| Literature DB >> 30545027 |
Abstract
In order to overcome the limitations of traditional road test methods in 5G mobile communication network signal coverage detection, a signal coverage detection algorithm based on distributed sensor network for 5G mobile communication network is proposed. First, the received signal strength of the communication base station is collected and pre-processed by randomly deploying distributed sensor nodes. Then, the neural network objective function is modified by using the variogram function, and the initial weight coefficient of the neural network is optimized by using the improved particle swarm optimization algorithm. Next, the trained network model is used to interpolate the perceptual blind zone. Finally, the sensor node sampling data and the interpolation estimation result are combined to generate an effective coverage of the 5G mobile communication network signal. Simulation results indicate that the proposed algorithm can detect the real situation of 5G mobile communication network signal coverage better than other algorithms, and has certain feasibility and application prospects.Entities:
Keywords: 5G mobile communication network; PSO-BP-Kriging; distributed sensor network; interpolation; neural network
Year: 2018 PMID: 30545027 PMCID: PMC6308478 DOI: 10.3390/s18124390
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 15G mobile communication network coverage detection technology architecture.
Figure 2Flowchart of PSO-BP algorithm.
Figure 3Simulation environment. (a) 5G communication test network; (b) 5G communication network signal coverage.
Simulation parameter settings.
| Simulation Parameters | Configuration Value |
|---|---|
| Target area size | 400 m × 400 m |
| Path loss model | Okumura-Hata |
| Standard deviation of shadow fading | 10 dB |
| Carrier frequency | 3.4 GHz |
| Network model | Three sector model |
| Number of users in each cell | 100 |
| Number of sensor nodes | 42 |
Figure 4Prediction results. (a) Training set prediction results; (b) Test set prediction results.
Comparison of different model fitting performance.
| Performance Parameter | PSO-BP-Kriging | BP-Kriging | Kriging | BP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RMSE | 5.9756 | 6.5979 | 6.7193 | 6.6218 |
|
| 0.6541 | 0.6173 | 0.6054 | 0.5946 |
Figure 5Relationship between RMSE and number of failed nodes in different algorithms.
Figure 6Comparison of interpolation algorithms.
Figure 7Coverage situation. (a) Kriging interpolation results; (b) BP interpolation results; (c) BP-Kriging interpolation results; (d) PSO-BP-Kriging interpolation results.
Comparison of test results of two methods (unit: dBm).
| Method | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Road Test | −89.308 | −82.852 | −103.16 | −113.491 | −86.475 | −108.312 | −95.457 | −90.887 | −79.645 |
| Interpolation | −87.935 | −83.674 | −105.03 | −110.856 | −89.317 | −107.544 | −93.121 | −86.021 | −81.534 |