Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Performance of Iterative Concatenated Codes with GMSK over Fading Channels

Performance of Iterative Concatenated Codes with GMSK over Fading Channels

Ratings: (0)|Views: 315|Likes:
Published by ijcsis
Concatenated continuous phase modulation (CCPM) facilitates powerful error correction. CPM also has the advantage of being bandwidth efficient and compatible with non-linear amplifiers. Bandwidth efficient concatenated coded modulation schemes were designed for communication over Additive White Gaussian noise (AWGN), and Rayleigh fading channels. An analytical bounds on the performance of Serial (SCCC), and Parallel convolutional concatenated codes (PCCC) were derived as a base of comparison with the third category known as hybrid concatenated convolution codes scheme (HCCC). An upper bound to the soft-input, soft-output (SISO) maximum a posteriori (MAP) decoding algorithm applied to CC's of the three schemes was obtained. Design rules for the parallel, outer, and inner codes that maximize the interleaver's gain were discussed. Finally, a low complexity iterative decoding algorithm that yields a better performance is proposed.
Concatenated continuous phase modulation (CCPM) facilitates powerful error correction. CPM also has the advantage of being bandwidth efficient and compatible with non-linear amplifiers. Bandwidth efficient concatenated coded modulation schemes were designed for communication over Additive White Gaussian noise (AWGN), and Rayleigh fading channels. An analytical bounds on the performance of Serial (SCCC), and Parallel convolutional concatenated codes (PCCC) were derived as a base of comparison with the third category known as hybrid concatenated convolution codes scheme (HCCC). An upper bound to the soft-input, soft-output (SISO) maximum a posteriori (MAP) decoding algorithm applied to CC's of the three schemes was obtained. Design rules for the parallel, outer, and inner codes that maximize the interleaver's gain were discussed. Finally, a low complexity iterative decoding algorithm that yields a better performance is proposed.

More info:

Published by: ijcsis on Feb 15, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

02/15/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Performance of Iterative Concatenated Codeswith GMSK over Fading Channels
 
Labib Francis Gergis
 Misr Academy for Engineering and Technology
Mansoura, EgyptIACSIT Senior Member, IAENG Member 
 Abstract-
Concatenated continuous phasemodulation (CCPM) facilitates powerfulerror correction. CPM also has theadvantage of being bandwidth efficient andcompatible with non-linear amplifiers.Bandwidth efficient concatenated codedmodulation schemes were designed forcommunication over Additive WhiteGaussian noise (AWGN), and Rayleighfading channels. An analytical bounds onthe performance of Serial (SCCC), andParallel convolutional concatenated codes(PCCC) were derived as a base of comparison with the third category knownas hybrid concatenated convolution codesscheme (HCCC). An upper bound to thesoft-input, soft-output (SISO) maximum aposteriori (MAP) decoding algorithmapplied to
CC's
of the three schemes wasobtained. Design rules for the parallel,outer, and inner codes that maximize theinterleaver's gain were discussed. Finally, alow complexity iterative decoding algorithmthat yields a better performance isproposed.
 key words
: Concatenated codes, continuousphase modulation, GMSK, uniforminterleaved coding, convolutional coding,iterative decoding
I. INTRODUCTION
The channel capacity unfortunately onlystates what data rate is theoretically possibleto achieve, but it does not say what codes touse in order to achieve an arbitrary low biterror rate (BER) for this data rate.Therefore, there has traditionally been agap between the theoretical limit and theachievable data rates obtained using codesof a manageable decoding complexity.However, a novel approach to errorcontrol coding revolutionized the area of coding theory. The so-called turbo codes[1,2], almost completely closed the gapbetween the theoretical limit and the datarate obtained using practicalimplementations. Turbo codes are based onconcatenated codes (
CC's
) separated byinterleavers. The concatenated code can bedecoded using a low-complexity iterativedecoding algorithm [3]. Given certainconditions, the iterative decoding algorithmperforms close to the fundamental Shannoncapacity. In general, concatenated codingprovides longer codes yielding significantperformance improvements at reasonablecomplexity investments. The overalldecoding complexity of the iterativedecoding algorithm for a concatenated codeis lower than that required for a single codeof the corresponding performanceThe parallel, serial, and hybridconcatenation of codes are well establishedas a practical means of achieving excellentperformance. Interest in code concatenationhas been renewed with the introduction of turbo codes [4,5,6,7]. These codes performwell and yet have a low overall decodingcomplexity.CPM is a form of constant-envelopedigital modulation and therefore of interestfor use with nonlinear and/ or fadingchannels. The inherent bandwidth- andenergy efficiency makes CPM a veryattractive modulation scheme [8].Furthermore, CPM signals have goodspectral properties due to their phasecontinuity. Besides providing spectraleconomy, CPM schemes exhibit a “codinggain” when compared to PSK modulation.
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 9, No. 1, January 201176http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
 
This “coding gain” is due to the memorythat is introduced by the phase-shapingfilter and the decoder can exploit this. CPMmodulation exhibits memory that resemblesin many ways how a convolutionallyencoded data sequence exhibits memory - inboth cases, a “trellis” can be used to displaythe possible output signals (this is whyconvolutional encoders are used with CPMin this paper.This paper is organized as follows.Section II briefly describes continuousphase modulation, using Gaussian minimumshift keying GMSK, and how it can beseparated into a finite-state machine and amemoryless signal mapper. Section IIIdescribes in details the system model andencoder structure of serial, parallel, andhybrid concatenated codes.Section IV derives analytical upperbounds to the bit-error probability of thethree concatenated codes using the conceptof uniform interleavers that decouples theoutput of the outer encoder from the inputof the inner encoder, from the knowledge of the input–output weight coefficients(IOWC),
 A
 cw,h
, for
CC's
.
A
 cw,h
isrepresented related to the type of concatenation.
The choice of decodingalgorithm and number of decoderiterations is described in section V.
Factors that affect the performance arediscussed in section VI. Finally conclusionresults for some examples described insection IV have been considered in sectionVII.
II. GMSK SYSTEM MODEL
Gaussian minimum-shift keying is aspecial case of a more genet-ic class of modulation schemes known as continuousphase modulation (CPM). In CPM schemes,the signal envelope is kept constant and thephase varies in a continuous manner. Thisensures that CPM signals do not have thehigh-frequency components associated withsharp changes in the signal envelope andallows for more compact spectra. CPMsignal
 s(t
) can be written [8,9]
S(t)
= (
 2E
 b
 /T 
)
 cos
[
2πf 
 c
t + Ф(t+α)
] (1)where
 E
 b
 ,
is the energy per symbol interval,
is the duration of the symbol interval,
 f 
 c
,
isthe carrier frequency, and
Ф
(t+
α
 )
is the"phase function" responsible for mappingthe input sequence to a corresponding phasewavefom.The term
α
 
= {
α
i
}
is the input sequencetaken from the M-ary alphabet ±l, ±3,
. . . ,
±
 
M
-
1. For convenience the focus here willbe on the binary case,
 
α
i
 
є
 
{
±1
}.
 The "continuous phase" constraint inCPM requires that the phase functionmaintain a continuous amplitude. In generalthe phase function is given by
 N 
Ф(t+α)
=
 2
π
 
Σ
 
α
 n
δ
 n
g( t – n T )
 
 n=0
(2)where
δ
 
is the modulation index, and
 g(t
)
isthe phase pulse. The phase pulse
 g(t
 ) 
 
istypically specified in terms of a normalized,time-limited frequency pulse
 f(t
)
of 
 
duration
 LT 
such that:
0
;
if t < 0
 
 t g(t)
=
 
 f( 
τ 
 )d 
τ 
;
 
if 0 < t < LT 
 
0
 1/2 ; if t
>
 LT 
(3)The duration term (LT) is specified interms of the bit duration
, and identifiesthe number of bit durations over which thefrequency pulse
 f (t)
is non-zero,
δ
 
=
1/2
, andthe frequency pulse is
 f(t)
=
(1/2T) Q
2
π
 B
(
 t -
τ 
 /2
)/ 
√ ln 2
-
 
Q
2
π
 B
(
 t+
τ 
 /2
)/ 
√ ln 2
 (4)
 B
is a parameter in GMSK which controlsthe amount of bandwidth used as well as theseverity of the intersymbol interference, theB parameter is expressed in terms of theinverse of the bit duration T.
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 9, No. 1, January 201177http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500
 
 
III. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OFCOCATENATED CODES
Consider a linear
(n,k)
code
with coderate
 R
 c
= k/n
and minimum distance
 h
 m
. Anupper bound on the bit-error rate [
 BER
] of the code
over memoryless binary-inputchannels, with coherent detection, usingmaximum likelihood decoding, can beobtained as [4]
 n k
 
 BER
 
Σ
 
Σ
(
w/k
)
 A
 cw,h
 
 D
(
 R
 c
E
 b
/ N 
 o
 , h
)
 h=
min
 
w=1
 
(5)where
 E
 b
 /N 
o
is the signal-to-noise ratio perbit, and
 A
 cw,h
for the code
represents thenumber of codewords of the code withoutput weight
 h
associated with an inputsequence of weight
w
.
 A
 cw,h
is the input–output weight coefficient (IOWC).Thefunction
 D(.)
represents the pairwise errorprobability which is a monotonic decreasingfunction of the signal to noise ratio and theoutput weight
 h
. For AWGN channels wehave
 D
(
 R
 c
E
 b
/ N 
 o
 , h
) =
Q( 
2
 R
 c
 h E
 b
/ N 
o
)
.
For fading channels, assuming coherentdetection, and perfect Channel Stateinformation (CSI), the fading samples
 μ
i
arei.i.d. random variables with
 Rayleigh
 density of the form
 f( 
 μ
 )= 2
 μ
e
-
 μ
 2
. Theconditional pairwise error probability
 
isgiven by
 h
 
 D
(
 R
 c
E
 b
 o
 , h
 μ
) =
Q
(2
 R
 c
 h E
 b
/ N 
o
 
Σ
 
 μ
 2i
)
i=1
(6)
where
Q
function can be defined as
Q(x)
≤ (1/2)
e
 
 –
 x
 2
 
 / 
 
 2
 
(7)
By averaging the conditional bit errorrate over fading using (5), (6), and (7). Theupper bound for
 BER
is represented by
 n k
 
 BER
 
≤ 0.5
 
Σ
 
Σ
 
(
w/k
)
 
 A
 cw,h
 
.
 
 h=h
 m
w=1
[
1/(1+R
 c
E
 b
/ N 
 o
 )
]
 h
 (8)It is clear from equation (8) that BERdepends on major factors like signal-to-noise ratio per bit, and the input–outputweight coefficients (IOWC),
 A
 cw,h
for thecode,
 A
 cw,h
is represented related to the typeof concatenation.The average IOWC for
 λ
concatenatedcodes with
 λ
-1
interleavers can be obtainedby averaging (5) over all over all possibleinterleavers. This average is obtained byreplacing the actual
i
 th
interleaver (
i = 1, 2,… ,
 λ
-1
), that performs a permutation of the
 N 
i
input bits, with an abstract interleavercalled uniform interleaver defined as aprobabilistic device that maps a given inputword of weight
w
into all distinct
 N 
i
 
w
permutations of it with equal probability
ψ 
= 1 / 
 
 N 
i
.
w
IV. DESIGN OF CONCATENATEDCODES
Concatenated codes represent a morerecent development in the coding researchfield [1], which has risen a large interest inthe coding community.
 
IV. 1. Design of Parallel ConcatenatedConvolutional Codes ( PCCC )
The first type of concatenated codes is
 parallel concatenated convolutional codes
(PCCC) whose encoder is formed by two (ormore)
 constituent
systematic encoders joinedthrough one or more interleavers. The inputinformation bits feed the first encoder and,after having been scrambled by theinterleaver, they enter the second encoder.A codeword of a parallel concatenated codeconsists of the input bits to the first encoderfollowed by the parity
 
check bits of bothencoders. As shown in Fig. 1, the structureof PCCC consists of convolutional code
1
 
with rate
 R
1 p
 
=
 p/q
1
, and convolutional code
 2
 
with rate
 R
 2 p
=
 p/q
 2
, where theconstituent code inputs are joined by aninterleaver of length
 N 
, generating a PCCC,
 p
, with total rate
 R
 p
. The output codewordlength
 n = n
1
+ n
 2
[4].
(IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security,Vol. 9, No. 1, January 201178http://sites.google.com/site/ijcsis/ISSN 1947-5500

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->