic. Using mathematical analysis and simulations, it has been shown in previous studies that this method has a better residual bit error ratio (RBER) and throughput performance than that of an IEEE 802.15.6‐based solution. The energy efficiency of the proposed method was recently evaluated for an additive white Gaussian noise case. In this work, this performance evaluation IS complemented by simulating the RBER performance under a defined worst case scenario. The energy efficiency is compared with that of the IEEE 802.15.6 solution using a realistic WBAN channel model and accounting for the interference from neighboring WBANs. Results from the previous studies and the new results are given to provide a complete description of the performance of our method. The results demonstrate that an error control scheme based on decomposable codes satisfies the QoS requirements of different data types and provides a more flexible and energy efficient QoS control than that of the IEEE 802.15.6 solution. The scheme is also shown to guarantee communication performance in the worst case scenario, whereas the IEEE 802.15.6 solution fails to do so. © 2017 Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Opportunities and Challenges for Error Correction Scheme for Wireless Body Area Network—A Survey

“…However, the same authors presented the results (residual BER and throughput) against E b /N 0 in [50,56] in similar settings. Therefore, the comparison made in [51,56] is not fair and not reasonable, as we discussed in Section 2.2. In addition, the simulation settings in the paper indicated that the channel model are considered as CM3 and CM4, the detailed discussion of how those channel models are adjusted in the simulation is not presented.…”

“…In IEEE 802.15.6, the BCH [17,18] code is adopted as an ECC. In NB-PHY, BCH (63,51), and its shortened version BCH (31,19) is used for payload and header, respectively. The modulation for narrowband PHY can be varied among Differential Binary Phase Shift Keying (DBPSK), Differential Quadrature Phase Shift Keying (DQPSK), Differential eight-Phase Shift Keying (D8PSK), and Gaussian Minimum Shift keying (GMSK) to support various data rate for payload and frequency bands.…”

“…Furthermore, the papers did not outline the types of decoding algorithm used in during the channel decoding that is also key factor for energy-constrained node in WBAN. The concepts introduced at [50] are extended in [51,52] when considering interference from the multiple WBAN environment. Two cases are considered in multiple WBAN environment: average and worst case.…”

“…In the proposed scheme, both types of data (user priority 5 and 6) is using the convolutional code with HARQ-II and code rate varying from 8/9 to 1/6, but with a different number of maximum retransmission according to user priority of data. In the standard approach, data with user priority 5 using BCH (63,51) with code rate 0.8, but data with high priority uses BCH (126,63) with a HARQ-II i.e., code rate of 0.5 and lower. The results (residual BER and throughput) are presented in [51,56] is against Es/N 0 instead of E b /N 0 .…”

“…In the standard approach, data with user priority 5 using BCH (63,51) with code rate 0.8, but data with high priority uses BCH (126,63) with a HARQ-II i.e., code rate of 0.5 and lower. The results (residual BER and throughput) are presented in [51,56] is against Es/N 0 instead of E b /N 0 . Consequently, the results do not take the code rate in to consideration i.e., do not consider the overhead caused by ECS.…”