Spectrum sensing using energy detection for reconfigurable antenna
Rigorous development in Software Defined Radio (SDR) helps to realize the dream of Cognitive Radio. The SDR can be used with a reconfigurable antenna to achieve full Cognitive Radio system. Reconfigurable antenna is an antenna designed that is capable of changing its operating frequency. However, th...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.utm.my/id/eprint/60067/1/KhairulHilmiYusofMFKE2016.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Rigorous development in Software Defined Radio (SDR) helps to realize the dream of Cognitive Radio. The SDR can be used with a reconfigurable antenna to achieve full Cognitive Radio system. Reconfigurable antenna is an antenna designed that is capable of changing its operating frequency. However, the SDR such as Universal Software Radio Peripheral (USRP) B200 does not come with a software algorithm that can change the operating frequency of the reconfigurable antenna. To overcome this problem, an energy detection algorithm that can work with wideband to narrowband reconfigurable antenna switching algorithm and narrowband to narrowband reconfigurable antenna switching algorithm are proposed. By using the algorithms, the switching of operating frequency of the reconfigurable antenna can be done via software. All algorithms were developed using GNU Radio and Arduino micro-controller to reconfigure antenna switching to replace manual switching. USRP B200 was the selected SDR for all measurements. Probability of detection was the parameter that had been measured and simulated. Statistical test was conducted to verify the result between measurement and simulation, which revealed that there was no significant difference between them. Results for wideband antenna, wideband to narrowband reconfigurable antenna, and narrowband to narrowband reconfigurable antenna show 3.2% to 18% difference between measurement and simulation. Hence, it can be concluded that there is a good agreement between the measurement and simulation. |
|---|