This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

thesis_sthompson|Views: 193|Likes: 0

Published by arunkikavita

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/47727746/thesis-sthompson

11/13/2011

text

original

- Introduction
- 1.1 An Introduction to OFDM
- 1.1.1 ISI-Free Operation
- 1.1.2 A Multicarrier Modulation
- 1.1.3 Discrete-Time Signal Processing
- 1.2 Problems with OFDM
- 1.3 Constant Envelope Waveforms
- 1.4 Constant Envelope OFDM
- 1.5 Thesis Overview
- 2.1 More OFDM Basics
- 2.1.1 The Cyclic Preﬁx
- 2.1.2 Discrete-Time Model
- 2.1.3 Block Modulation with FDE
- 2.1.4 System Diagram
- 2.2 PAPR Statistics
- 2.3 Power Ampliﬁer Models
- 2.4 Eﬀects of Nonlinear Power Ampliﬁcation
- 2.4.1 Spectral Leakage
- 2.4.2 Performance Degradation
- input power backoﬀ levels. (N = 64)
- 2.4.3 System Range and PA Eﬃciency
- reduced further from nonlinear ampliﬁer distortion
- 2.5 PAPR Mitigation Techniques
- which correspond to various clipping ratios γclip (dB)
- M-PSK/OFDM systems. (N = 64)
- Constant Envelope OFDM
- 3.1 Signal Deﬁnition
- 3.2 Spectrum
- 4.1 The Phase Demodulator Receiver
- 4.1.1 Performance Analysis
- 4.1.2 Eﬀect of Channel Phase Oﬀset
- 4.1.3 Carrier-to-Noise Ratio and Thresholding Eﬀects
- 4.1.4 FIR Filter Design
- 4.2 The Optimum Receiver
- 4.2.1 Performance Analysis
- 4.2.2 Asymptotic Properties
- 4.3 Phase Demodulator Receiver versus Optimum
- 4.4 Spectral Eﬃciency versus Performance
- 4.5 CE-OFDM versus OFDM
- 6.1 MMSE versus ZF Equalization
- 6.1.1 Channel Description
- 6.1.2 Simulation Results
- 6.1.3 Discussion and Observations
- 6.2 Performance Over Frequency-Selective Fading Chan-
- 6.2.1 Channel Models
- 6.2.2 Simulation Procedure and Preliminary Discussion
- 6.2.3 Simulation Results
- MMSE)
- Conclusions
- A.1 Signal Description
- A.2 Spectral Eﬃciency
- More on the OFDM Literature
- Sample Code
- C.1 GNU Octave Code
- C.2 Gnuplot Code
- Abbreviations
- Symbols
- Bibliography
- Production Notes

for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering (Communications Theory and Systems) by Steve C. Thompson

Committee in charge:

Professor Professor Professor Professor Professor James R. Zeidler, Chair John G. Proakis, Co-Chair Robert R. Bitmead William S. Hodgkiss Laurence B. Milstein

2005

Copyright Steve C. Thompson, 2005 All rights reserved.

The dissertation of Steve C. Thompson is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microﬁlm:

Co-Chair

Chair

University of California, San Diego 2005

iii

“Before PhD, I chopped wood and carried water; After PhD, I chopped wood and carried water.” —[Slightly modiﬁed] Zen saying

“I wish I could be more moderate in my desires. But I can’t, so there is no rest.” —John Muir, 1826

“I know this: a man got to do what he got to do. . . ” —Casy, The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck, 1939

iv

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv Abstract of the Dissertation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . xii Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Block Modulation with FDE . . . . . . Constant Envelope Waveforms . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Vita and Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 v . . . . 1 4 4 5 8 9 ISI-Free Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.2 2. . . . . . . .3 2. . . . . . . . . . . .2 1. . . . . . .2 2. . . . . . . Problems with OFDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 PAPR Statistics Power Ampliﬁer Models . . . . . .3 1. 15 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2. . .1. .1 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii v List of Figures . . . . . . xvi 1 Introduction . . . . . .4 The Cyclic Preﬁx . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Thesis Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1.1 2. . . . . A Multicarrier Modulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Discrete-Time Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . .TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page . . . .4 2. . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . 14 OFDM . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . 22 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 System Diagram . 26 Eﬀects of Nonlinear Power Ampliﬁcation . . . . . .1 An Introduction to OFDM 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Constant Envelope OFDM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discrete-Time Signal Processing . . . . . .1 More OFDM Basics . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.1 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3 Spectral Leakage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . 110 Simulation Procedure and Preliminary Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 PAPR Mitigation Techniques . . . . 103 Performance Over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels . .2. . . . . 58 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . .2. . . . . . . . .2 Signal Deﬁnition . 78 4. . . . . 114 vi . . . . . . . . . 32 System Range and PA Eﬃciency . . . . .4 4. . . .2 6. . .2. . . . . .4 4. . . . . . . . 30 Performance Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 6. . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . .2 Performance Analysis . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Simulation Results . . .1. . .2 Channel Description . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . 37 Constant Envelope OFDM . . .1 2. . . . . . 43 3. . . . . . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . 69 The Optimum Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 2. . . .1 6. . . . . . . . . 62 Eﬀect of Channel Phase Oﬀset . . . . . . . . . . . .5 5 6 Phase Demodulator Receiver versus Optimum . . . . 83 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Nonselective Fading Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . 78 Spectral Eﬃciency versus Performance . . . . . . . . 66 FIR Filter Design . . . . . . 100 Discussion and Observations . . . . . . . . . . 112 Simulation Results . 94 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 3. . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. .1 MMSE versus ZF Equalization . 108 6. . . . . . 86 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Selective Channels . . . 59 4.1 The Phase Demodulator Receiver . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4 Performance of Constant Envelope OFDM in AWGN . . . . . . . . . .2 Performance Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 2. . . . . . . . . 72 Asymptotic Properties . . . . . . . . . .3 Channel Models . . 96 6.1. . . 65 Carrier-to-Noise Ratio and Thresholding Eﬀects . . . . . . . 80 CE-OFDM versus OFDM . .1 4. . . . .3 6. . . .1. 71 4. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . 124 A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 vii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 B More on the OFDM Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Signal Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 C Sample Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Gnuplot Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Production Notes . . . . . . . . 124 A. . . . 121 A Generating Real-Valued OFDM Signals with the Discrete Fourier Transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Spectral Eﬃciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 C. . . . . . . .1 GNU Octave Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .11 Performance of QPSK/OFDM with nonlinear power ampliﬁer with various input power backoﬀ levels. . . . . . 21 OFDM system diagram. . . . . . . .7 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 1.14 Power ampliﬁer eﬃciency. . . . . . . 36 2. .2 2. . . . . . . .LIST OF FIGURES 1. . 34 2. . . IBO in dB) . . . . 36 2. A wireless channel in time and frequency. .5 2. 26 AM/AM (solid) and AM/PM (dash) conversions (SSPA=thick. . . . . . . . . . . .6 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The system is evaluated with and without PAPR reduction. . .4 1. 13 2. 10 Power ampliﬁer transfer function. . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . .16 Unclipped OFDM signal (9.12 Performance of M -PSK/OFDM with SSPA. . . . . . . . . . |I 0. . . . . . . . . 39 viii . . . . (N = 64) . The PAPR is 9. . . . . 25 PAPR CCDF lower bound (2. . .9 Representation of a wireless channel with multipath. . . . . . . . . . .10 Spectral growth versus IBO. . . .3 2. . . . . . .5 1. . . . . . . . .10 Comparison of OFDM and CE-OFDM signals. ( fo 2 2 3 5 7 8 9 = 0. . . . the range is reduced further from nonlinear ampliﬁer distortion. The rings have radius A max which correspond to various clipping ratios γ clip (dB). . . . . . . . . 21 OFDM is a special case. . . . (N = 64. 21 Block modulation with cyclic preﬁx and FDE. . . . . . . . . . . . .6 1. . . . OFDM converts wideband channel to N narrowband frequency bins.15 Block diagram.4 2. . (N = 64) . . . . . . . .2 1. . . . . TWTA=thin) for various backoﬀ ratios K. . . Frequency oﬀset causes ICI. . . . . . . k = 5. . . . . . . for all k) . . . . . .8 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25 dB PAPR). . .13 The potential range of system is reduced with input backoﬀ. . . . . .5 dB. . . . . .31) for N = 2 k . . . . .3 1. . Subcarrier and overall spectrum. 29 Fractional out-of-band power of OFDM with ideal PA and with TWTA model at various input power backoﬀ. . . . . . . . . 33 2. .25) . 38 2. . . . . . . (N = 64) . . . . . . 11 1. . . 31 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Complementary cumulative distribution functions. . . Intersymbol interference. (N = 64) . .k | = 1. . . . . . . .9 Sampling instances. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OFDM with cyclic preﬁx (CP). . . . A typical OFDM signal (N = 16). . . 6. . . . . . . . . . . . (N = 16.8 2. . . . . 31 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Circular convolution with channel and the inverse channel.1 1. . . . . . 10. . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .11 Correlation functions ρm. .9 4. 53 Power density spectrum. . . . 68 Threshold eﬀect at low CNR. . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . J = 8. . . . . .18 PAPR of clipped signal as a function of the clipping ratio. . . . . . . . 2πh = 0. . . . . . . . . . .10 The optimum receiver.12 CE-OFDM optimum receiver performance. . . . J = 8. J = 8] . . . . . (N = 64. 52 Double-sided bandwidth as a function of modulation index. . N = 64. . . (N = 64) . . various 2πh. . . . . . 2πh = 0. . . . . . . . . . 40 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . J = 8) . . . . 56 3. . 58 Bandpass to baseband conversion. . 76 4. . . . 50 Estimated fractional out-of-band power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Performance with and without phase oﬀsets. . . . .6) . . . . . . . . . . .n (K). 45 Phase discontinuities. . . . . . . . . . .3 4. . . . (M = 2. . . . N = 64. . . 55 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . (M = 8. . . . . . . . . . . . . N = 8) .8 3. . . . . . . . .7 4. . . . (N = 64) . . . . . . . . . . N = 64. .9 The CE-OFDM waveform mapping. .7) . 66 Threshold eﬀect at low CNR. . . . . . . over L blocks. . . . 44 Basic concept of CE-OFDM.2 4. . . . . (M = 2. . 2π)}. . . . . 41 3. . (2πh = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Instantaneous signal power. . . . . . (N = 64) . . . 60 Discrete-time phase demodulator. . . (M = 8. . .2 3. . . . . . .4 Phase demodulator receiver. .3 3. . 71 4. . . . . . [M = 2. 49 Continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples. . . . . . . . . . 70 CE-OFDM performance with and without FIR ﬁlter. . . . . . 57 4. (N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . N = 64. .4 3. .1 4. . . 68 Performance for various ﬁlter parameters L ﬁr . . . . . . . . . . .2.10 CE-OFDM versus OFDM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 3. . . . . (M = 2. . . . .8 4. . [N = 64] . . J = 8) . . . . . . . . .11 CE-OFDM versus OFDM with nonlinear PA. fcut /W . . . . . . . . 2πh = 0. . . . . .17 PAPR CCDF of clipped OFDM signal for various γ clip (dB). . . on the complex plane. . . . . . . . 54 Fractional out-of-band power. . . (N = 64) . . . . . 69 Magnitude response of various Hamming FIR ﬁlters. . . (N = 64) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4. System 1 (S1) has phase oﬀsets {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0. . . . .5 4. (N = 64) . . . . . . . . . . . .19 A comparison of the total degradation curves of clipped and unclipped M -PSK/OFDM systems. . . .1 3. . .7 3. . . . . .6 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2πh = 0. . N = 64. . 77 ix . 40 2. . and System 2 (S2) doesn’t (θ i + φ0 = 0). . . . .6) . . . .5) . . . . . .5 and Eb /N0 = 10 dB) . . . . .

. . . . . . 2πh = 0. . . . .4. . . . 88 A simpliﬁed two-region model. (Circle=Rayleigh. . (M = 4. . . triangle=Rice. . . . . . 96 Channel D. . . . . Channel C f . . . . . . . . .18 A comparison of CE-OFDM and conventional OFDM. . . . (Multipath results are labeled with circle and triangle points. (M = 8. . . . . . . . . .3 6. . . . . .2) . . . . .6) . . . . .4 6.n (K) for M = 2. . 81 4. . . . . points=simulation. . . 105 Channel E results. . 113 5. . . . . .6 6. . . . . . . . .4 Performance of CE-OFDM in ﬂat fading channels. . . .2 5. .11 Single path versus multipath. . . . . . . . . . . . ﬁled and piled. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 6. 120 B. . . . . .12 CE-OFDM versus QPSK/OFDM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Channel D results. 79 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15). square=Rice. . . . 80 4. . . . . . . . . . . . N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . N = 64) . .14 Phase demodulator receiver versus optimum. . 106 Channel F results. M = 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2πh = 1. .10 Performance results. . . . . . . . . . . . .8 6. . . .1 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Solid line=Semianalytical curve. . . . K = 3 dB. . Channel C f . . . . . K = 10 dB. MMSE) . . . . . . .15) with (5. . . . 101 Channel B results. 119 6. . . . . . . . (E b /N0 = 30 dB) . N = 64. 93 CE-OFDM system with frequency-selective channel. 102 Channel C results. . .1 “OFDM” search on IEEE Xplore [222]. . . . . . . 107 Fundamental characteristic functions and quantities [(6. (N = 64) . . . †=leftmost curve.25)] of the four channel models considered. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6) . . . . . .13 All unique ρm. . . . . . . . . 2πh = 0. . 78 4. (N = 64. . . N = 64. . 92 Comparison of semi-analytical technique (5. . .3 5. . . .10) and (5.5 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Papers. N = 64. . . . . . . . . L = 1 result is that of the frequency-nonselective channel model. . . . . (M = 4. 131 x . . (M = 2. . . . . . . . . . . . N = 64.2 6. . . . . . . . . .17 Spectral eﬃciency versus performance. . N = 64) . . . . . . . . . . 85 5. . N = 4 DCT modulation. . 99 Channel A results. . (SSPA model. . . . . . . .9 6. . . . . . . . . . . .5 6. . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Performance of CE-OFDM in ﬂat fading channels. . . . .16 Performance of M -PAM CE-OFDM. . . . . . . . . 90 A (n + 1)-region model. . . . 115 6. . . . MMSE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 4. .21)–(6. .15 Noise samples PDF versus Gaussian PDF. . . . . . . . . . (5. . .7 6. . . . . 130 B. . . . . . ‡=rightmost curve) .0) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (M = 8. N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (N = 64) . . . . . . .11). . . . . 2πh = 1. the Rayleigh. . . . . . . .

B.3 Running average of papers read per day. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 B.4 Year histogram. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 B.5 Projected year histogram? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

xi

LIST OF TABLES

6.1 6.2 6.3

Channel samples of frequency-selective channels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Channel model parameters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Data symbol contribution per tone for m n (t), n =1, 2, and 3. . . . . . . . 118

xii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to ﬁrst thank my advisors, Professors Zeidler and Proakis, for giving me the chance to do this work, for the encouragement, and for the guidance. I want to thank Professor Milstein for the many helpful technical conversations and for his many suggestions. Thanks to Professors Bitmead and Hodgkiss for taking the time to participate as committee members. Also, thanks to Professor Proakis for carefully proofreading the draft manuscripts of this thesis. Thanks to UCSD’s Center for Wireless Communications for providing a good environment for conducting research; thanks to its industrial partners for the ﬁnancial support. Thanks to my wife, Shannon, for the emotional and caloric support. Thanks to Chaney the cat for waking me up in the morning. Thanks to my friends for fun support. Thanks to my fellow graduate students in Professor Zeidler’s research group for the camaraderie. Special thanks to Ahsen Ahmed for helpful collaboration over the past couple years. Thanks to my family. Also, thanks to Karol Previte for her support early in my graduate student existence. Thanks to my teachers: Professors Duman, Masry, Milstein, Pheanis, and Wolf, to name only a few. Finally, I would like to thank the countless developers, documentation writers, bug reporters, and users of the free software I’ve beneﬁted from during the course of my PhD. The text in this thesis, in part, was originally published in the following papers, of which I was the primary researcher and author: S. C. Thompson, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “Constant Envelope Binary OFDM Phase Modulation,” in Proc. IEEE Milcom, vol. 1, Boston, Oct. 2003, pp. 621–626; S. C. Thompson, A. U. Ahmed, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “Constant Envelope OFDM Phase Modulation: Spectral Containment, Signal Space Properties and Performance,” in Proc. IEEE Milcom, vol. 2, Monterey, Oct. 2004, pp. 1129–1135; S. C. Thompson, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “Noncoherent Reception of Constant Envelope OFDM in Flat Fading Channels,” in Proc. IEEE PIMRC, Berlin, Sept. 2005; and S. C. Thompson, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “The Eﬀectiveness of Signal Clipping for PAPR Reduction and Total Degradation in OFDM Systems,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom, St. Louis, Dec. 2005. xiii

VITA December 22, 1976 1997–1998 Summer 1998 Born, Mesa, Arizona Associate Engineer Inter-Tel, Chandler, Arizona Summer Internship Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos, New Mexico BSc in Electrical Engineering Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona Summer Internship SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, California MSc in Electrical Engineering University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California Research Assistant Center for Wireless Communications University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California Summer Internship SPAWAR Systems Center, San Diego, California PhD in Electrical Engineering University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, California

1999 Summer 2001 2001 2001–2005

Summer 2004 2005

PUBLICATIONS S. C. Thompson, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “Constant Envelope Binary OFDM Phase Modulation,” in Proc. IEEE Milcom, vol. 1, Boston, Oct. 2003, pp. 621–626. S. C. Thompson, A. U. Ahmed, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “Constant Envelope OFDM Phase Modulation: Spectral Containment, Signal Space Properties and Performance,” in Proc. IEEE Milcom, vol. 2, Monterey, Oct. 2004, pp. 1129–1135. S. C. Thompson, A. U. Ahmed, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “Constant Envelope OFDM Phase Modulation,” submitted to IEEE Transactions on Communications. S. C. Thompson, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “Noncoherent Reception of Constant Envelope OFDM in Flat Fading Channels,” in Proc. IEEE PIMRC, Berlin, Sept. 2005. S. C. Thompson, J. G. Proakis, and J. R. Zeidler, “The Eﬀectiveness of Signal Clipping for PAPR Reduction and Total Degradation in OFDM Systems,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom, St. Louis, Dec. 2005. xiv

R.S. C.” in preparation. “Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Nonselective Fading Channels. G. A. Zeidler.” in preparation. and J. Proakis. Proakis. Zeidler. S. and J. C. “Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Selective Channels. Proakis. Proakis. Thompson. Thompson. C. xv . and J. G. Zeidler. S.” in preparation. G. R. Thompson. M -ary PAM Constant Envelope OFDM. G. J. J. R.” in preparation. Ahmed. “The Eﬀectiveness of Signal Clipping for PAPR Reduction and Total Degradation in OFDM Systems. S. and J. J. C. Zeidler. J. U. R. Thompson.

High levels of backoﬀ reduce the eﬃciency of the PA. performance degradation. and phase noise. Zeidler. Proakis. In constant envelope OFDM (CEOFDM). OFDM has two primary drawbacks. however. The high PAPR makes OFDM sensitive to nonlinear distortion caused by the transmitter’s power ampliﬁer (PA). In xvi .ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Constant Envelope OFDM Phase Modulation by Steve C. Chair Professor John G. a drawback known as the peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) problem. 2005 Professor James R. The constant envelope signal can be eﬃciently ampliﬁed with nonlinear power ampliﬁers thus achieving greater power eﬃciency. consequently. intermodulation distortion. and. The ﬁrst is a high sensitivity to time variations in the channel caused by Doppler. The second. the high PAPR OFDM signal is transformed to a constant envelope 0 dB PAPR waveform by way of angle modulation. It provides a relatively straightforward way to accommodate high data rate links over harsh wireless channels characterized by severe multipath fading. the system suﬀers from spectral broadening. Thompson Doctor of Philosophy in Electrical Engineering (Communications Theory and Systems) University of California San Diego. is that the OFDM waveform has high amplitude ﬂuctuations. Without suﬃcient power backoﬀ. and the focus of this thesis. For mobile battery-powered devices this is a particularly detrimental problem due to limited power resources. A new PAPR mitigation technique is presented. carrier frequency oﬀsets. Co-Chair Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) is a popular modulation technique for wireless digital communications.

This work was done at UCSD’s Center for Wireless Communication. and the performance of a practical phase demodulator receiver. the fundamental aspects of the CE-OFDM modulation are studied.this thesis. optimum performance. under the “Mobile OFDM Communications” project (CoRe research grant 00-10071). xvii . It is shown that CE-OFDM outperforms conventional OFDM when taking into account the eﬀects of the power ampliﬁer. Performance is evaluated over a wide range of multipath fading channel models. including the signal spectrum. the signal space.

development and deployment to provide high data rate access plus mobility. microprocessors. These reﬂections are caused by physical objects in the environment. One challenge in designing a wireless system is to overcome the eﬀects of the wireless channel. 427]. and with the rise of the internet and digital computers. From these early inventions. the channel changes with time. communications technology has advanced with global telephone networks. From the messenger pigeon to the Pony Express. from the message in a bottle to cave drawings. and magnetic storage systems. Edison’s phonograph (1887). Due to the relative mobility between the points and the possibility that the reﬂecting objects are mobile. over space and over time. Communication was profoundly enhanced with Morse’s telegraph (1837). satellite communications. Bell’s telephone (1876). and Marconi’s radio (1896). techniques derived from their natural environment. 1 . digital communications—the transfer of bits (1’s and 0’s) from one point to another—has become important. wireless digital communications is currently under intensive research. electronic memory storage and batteries. smoke signals and beacons. A particularly good natural resource for communication is electricity for its speed and ability to be controlled with devices like capacitors.1 illustrates a link with four reﬂecting paths between points A and B.Chapter 1 Introduction Humans have always found ways to communicate. to share information. Figure 1. people have used inventive techniques. which is characterized as having multiple transmission paths and as being time varying [421. In particular.

5 Frequency.2 Figure 1. The Fourier transform of the proﬁle yields the frequency-domain representation shown in Figure 1.2(a).01 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (µs) (a) Time domain. Each path has its own associated delay and power.5 µs after the signal is transmitted.2: A wireless channel in time and frequency. Figure 1.5 0 0. Ts is the symbol period.1) . In general. such as the 4-path example in where t is the time variable. For time-dispersive channels. the symbols are then transmitted serially. f − fc (MHz) 1 (b) Frequency domain. 1 Channel power (dB) Path power 0. Ii g(t − iTs ). The channel is viewed over a 2 MHz range centered at the center frequency f c .1 is shown in Figure 1. The ﬁrst path arrives at the receiver 0. ¡ ¡ point B (1. The dispersion in the time domain leads to frequency-selectivity in the frequency domain. The signal waveform of such a system is s(t) = i is a transmit pulse shape. the last path arrives with a 14 µs delay. In a conventional single carrier system.1 0. {Ii } are the data symbols. An example proﬁle of the channel in Figure 1.2(b). Notice that the channel power ﬂuctuates by 30 dB (a factor of 1000) over the frequency range.1: Representation of a wireless channel with multipath. a digital communication system maps bits to k b -bit data symbols. and g(t) ¢£ point A Propagation paths 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 12 14 -30 −1 −0.

t)| r(t) ISI τ 0 Ts 2Ts t Figure 1. The received signal is expressed mathematically as [387. The eﬀect of s(t) . the ISI in Figure 1. t) + n(t) ∞ = −∞ h(τ. (1. τmax /Ts = (14 µs) / (0. ranging in complexity and in eﬀectiveness. 0 symbol 1 symbol 2 Ts 2Ts ..2.5 µs) = 28 symbols.) Such severe ISI must be corrected at the receiver in order to provide reliable communication. The optimum maximum-likelihood (ML) receiver is the most eﬀective but is typically impractical due to its high complexity. .3 Figure 1. τmax .3: Intersymbol interference..3. p. For simplicity. This intersymbol interference (ISI) is illustrated in Figure 1. Therefore making s(t) a 2 MHz signal. interference is caused from symbol to symbol. which grows exponentially with the ISI length. but perform much worse than the optimum receiver. g(t) is rectangular.5 µs. 97] r(t) = s(t) ∗ h(τ. Linear equalizers are much simpler. The signal bandwidth is roughly proportional to the symbol rate 1/Ts Hz. where τ is a propagation delay variable. The traditional approach to combating intersymbol interference is with time-domain equalizers [421]. s(t) Transmitter Channel r(t) Receiver where ∗ represents the linear convolution operator and n(t) is additive noise. Since the maximum propagation delay of the channel is τ max = 14 µs.. (For comparison. t).2. The channel is represented by its time-variant impulse response h(τ. t |h(τ.1) over the 2 MHz channel in Figure 1. The severity of the ISI depends on the symbol period relative to the channel’s maximum propagation delay. There are many types.3 spans less than one symbol.2) the time-dispersive channel is shown to smear symbol 1 into symbol 2. T s = (2 × 106 )−1 = 0. t)s(t − τ )dτ + n(t). the ISI spans . having a complexity which grows roughly linearly with ISI length. Nonlinear decision feedback equalizers (DFEs) have similar complexity as the linear type and have better performance. Consider transmitting the signal in (1. therefore creating intersymbol interference.

For scenarios like the example above with an ISI spanning 28 symbols. especially for time-varying channels. OFDM has been implemented in wireline applications such as digital subscriber lines (DSL) [95]. but suﬀers from a slow convergence rate. has become exceedingly popular. Instead of transmitting symbols serially. There are various algorithms available for the estimation process. OFDM . OFDM is being developed for ultra-wideband (UWB) systems. 2×10 6 symbols/s are transmitted. Such a bit rate is desired in current wireless systems. cellular systems. It has been used in wireless local area networks (LANs) under the IEEE 802. 264.1.4 All of these techniques require knowledge of the channel. under the IEEE 802. and stability. Training times become long and convergence of the channel estimator is problematic. t) is made. convergence rate. The recursive least-square (RLS or Kalman) algorithm. each having its own complexity. 1.11 and the ETSI HYPERLAN/2 standards [552]. conventional equalization becomes diﬃcult. converges quickly. Then by comparing the received signal to what was transmitted. In the example. and for other wireline systems such as power line communication (PLC) [119. which is estimated by transmitting a training sequence which is known at the receiver.1 An Introduction to OFDM To meet the demanding data rate requirements. alternative techniques have been considered. in wireless broadcast applications such as digital audio and video broadcasting (DAB and DVB) and in-band on-channel (IBOC) broadcasting [392]. orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. 1. 604]. which maps kb = 2 bits per symbol.1 ISI-Free Operation OFDM’s main appeal is that it supports high data rate links without requiring conventional equalization techniques. One approach.16 (WiMax) standard. but has higher complexity and can be unstable. the bit rate is 4 Mb/s. 160. Using a QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying) signal constellation. on the other hand. The least-mean-square (LMS) algorithm is the most stable and the least complex. and in many cases demand for many tens of Mb/s is common. an estimate of h(τ. wireless metropolitan area networks (MANs).

otherwise. g(t). The pulse shape. the block of the channel’s impulse response. (1. ηt = TB /(TB + Tg ) = 150/165 ≈ 0.4: OFDM with cyclic preﬁx (CP). t)| TB OFDM block t τ r(t) ISI-free block t Figure 1. The interval duration.k }N −1 are transmitted during the ith block. (1.3). The center k=0 1 Notice that the N data symbols {Ii.2 A Multicarrier Modulation The OFDM signal can be expressed as1 N −1 s(t) = i k=0 Ii. The k=0 For simplicity.91. The guard interval and cyclic preﬁx is discussed in Chapter 2. Therefore.k ej2πfk t g(t − iTB ). and choosing N = 300. This is illustrated in the ﬁgure below. Selecting a is designed such that Tg ≥ τmax so that the channel is absorbed in the guard interval guard interval Tg = 15 µs for the channel in Figure 1.4) . is thus N times longer than the symbol period. the guard interval is excluded from the signal deﬁnition in (1. g(t) = 0. with a small reduction in eﬃciency.5 sends N symbols as a block.3) set of complex sinusoids {exp (j2πf k t)}N −1 are referred to as subcarriers. which is more than 10 times the duration successive blocks during which a cyclic preﬁx is transmitted. ISI s(t) Tg CP |h(τ.1.2 results in a transmission eﬃciency is eliminated. is typically rectangular: 1. The OFDM block period. Continuing the example above. and the OFDM block is uncorrupted. 1. T B .5 µs = 150 µs. 0 ≤ t < TB . T g . ISI is avoided by inserting a guard interval between period is TB = N Ts = 300 × 0.

(1. k/TB .k | cos 2π fc + k TB t + arg(Ii. as opposed to a single carrier modulation like the signal in (1. For single carrier.5 plots |S(f )/TB | for N = 16 subcarriers and data symbols with normalized amplitudes.7) Figure 1. (1. 151] x(t) = s(t)ej2πfc t . makes the subcarriers orthogonal over the block interval. N −1 xmc (t) = i k=0 |Ii. 1/TB Hz. The subcarrier orthogonality can also be viewed in the frequency domain.6 frequency of the kth subcarrier is f k = k/TB and the subcarrier spacing. otherwise. a transmitted bandpass signal is [421. In general. the kth subcarrier has a peak and all the other subcarriers where F{·}(f ) is the Fourier transform and 1. Therefore. orthogonal).8) where fc is the carrier frequency. s(t) = k=0 I0.5 also demonstrates that OFDM is a multicarrier modulation. Notice that at the kth have zero-crossings. (1. 0 ≤ t < TB . (1. πx x = 0. are non-interfering (i. the subcarriers.1).6) The frequency-domain representation is N −1 S(f ) = F {s(t)} (f ) = TB e −j2πf TB /2 k=0 I0.e. Consider the 0th OFDM block: N −1 0.11) . expressed mathematically as 1 TB TB 0 ∗ ej2πfk1 t ej2πfk2 t dt = = 1 TB 1.10) while for multicarrier.k ej2πfk t . k 1 = k2 .k sinc f− k TB TB . xsc (t) = i |Ii | cos [2πfc t + arg(Ii )] g(t − iTs ). TB 0 ej2π(fk2 −fk1 )t dt (1. sinc(x) = sin πx .9) subcarrier frequency. p. (1.5) k 1 = k2 . Figure 1. while tightly packed (which improves spectral eﬃciency). where (·)∗ represents the complex conjugate operation.k ) g(t − iTB ). The individual subcarrier spectra are also plotted. (1.

The OFDM modulation can be optimized for the channel by sending more bits in frequency bins with high gain and fewer bits in frequency bins with low gain.9. f TB 12 14 16 18 Figure 1. each frequency bin is made frequencynonselective. N − 1. requires a fairly stable channel. . the overall channel is frequency-selective but for each bin the chan[−0. The wideband frequency-selective channel is converted into N contiguous narrowband frequency-nonselective bins. while for multicarrier the bandwidth is split into many frequency bands (also referred to as frequency bins). |I 0.8 0.6 shows 18 bins in the range Notice that the channel gain per bin varies over a 15 dB range. . one that can be accurately measured. . known as bit loading. |S(f )/TB | 1 0.7 1.2 Subcarrier Overall Spectrum magnitude.78] MHz for the N = 300 OFDM system over the channel in Figure 1.5: Subcarrier and overall spectrum. This technique. Notice that the multicarrier signal transmits the N data symbols in parallel over multiple carriers each centered at (fc + k/TB ) Hz.k | = 1. For OFDM. (N = 16.4 0. k = 0. for all k) For single carrier each symbol occupies the entire signal bandwidth.2(b). bit loading is more common in wireline systems and stationary wireless systems than in wireless systems with high mobility. Frequency selectivity is the frequency-domain dual of intersymbol interference. Transmitting the single carrier signal over the 2 MHz channel results in a frequency-selective response. . 1. −0. By properly designing the subcarrier spacing. .6 0. For this reason.2 0 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Normalized frequency. Figure 1.

k }k=0 can be expressed as I0.9 Frequency bins −0. . .85 Frequency. The frequency-domain symbols {I 0.8 5 Channel power (dB) 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 −0. two of OFDM’s primary advantages have been discussed: the elimination of ISI and the ability to optimize the modulation with bit loading. respectively. . N − 1. Figure 1. .k = 1 N N −1 y[i]e−j2πkn/N . 1. I0.6 illustrates a frequency-domain interpretation of how OFDM avoids intersymbol interference.N −1 ]. f − fc (MHz) −0.1 .0 .12) which is the inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) of the symbol vector I 0 = [I0. .6) at N equally spaced time instances: N −1 y[i] ≡ s(t)|t=iTB /N = I0.1. 1. (1. N − 1.8 Figure 1. .6: OFDM converts wideband channel to N narrowband frequency bins. . s(t) is generated at the transmitter with an IDFT folN −1 lowed by a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter. This is seen by sampling s(t) in (1. Therefore.13) which is the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) performed on the time-domain samples. 1. k=0 i = 0. nel is frequency non-selective and thus ISI is avoided. (1. Consequently.k ej2πki/N . Therefore. . i=0 k = 0. the symbols are demodulated at the receiver with an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter followed by a DFT.3 Discrete-Time Signal Processing Thus far. The third appeal of OFDM is that the modulation and demodulation is done in the discrete-time domain with the inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) and fast Fourier transform (FFT). . I0. . .

Figure 1. Moreover. However. . . This intercarrier interference (ICI) is illustrated in Figure 1. k = 0. 1. ( fo = 0.2 Problems with OFDM OFDM has two primary drawbacks. 1. where −0. The second problem with OFDM is that the signal has large amplitude ﬂuctuations caused by the summation of the complex sinusoids.25) . if the frequency synthesizer at the receiver is misaligned by.2 0.5 shows that the subcarriers are properly orthogonal at f = k/TB . the N − 1 neighboring subcarriers interfere with the demodulation of the kth subcarrier.7: Frequency oﬀset causes ICI. .5. f TB k+1 Figure 1. The intercarrier interference causes ISI—and potentially high irreducible error ﬂoors.9 The IDFT/DFT is performed eﬃciently with IFFT/FFT algorithms. N − 1. making OFDM suitable for software deﬁned radios (SDRs) [185].5 < fo < 0.7: assuming that the receiver is tuned to (k + fo )/TB Hz. Doing so is much simpler than performing the modulation/demodulation in the continuous-time domain with N orthogonally tuned oscillators. the signal processing can be performed in software.04 k−1 k + fo k Normalized frequency. The ﬁrst is sensitivity to imperfect frequency synchronization which is common for mobile applications. the subcarriers are Hz rather than at the ideal k/TB Hz. This sensitivity arises from the close subcarrier spacing. |S(f )/TB | 1 0. The real and imaginary part of the Spectrum magnitude. . say. fo /TB not orthogonal and therefore interfering with one another.

12 10 8 6 Signal amplitude 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 0.8: A typical OFDM signal (N = 16).k } sin (2πkt/TB ) + {I0.k } sin (2πkt/TB ) .4 0. (1. is plotted in Figure 1. Otherwise.15) respectively.8 1 Subcarriers {s(t)} {s(t)} 160 140 120 Power magnitude 100 80 60 40 20 |s(t)|2 Peak power Average power 2 {s(t)} + 2 {s(t)}. t/TB 0.6 Normalized time.k } cos (2πkt/TB ) − {I0.5 dB). Also plotted are the individually modulated sinusoids. Figure 1.8(a) shows the real and imaginary parts of an example OFDM signal with N = 16 subcarriers. t/TB 0.10 OFDM signal is N −1 {s(t)} = and {s(t)} = k=0 {I0. The instantaneous signal power. the circuitry .k } cos (2πkt/TB ) .2 0. |s(t)|2 = power and the average power is 144/16 = 9 (or in decibels.8 1 0 0 0.8(b). The PAPR is 9. OFDM’s high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) requires system components with a large linear range capable of accommodating the signal.14) N −1 k=0 {I0.6 Normalized time. The ratio between the peak (a) Signal amplitude.4 0. (b) Signal power. Figure 1. but when summing the sinusoids the resulting OFDM signal ﬂuctuates over a large range. (1.2 0.5 dB. 10 log 10 9 ≈ 9. Notice that each sinusoids has a constant amplitude.

The most eﬃcient operating point is at the PA’s saturation point.11 distorts the waveform nonlinearly. Max output Optimum Output power Linear region Saturation region Actual Backoﬀ AM/AM curve Operating points Ideal AM/AM Input power Figure 1.9 shows a representative input/output curve. but as the input power increases the PA saturates. the operational range of the system is reduced by a factor of nine2 . Such an eﬃciency is detrimental to mobile battery-powered devices which have limited power resources. IBO of 9.5 dB corresponds to 109. 2 . but for signals with large PAPR the operating point must shift to the left keeping the ampliﬁcation linear. beyond which it saturates to a maximum output level.06 [374].5/10 ) ≈ 0.5 dB. Figure 1. Moreover. Thus the required IBO for the OFDM signal in Figure 1. In the linear region the curve matches the ideal. In reality the PA has a limited linear region. The average input power is reduced and consequently this technique is called input power backoﬀ (IBO). known as the AM/AM conversion. the (theoretical) eﬃciency of a Class A ampliﬁer is 0. At this backoﬀ the eﬃciency of a Class A power ampliﬁer is less than 6%.5/10 ≈ 9 times less signal power transmitted in channel. One such nonlinear device is the transmitter’s power ampliﬁer (PA) which is responsible for the system’s operational range [424]. To keep the peak power of the input signal less than or equal to the saturation input level. and nonlinear distortion results in a loss of subcarrier orthogonality which degrades performance. Ideally the output of the PA is equal to the input times a gain factor.8 is 9. the IBO must be at least equal to the PAPR.5/(109.9: Power ampliﬁer transfer function.

421]. For example.1) is constant envelope when |I i | = 1 and g(t) advantage of the CE waveform is that the instantaneous power is constant: |s(t)| 2 = A2 .9 is attainable. however. while for a nonlinear Class E PA the maximum theoretical eﬃciency is 100% [424]. non-rectangular pulse shapes are used . 1. The baseband CE signal representation is s(t) = Aejφ(t) . an eﬀect known as adjacent channel interference. The Consequently. Continuous phase modulation (CPM) is a class of signaling that has very low sidelobe power while maintaining the constant envelope property [14. and high data rates over the wireless channel. the maximum theoretical eﬃciency of a linear Class A power ampliﬁer is 50%. spectral economy. has large spectral sidelobes which which result in a non-CE signal. This type of modulation. This intermodulation distortion causes interference among the subcarriers.12 Nonlinearities in the transmitter also cause the generation of new frequencies in the transmitted signal. which is a key disadvantage of CPM. The later causes interference between neighboring systems. the PAPR is 0 dB and the required backoﬀ is 0 dB.16) where A is the signal amplitude and φ(t) is the information bearing phase signal. The PA can therefore for range) and maximizing PA eﬃciency (good for battery life). nonlinear PAs can be used which are generally more eﬃcient and less expensive than linear PAs. and a broadening of the overall signal spectrum. Also CPM systems have diﬃculty operating over frequencyselective channels [118]. Also. CPM uses memory to smooth φ(t). Notice that the single carrier signal in (1. The memory. is rectangular. since the linearity requirement is reduced. maximizing average transmit power (good cause adjacent channel interference. The question is how to embed digital information into φ(t) providing good performance. In practice. operate at the optimum (saturation) point. however. increases the complexity of the receiver.3 Constant Envelope Waveforms Constant envelope (CE) waveforms are appealing since the optimum operating point in Figure 1. (1. Constant envelope signals are thus ideal in terms of the practical considerations of the power ampliﬁer.

10: Comparison of OFDM and CE-OFDM signals. Both are derived from the same baseband OFDM message signal. The high peak-to-average power ratio OFDM signal is transformed into a CE waveform.k } sin (2πkt/TB ) . the phase signal can be the real part of the OFDM signal: N −1 φ(t) = {sOFDM (t)} = k=0 {I0. The CE-OFDM signal takes the form of (1.13 1. (1. this is accomplished since the CE-OFDM signal has the 0 dB PAPR property.4 Constant Envelope OFDM Constant envelope OFDM (CE-OFDM) combines OFDM and constant envelope signaling.k } cos (2πkt/TB ) − {I0. OFDM bandpass OFDM message R CE-OFDM bandpass Figure 1. Figure 1.6). The question is: at what cost? What is the performance of CEOFDM? What is its bandwidth? Can the guard interval be used in CE-OFDM as it is in conventional OFDM? This thesis aims to answering these questions by analyzing the various aspects of the CE-OFDM modulation. For example. .16) where the phase signal is an OFDM waveform. The motivation for CE-OFDM is to eliminate the PAPR problem of the conventional OFDM system.10 compares a conventional OFDM bandpass signal with a bandpass CE-OFDM signal.17) where sOFDM (t) is the signal in (1. Certainly.

The eﬀect of the nonlinear power ampliﬁcation on OFDM is evaluated. and multipath frequency-selective fading channels in Chapter 6. Performance analysis is extended to frequency-nonselective fading channels in Chapter 5. The performance aspects of CE-OFDM in the presence of additive noise are analyzed in Chapter 4. In Chapter 3 the CE-OFDM modulation format is deﬁned and the spectral properties are studied.5 Thesis Overview In Chapter 2 the basics of OFDM is further studied. .14 1.

in Section 2. Finally.3).4.Chapter 2 OFDM In Sections 1. Then in Section 2. as discussed in Section 2. Section 2.1.5.2.1.4 the main functional blocks of the OFDM system are described. Lastly.1.2 the basic properties of OFDM are identiﬁed. 15 . OFDM is considered a special case of the more general block modulation with cyclic preﬁx scheme. In Section 2. and system range and eﬃciency (Section 2.3.2 and power ampliﬁer models used to evaluated system performance are described in Section 2. the processing of the discrete-time samples is described. The PAPR statistics are analyzed in Section 2.1 and 1.4.1).3.4.4 the eﬀect of nonlinear power ampliﬁcation on OFDM systems is studied in terms of spectral leakage (Section 2.1. and a technique called signal clipping is evaluated in terms of its eﬀectiveness to improve system performance. In light of this property.1. In this chapter. the various PAPR mitigation techniques found in the research literature are categorized in Section 2. performance degradation (Section 2.2). In Section 2. the cyclic preﬁx is studied.1 covers key properties of OFDM. and the equivalence of linear channel convolution and circular channel convolution is explained. OFDM is studied in more detail.

1. The bounds of integration are simpliﬁed since the channel is assumed causal [h(τ ) = 0 In (1. the waveform is N −1 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . Notice that the above simpliﬁcation is made due to the periodicity of the signal. (2. This is demonstrated below and it is shown that ISI results if anything but the cyclic preﬁx is transmitted.1 2.3) The received signal is r(t) = s(t) ∗ h(τ ) + n(t) ∞ = = 0 −∞ τmax h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t) h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t). During the OFDM block interval. If the channel is assumed to be time invariant. (2.2) −Tg ≤ t < 0. Thus the OFDM signal having a guard interval with cyclic preﬁx is simply N −1 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . To transmit a cyclic preﬁx. 1 . t). (2. fk = k/TB is the center frequency of the kth subcarrier and where {Ik }N −1 are the data symbols.16 2.1. 0 ≤ t < TB . where Tg is the guard period. {exp(j2πfk t)}N −1 are the subcarriers. the received signal is expressed in terms of the time-variant channel impulse response h(τ. the last T g s of the block is transmitted during the guard interval: N −1 N −1 N −1 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk (t+TB ) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t ej2πk = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t .1 it is claimed that the use of the guard interval results in ISI-free operation. (2.1 More OFDM Basics The Cyclic Preﬁx In Section 1.2). N is the k=0 k=0 TB is the block period.4) where h(τ ) is the time-invariant channel impulse response 1 and n(t) is additive noise. −Tg ≤ t < TB . This is true so long as a cyclic preﬁx is transmitted during the interval.1) total number of subcarriers. the impulse response is referred to as simply h(τ ). The guard interval is deﬁned during −T g ≤ t < 0.

9) h(τ )e−j2πfk0 τ dτ. 1 TB TB 0 n(t)e−j2πfk0 t dt. 1. is ignored and r(t) during 0 ≤ t < T B is processed. (2. ˆ This shows that the N received data symbols { Ik }N −1 are equal to the transmitted k=0 since the kth symbol isn’t impacted by the N − 1 other symbols. where H[k0 ] = 0 τmax 0. 0 ≤ t < TB .10) which is the Fourier transform of h(τ ) evaluated at f = f k0 .17 for τ < 0] and to have a maximum propagation delay τ max [h(τ ) = 0 for τ > τmax ]. ISI is avoided k=0 Now it is shown that by transmitting a signal other than the cyclic preﬁx during the guard interval causes ISI. which has interference from the previous block k0 th data symbol is made by correlating r(t) with the k 0 th subcarrier: 1 ˆ I k0 = TB which expands to 1 ˆ I k0 = TB 1 = TB = where N k0 = But since 1 TB (2. N −1 symbols {Ik }N −1 scaled by the complex-valued channel gains {H[k]} k=0 .6) simpliﬁes to TB 0 TB 0 TB 0 N −1 0 τmax τmax N −1 TB 0 (see Figure 1.7) ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt = k = k0 . (2. Suppose that the transmitted signal is b(t).4). Therefore. using the guard interval with cyclic preﬁx provides ISI-free operation. k=0 (2.5) r(t)e−j2πfk0 t dt h(τ ) k=0 Ik ej2πfk (t−τ ) dτ e−j2πfk0 t dt + Nk0 TB 0 (2. k = k0 . (2. −Tg ≤ t < 0. The received signal during the guard interval.8) ˆ Ik0 = Ik0 H[k0 ] + Nk0 .6) 1 TB Ik k=0 0 h(τ )e−j2πfk τ dτ ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt + Nk0 . s(t) = N −1 Ik ej2πfk t . (2.11) . (2. An estimate of the r(t) ej2πfk0 t ∗ dt.

This phenomenon was described in Section 1. but has the advantage of being able to recover data symbols . the orthogonality condition in (2. T g ] and [Tg . [0.8) can’t be applied to (2. cyclic preﬁxed OFDM is compared to zero-padded OFDM [b(t) = 0]. h(τ )s(t − τ )e−j2πfk0 t dτ dt.14) thus Ak0 is a non-zero oﬀset term which is a function of b(t).13) (2. 1 TB TB Tg N −1 0 τmax τmax N −1 B k0 = h(τ ) k=0 Ik ej2πfk (t−τ ) dτ e−j2πfk0 t dt TB Tg (2. In [358]. t − τ > 0. (2. The estimated data symbol is expressed as ˆ Ik0 = Ik0 Hk0 C1 + Nk0 + ICI. k=0 Ik e The estimate of the k0 th data symbols is r(t)e−j2πfk0 t dt τmax 0 1 ˆ I k0 = TB 1 = TB TB 0 TB 0 h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ e−j2πfk0 t dt + Nk0 (2. ICI can manifest itself in more than one way. intercarrier interference. and this results in ISI.12) = A k0 + B k0 + N k0 . The bounds of integration are separated into two segments. and the interference terms is ICI = Ak0 + 1 TB TB (2. Therefore.17) The interference is denoted as ICI. since the subcarriers are no longer orthogonal and interfere with one another.15) ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt. (2. and when it does the data symbols interfere with one another resulting in ISI.2 in the context of imperfect frequency synchronization. TB ]: A k0 = and B k0 = 1 TB 1 TB Tg 0 TB Tg 0 0 τmax τmax h(τ )s(t − τ )e−j2πfk0 t dτ dt.15). where C1 = (TB − Tg )/TB .16) H[k] k=k0 Tg Ik ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt. For the second term.18 where b(t) = N −1 j2πfk t . The zero-padding causes ISI. 1 = TB Ik k=0 0 h(τ )e−j2πfk τ dτ Due to the integration bounds for t.

(2. .19) Tsa Tsa is the sampling period.22) . a channel zeros at the kth subcarrier. . 2. . NB − 1. factor. are deﬁned as Ng ≡ and τmax τmax +1≤ + 1. i = 0. by design. (2. i = −Ng . . Tsa (2. 0.18) where Tsa = 1/fsa and. −Tg −Ng Tsa ··· Signal sampling ··· h(τ ) and r(t) at the sampling rate fsa = JN/TB samp/s. Ng . . where J ≥ 1 is the oversampling TB t (NB − 1)Tsa −Tsa 0 Tsa −Ng Tsa ≥ −Tg Channel sampling 0 Tsa ··· τmax τ (Nc − 1)Tsa (Nc − 1)Tsa ≤ τmax Figure 2. This is in contrast with cyclic preﬁxed OFDM since. NB − 1. . . . H[k] = 0. .1. . results in an estimated data symbol that consists entirely of noise. that is.21) i = −Ng . The zero-padded system avoids this problem at the cost of increased receiver complexity due to equalization requirements. .9). Ng ≥ Nc . . The number of guard samples. The sampling instances are shown in the ﬁgure below. Consider sampling s(t). . .20) The received samples are expressed by the linear convolution sum Nc −1 r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i].19 located at channel zeros. Nc . The signal samples are s[i] = s(t)|t=iTsa .2 Discrete-Time Model It is convenient to describe OFDM by a discrete-time model. . . and channel samples. and the channel samples are h[i] = h(τ )|τ =iTsa .1: Sampling instances. . as shown in (2. (2. (2. . . The number of samples per block is N B = JN . Nc ≡ Tg Tsa ≤ Tg . . 0. Nc − 1.

. and is therefore called a frequency-domain equalizer . respectively. i = 0. in general. NDFT − 1 (2.26) are the NDFT -point DFTs of the signal and channel samples. 2. pp. . . . NDFT ≥ NB . The eﬀect of the channel is simply a DFT followed by a multiplier bank (H[k]). The guard interval samples are ignored Nc −1 and the samples r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i]. the channel samples are zero-padded: h[i] = 0 for i = N c . . size is. Also shown is the inverse channel which is a DFT followed by a multiplier bank (1/H[k]) followed by an IDFT.23) is equivalent to a circular convolution since.23) can be expressed as r[i] = IDFT {H[k]S[k]} = 1 NDFT NDFT −1 k=0 H[k]S[k]ej2πik/NDFT . . ignoring the noise samples. . 415–420]. .25) and H[k] = NDFT −1 h[i]e−j2πik/NDFT . .20 where {n[i]} are samples of the noise signal n(t). Since Figure 2. . which is then followed by an IDFT. .2 shows a block diagram representing the calculation of (2. (2. The linear convolution in (2. The DFT NDFT > Ng . . NDFT − 1.24). due to the cyclic preﬁx. . The circular convolution can be performed by taking the IDFT of the product of two DFTs [422. {s[i − m]} is periodic with period N B . NDFT −1 S[k] = i=0 s[i]e−j2πik/NDFT . NB − 1.3 Block Modulation with FDE The inverse channel structure in Figure 2. . If NDFT > NB . . . where IDFT{·} represents the inverse discrete Fourier transform. NDFT − 1 (2.24) i = 0.2 corrects the distortion caused by the channel in the frequency domain. (2. NB − 1 (2. the signal vector is zero-padded. k = 0. . Thus the transmit samples s[i] can be reconstructed by passing the receive samples r[i] through the inverse channel. i=0 k = 0. .23) are processed. . Therefore. .1.

Frequency-domain equalizer Data {Ik } Modulator Channel DFT Multiplier bank IDFT Demodulator Data ˆ {Ik } Figure 2. Frequency-domain equalizer Data {Ik } IDFT Channel DFT Multiplier bank IDFT DFT Data ˆ {Ik } Data {Ik } IDFT Channel DFT Multiplier bank Data ˆ { Ik } Figure 2.3: Block modulation with cyclic preﬁx and FDE. .21 Channel s[i] DFT H[k] IDFT r[i] Inverse channel r[i] DFT 1 H[k] IDFT s[i] Figure 2.2: Circular convolution with channel and the inverse channel.4: OFDM is a special case.

Figure 2.3 shows a simpliﬁed block diagram of such a system. 533. [462] and suggests a more general modulation approach: block modulation with cyclic preﬁx and frequency-domain equalization. In general. The cyclic preﬁx is added and the signal samples. the symbols are serial-to-parallel (S/P) converted and processed by the IDFT. such as M -ary phase-shift keying (M -PSK) and M -ary quadrature-amplitude modulation (M -QAM).4 System Diagram The block diagram in Figure 2. 197. are passed through the digital-to-analog (D/A) converter to obtain the continuous-time OFDM signal s(t). This operation is required for data symbols that rely on coherent demodulation. s[i]. pointed out. Notice that the DFT and IDFT cancel each other and the resulting diagram depicts the conventional OFDM system. OFDM converts the problem to the frequency domain. OFDM doesn’t eliminate the equalization problem (associated with conventional single carrier modulation). The encoded bits are then mapped to the data symbols I k . This is the case for OFDM. the modulation is a IDFT and the demodulation is a DFT as shown in Figure 2.22 (FDE). Such an equalizer can be used only when the eﬀect of the channel is a circular convolution. but isn’t unique to OFDM since any modulation can use a cyclic preﬁx. 153.) For the special case of OFDM. 388. Figure 2. .4. there has been a considerable number of publications focused on the block modulation technique using conventional single carrier modulations [8. 196.1. 116. 107. the data symbols are complex numbers which result from mapping the bits to points on the complex plane.4 conceptually illustrates the OFDM system. 142. The encoder adds redundancy to the bit stream for error control. Finally. 463. 481. one complex multiplication per frequency bin.5 shows a more detailed description of OFDM’s functional blocks. 132. (The insertion of the cyclic preﬁx at the transmitter and removal at the receiver is implied but not included in the diagram for simplicity. the signal is ampliﬁed and transmitted. 30. rather. Since Sari’s original paper. This observation was ﬁrst identiﬁed by Sari et al. 460. 565. 245. 154. The multiplier bank at the output of the DFT is often referred to as a one-tap equalizer. 574]. As Sari et al. 2. 461. Next. 54.

Ik .5: OFDM system diagram. . But ﬁrst. At the receiver. is sampled to obtain the discrete-time sequence r[i]. r(t). one of OFDM’s key drawbacks is the high peak-toaverage power ratio. the DFT is performed and each frequency bin is equalized by a complex ˆ multiplication. Nonlinearities in the power ampliﬁer distort the transmitted signal and large input power backoﬀ is required which results in low ampliﬁer eﬃciency. the received signal. First. The guard interval samples are removed.23 Transmitter Bits 01101 Encoder 11101 Mapper Ik S/P IDFT Add CP P/S s[i] D/A s(t) Power ampliﬁer Receiver r(t) A/D Remove CP r[i] S/P DFT Equalize C[k] P/S ˆ Ik Detector 11001 Decoder Bits 01101 Figure 2.2. are processed by the detector which outputs a stream of estimated receive bits. and the decoder attempts to correct any bit errors that may have occurred. As discussed in Section 1. the inverse operations are performed. In the next sections the impact of the PA is studied. the statistical properties of the PAPR are discussed. The estimated data symbols.

Since the average signal power is a constant.29) Notice that the absolute maximum signal power is N 2 .7 million years. 421]). 0 ≤ t < TB . Therefore.24 2. the likelihood that all the subcarriers align in phase is extremely low. Of these waveforms.TB ) (2. The Ps = 1 TB TB 0 |s(t)|2 dt = N. and more speciﬁcally. there are M N unique symbol sequences. a N = 32 subcarrier system having 4-ary data symbols and a block period of TB = 100 µs obtains the theoretical maximum PAPR once every 3.28) The peak-to-average power ratio is deﬁned as PAPRs = max |s(t)|2 Ps . 41]. the instantaneous signal power is chi-squared distributed with two degrees of freedom [421. and the complementary instantaneous power over 0 ≤ t < TB . t∈[0. For example. (2. Consequently. and thus M N unique OFDM waveforms per block. while others have a relatively low PAPR. The OFDM signal is N −1 symbols {Ik }N −1 .2 PAPR Statistics The peak-to-average power ratio of the OFDM signal is best viewed statistically. therefore |I k | = 1 for all k. so the PAPR can be as high as N . Assuming that they’re selected randomly from a set of M complex k=0 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . the randomness of the PAPR depends on the randomness of the instantaneous power |s(t)| 2 . the real and imaginary parts of . For any given block interval. as pointed out in [381]. M -PSK data symbols are assumed. (2.27) The signal during the guard interval is ignored since it has no impact on the PAPR average power of s(t) is distribution. For large N . it is desirable to understand the statistical distribution of this quantity. However. the PAPR is a random quantity since it depends on the data numbers. some have a high PAPR. Thus it is more meaningful to describe the PAPR statistically rather than in absolute terms. p. the maximum s(t) are accurately modeled as Gaussian random processes (due to the application of the central limit theorem [394.

31) where 1 − (1 − e−x )N is an approximation to the CCDF of the PAPR of the sequence a lower bound to the continuous-time signal since peaks can occur between sampling times.25 cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of the normalized instantaneous signal power is approximated as P |s(t)|2 >x Ps ≈ e−x . This demonstrates the accuracy of the Gaussian approximation to the real and imaginary part of s(t). (2. 1. N −1} [173]. (N = 64) Figure 2. .31) {s(t)|t=iTB /N . (2.0001 PAPR is shown to be at around 11. P |s(t)|2 /Ps > x CCDF. The PAPR of the discrete-time sequence provides 10−1 ` ´ CCDF.6(b) compares PAPR simulation results to the The bound is shown to be within 1 dB of the simulated result for lower values of x. 2. (b) Peak-to-average power ratio. i = 0.6(a) compares a simulated instantaneous power CCDF with the approximation in (2. The 0. Figure lower bound in (2. P (PAPRs > x) 2 4 x (dB) 6 8 10 10−1 10−2 10−2 10−3 10−3 10−4 0 10−4 4 6 8 10 x (dB) 12 14 (a) Instantaneous power. and at this .30). Figure 2. . 100 Simulation Approximation (2.31). .6: Complementary cumulative distribution functions.30) 100 Simulation Lower bound (2.25 dB.30) A lower bound of the peak-to-average power ratio’s CCDF is [515] P (PAPRs > x) 1 − (1 − e−x )N .

P (PAPRs > x) 10−2 10−3 10−4 4 5 6 7 8 x (dB) 9 10 11 12 Figure 2.001 PAPR is 1 dB larger for N = 512 than for N = 32. ±j}. Two models commonly used in the research literature are the solid-state power ampliﬁer (SSPA) model and the Saleh traveling-wave tube ampliﬁer (TWTA) model [454]. 10. the number of subcarriers does.31) over a range N = 32 to N = 1024. and 0. For the results in Figure 2. 100 symbols (4-ary PSK) are used. For the N = 64 system. Notice that the 0. . the number of subcarriers is N = 64 and QPSK data has little impact on the PAPR statistics.4 for performance evaluation. . 2. .3 Power Ampliﬁer Models To determine the impact of the PAPR on system performance.5 dB. the PAPR is greater than 8 dB nearly all of the time. Figure 2. 6.7: PAPR CCDF lower bound (2. 10% have a PAPR greater than 8.6. that is. They are described here and then used in Section 2. . For the N = 1024 system. however. power ampliﬁer models must be deﬁned. k = 5.7 shows the lower bound (2. the PAPR is greater than 8 dB for roughly 10% of the time. While the symbols constellation k 5 6 7 8 9 10 10−1 CCDF.26 level the bound is tight.31) for N = 2 k .5% have a PAPR greater than 10 dB. . Notice that essentially all OFDM blocks have a PAPR greater than 6 dB. I k ∈ {±1.

Asat is the input saturation level. For this model the AM/PM conversion is assumed to be negligibly small. (2. 1 + β φ A2 1 + (A/Asat )2 (2. Saleh’s TWTA model is expressed as [110] G(A) = αφ A2 g0 A .35) =g0 1/2p which is precisely the nonlinearity presented in Cann’s paper. and p controls the AM/AM sharpness of the saturation region. A common simpliﬁcation is to assume that the PA is a memoryless nonlinearity. Cann. J. modeling nonlinear power ampliﬁers is complicated (see [233. chap.32) where G(·) and Φ(·) are known as the AM/AM and AM/PM conversions. and Φ(A) = 0. The SSPA model is expressed as G(A) = g0 A 1 + (A/Asat ) 2p 1/2p .33) (2.34) where g0 is the ampliﬁer gain.34) should be credited to the original work by A. and Φ(A) = .36) Notice that the AM/PM conversion. and therefore has a frequency-nonselective response. Cann’s formula is obtained with the simple manipulation: G(A) =g0 A 1 + (A/Asat )2p A 1 + (A/Asat )2p Asat 1 + (Asat /A)2p 1/2p =g0 1/2p × . 5]). For example. respectively. (2. the output is sout (t) = G[A(t)] exp j{φ(t) + Φ[A(t)]} .27 In general. determined by the constants α φ and βφ . is non-zero. [(Asat /A)2p ]1/2p [(Asat /A)2p ]1/2p (2. Though widely known as the Rapp model [426]. published a decade earlier in the IEEE literature [71]. The TWTA model is therefore more nonlinear than the SSPA model. . (2. if the PA input is sin (t) = A(t) exp[jφ(t)].

41) Figure 2.8 shows the AM/AM (solid lines) and AM/PM (dashed lines) conversions For the SSPA model. α φ = π/12 and βφ = 1/4.37) lently.38) thus. PAPR. for K = 10 dB the above. For K = −10 dB the IBO is one-tenth the input signal is normalized to the maximum input level A max . As stated than the SSPA model. the input signal power can be scaled accordingly to satisfy Assuming that the PAPR of the input signal is PAPR in . assuming that the backoﬀ is IBO = 6 dB.40) is deﬁned as the backoﬀ ratio. For example. Notice that for K > 1 the backoﬀ is greater than the input signal’s PAPR. p = 2. IBO (2. One the other hand. The x-axis maximum output level g0 Asat . IBO is ten times the input signal PAPR and the PA response is nearly linear. Amax = max |A(t)|. It is deﬁned as [375] IBO = A2 sat .37) can be written as where Pin = E{|sin (t)|2 } = E{A2 (t)} is the average power of the input signal.6(b) and Figure 2. can be written in terms of the backoﬀ ratio and Amax = Asat Pmax = √ . (2. and thus the nonlinearity is severe. EquivaPin = (2. IBO K (2.8.39) IBO PAPRin (2. Pin (2. Now. A2 sat .28 To reduce nonlinear distortion in the ampliﬁed OFDM signal. the non-zero AM/PM conversion of the TWTA model makes it more nonlinear Insight can be gained by comparing Figure 2. the maximum the input saturation level: value of the input. input power backoﬀ (IBO) is required. for K < 1 the backoﬀ is less than the input PAPR. and the y-axis is normalized to the for the SSPA (thick lines) and TWTA (thin lines) models for various backoﬀ ratios K. for the TWTA model. the conversions are never as linear as the K = 3 dB curves (the PAPR is a always greater than 3 dB) and are more nonlinear . given Asat and IBO. K (2. the peak power can be written as Pmax = PAPRin · Pin = where K= A2 PAPRin 2 Asat = sat .38).

A/Amax 1 (c) K = −3 dB (d) K = −10 dB Figure 2. A/Amax Normalized output value. G(A)/g0 Asat −0. G(A)/g0 Asat 1 0.5 Normalized input value.5 0.29 1 Normalized output value. A/Amax Normalized output value.5 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −0. A/Amax 1 (a) K = 10 dB (b) K = 3 dB 1 Normalized output value.5 0.5 0 0.5 Normalized input value.8: AM/AM (solid) and AM/PM (dash) conversions (SSPA=thick.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0 −0.5 Normalized input value. G(A)/g0 Asat −0.5 −0.5 0 0 −0.5 −0.5 0 0. TWTA=thin) for various backoﬀ ratios K. G(A)/g0 Asat 1 0.5 Normalized input value. .5 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −0.

Notice that the spectral leakage is roughly the same for the two ampliﬁer models. deﬁned as ˆ FOBP(f ) = f 0 ˆ ˆ where Φs (f ) is the estimated power density spectrum of the signal and Ps = ˆ Φs (x)dx . the bandwidth of the nonlinearly ampliﬁed signal is the same. Also. . for IBO < 6 dB.07W . pp.36) at various backoﬀ levels. This is an unsatisfactory solution. reducing the average transmit power reduces the operational range of the system. even with a large IBO of 6 dB. These results show that at least 6 dB backoﬀ is required by the TWTA to avoid spectral broadening. ˆ 0.5% bandwidth as a function of IBO.9 shows the curves for an N = 64 subcarrier OFDM signal ampliﬁed by the TWTA power ampliﬁer according to (2. 2. However.4 Eﬀects of Nonlinear Power Ampliﬁcation Power ampliﬁer nonlinearities cause spectral leakage and performance degradation to OFDM systems.42) ∞ ˆ −∞ Φs (f )df is the signal power. Also plotted is the FOBP curve for ideal linear ampliﬁcation. By using the Welch method [422. the 99.05 PAPR is 9 dB). since PA eﬃciency reduces with IBO. These undesirable eﬀects can be reduced with increase input backoﬀ. the PA can impose high nonlinear distortion 2. The result is used to calculate estimated fractional out-of-band power curves. the bandwidth is shown to grow roughly linearly with IBO. Therefore. on the transmitted signal.30 than the K = −3 dB curves for about 5% of the OFDM blocks (the 0. however. the degree of distortion for a given OFDM block is random (given a ﬁxed IBO) since the PAPR for a given block is random. 911–913]. (2. For IBO = 1 dB.5% bandwidth is 73% larger than the undistorted signal.10 shows the 99. Figure 2. Also.1 Spectral Leakage The ﬁrst problem considered is spectral leakage. For suﬃcient backoﬀ. The bandwidth of the undistorted OFDM signal is f = 1. the power density spectrum at the output of the power ampliﬁer can be quickly estimated. Figure 2.4.5Ps f > 0. In this section these various issues are studied.

(N = 64.25 0.31 100 OFDM ampliﬁed with: TWTA PA ideal PA Fractional out-of-band power 10−1 IBO 0 10−2 2 4 6 10−3 0 0. f /W 1.9: Fractional out-of-band power of OFDM with ideal PA and with TWTA model at various input power backoﬀ. f /W 1.5% bandwidth.0 1.8 99.5 Figure 2.10: Spectral growth versus IBO.2 1.25 1. (N = 64) .0 0. IBO in dB) 2.4 1.8 0 OFDM ampliﬁed with: TWTA PA SSPA PA ideal PA 2 4 6 Input power backoﬀ.5 0. IBO (dB) 8 10 Figure 2.75 1 Normalized frequency.6 1.

Following the convention described in Section 2.44)] has zerocrossings at τ = 1/Bn . the nearest point in the symbol constellation [421. |f | ≤ Bn /2.2. Φn (f ) = 0. The transmitted data symbols are estimated by the correlation in (2. that is.11 shows bit error rate (BER) performance as a function of E b /N0 . p. (2.5) then passed to the detector which makes the ﬁnal decision.2 Performance Degradation Next. The performance is estimated by way of computer simulation. pp. where Eb = |sout (t)|2 dt Number of bits per block TB 0 (2. the discrete-time signal representation is used and the sampling rate fsa = JN/TB where J ≥ 1 is the oversampling factor. h(τ ) = δ(τ ).4. i 1 = i2 . For the AWGN channel. The noise samples {n[i]} are Gaussian distributed and assumed independent: 2 σ .32 2. 242–247]. and therefore no guard interval is used. 2 variance is σn = fsa N0 . Thus assuming Bn = fs .44) where Bn is the bandwidth of the noise signal. (2. The noise spectrum is assumed to be constant over the eﬀective bandwidth of the information bearing signal and is thus called “white”. 158] N0 .46) . r(t) = sout (t) + n(t). (2. The OFDM signal is passed through a PA and then it is corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN).43) where sout (t) is the output of the PA from (2.45) The autocorrelation function of n(t) [the inverse Fourier transform of (2. This decision is based on the maximum-likelihood (ML) criterion assuming a linear PA.33) and n(t) is a complex-valued Gaussian additive noise signal having a power density spectrum [421. The received signal is thus. i 1 = i 2 .1.45) is satisﬁed and the noise sample Figure 2. the performance degradation caused by nonlinear ampliﬁcation is considered. |f | > Bn /2. (2. n E {n[i1 ]n[i2 ]} = 0.

11(b) use IBO ranging from 0 dB of backoﬀ is required—8 dB more than for the SSPA case. For M -PSK to 16 dB. The TWTA results in Figure 2. 16 = best.0001 BER level. QPSK data symbols are used. Eb /N0 (dB) (a) SSPA model. 0 = worst. To avoid degradation. 6. . 268].47) is the Gaussian Q-function. 2. The quantity E b /N0 is referred to as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per bit.11(a). 16 dB. pp. At the 0. 16 . Figure 2. and the oversampling factor is J = 4. BER = Q where Q(x) = √ ∞ −y 2 /2 e dy/ 2π x 2 Eb N0 . IBO = 0. Notice the irreducible error ﬂoors for IBO ≤ 7 dB. 10.12 compares performance for higher-order PSK modulations. For the SSPA results in Figure 2. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. (2. 4. 8 = best. (N = 64) is the energy per bit. 0 = worst. To avoid degradation. Figure 2. the IBO = 0 dB case suﬀers a 3 dB performance loss compared to ideal AWGN performance. 8 dB. the IBO ranges from 0 to 8 dB. (b) TWTA model. 1. or simply the SNR. 3. . . .11: Performance of QPSK/OFDM with nonlinear power ampliﬁer with various input power backoﬀ levels. The greater nonlinearity of the TWTA model is evident from the results in this ﬁgure.33 10−1 Nonlinear PA Ideal PA 10−1 10−2 Bit error rate Bit error rate 10−2 Nonlinear PA Ideal PA 10−3 10−3 10−4 10−4 10−5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. IBO = 0. which is [421. 1. 8 dB of backoﬀ is required.

N log2 M (2. M − 1}. the error ﬂoor for M = 16 drops to 2 × 10 −5 and the 0. When increasing the backoﬀ to IBO = 6 dB. the M = 16 result for IBO = 3 dB has an irreducible error ﬂoor at 5 × 10 −3 .48) |sout (t)|2 dt . while the M = 2. The number of bits per data symbols is log 2 M . This isn’t necessarily the case for nonlinear modulation formats as discussed in Section 4. . 4 result at the same backoﬀ shows only a 1 dB degradation.34 10 10−1 Ideal PA SSPA: IBO = 3 dB IBO = 6 dB 8 10−2 Bit error rate Total degradation (dB) M = 16 M =8 M = 16 6 M =8 10−3 4 M = 2. Eb /N0 (dB) 0 0 2 4 6 8 Input power backoﬀ. (b) Total degradation. therefore the bit energy is Eb = TB 0 (2. Using IBO = 6 dB for M = 8 results in 2 dB less degradation at the 0. 1. This is the case for linear modulation formats.001 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 4 Target BER = 0.) The higherorder modulations are shown to be more sensitive to the PA nonlinearity. .001 bit error rate when compared to using IBO = 3 dB.4. . 2 .49) Higher-order constellations are used for increased spectral eﬃciency at the price of BER performance2 . (The results for M = 2 and M = 4 are very similar so only M = 2 is plotted.12: Performance of M -PSK/OFDM with SSPA. .001 BER is about 2 dB worse than AWGN. For example. 4 2 Ideal PA SSPA 10−4 M = 2. (N = 64) the data symbols are Ik ∈ {exp(j2πm/M ). IBO (dB) 10 (a) BER performance. In Figure 2. m = 0. Figure 2.12(a) BER results for the SSPA model are shown.

5 dB.3 System Range and PA Eﬃciency The total degradation is directly related to the system’s operational range. To quantify the relationship between the PA eﬃciency and the power backoﬀ. resulting in improved range and higher PA eﬃciency. as shown in Figure 2. The minimum TD for M = 16 is 7. the theoretical eﬃciency of a Class A power ampliﬁer is used [374]: ηA = 1 1 × 100%. SNRPA (IBO) is the required SNR when taking into account the distortion caused by the power ampliﬁer at a given backoﬀ.7 dB at IBO opt = 6.14. Consider a transmitter operating at maximum transmit power. The total degradation is deﬁned as [121] TD(IBO) = SNRPA (IBO) − SNRAWGN + IBO. The M = 2 and M = 4 examples are shown to have the lowest degradation and are thus the more robust against nonlinear distortion. Now assume that the system requires a 3 dB backoﬀ: the range is reduced by one-half.12(b).4. TD(IBOopt ) = TDmin = IBO≥0 dB min TD(IBO). Clearly the modulation order inﬂuences the degradation. denote as IBOopt .001.51) The target BER for the curves in Figure 2. The eﬃciency curve. as represented by the innermost circle. Any degradation caused by the PA further reduces range. for M = 8. suﬀers less degradation and can operate with less backoﬀ.52) The eﬃciency is thus inversely proportional to IBO and the maximum eﬃciency. (2. as represented by the middle ring. can be used . 2. This can be interpreted as follows: M = 8.35 A more revealing way to view performance is in terms of total degradation. shown in Figure 2. minimizes the total degradation. The “optimum” IBO. occurs at IBO = 1 (0 dB). [in dB] (2. 4 b/s/Hz).12(b) is 0.50) where SNRAWGN is the required signal-to-noise ratio per bit to achieve a target bit error rate in AWGN. The range is represented by the outermost ring in Figure 2.13. while having lower spectral eﬃciency than M = 16 (3 b/s/Hz vs. 2 IBO IBO ≥ 1. TDmin = 5 dB at IBOopt = 3 dB. Thus the actual range of the system is far less than the potential range of the transmitter. that is. (2. 50%. The true capability of the power ampliﬁer is greatly underutilized.

. 6. results in no bandwidth expansion but the PA eﬃciency is reduced to 11%. and performance/range. The optimum IBO for the 16-PSK example. the range is reduced further from nonlinear ampliﬁer distortion. but the bandwidth expands by 87%. thus maximizing eﬃciency. The M = 2. For example.5 dB. IBO (dB) 8 9 10 Figure 2.14: Power ampliﬁer eﬃciency. ηA (%) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Input power backoﬀ.36 Potential range Potential range w/ IBO Actual range Figure 2. in conjunction with Figures 2.13: The potential range of system is reduced with input backoﬀ. 4 systems required minimal IBO for the SSPA.10) and the PA eﬃciency is ηA = 25% (Figure 2.14). the optimum IBO in terms of total degradation for the 8-PSK SSPA example is IBO opt = 3 dB [Figure 2.10 and 2. spectral containment. the bandwidth expansion is 42% (Figure 2. 50 45 Class-A PA eﬃciency.12(b)]: however.12(b) to gain insight to the various tradeoﬀs between PA eﬃciency.

This category includes constant envelope OFDM (as studied in the second half of this thesis) which uses a phase modulator as the transformer. The goal of any scheme is to reduce the minimum total degradation (for increased range) and the IBO opt (for increased PA eﬃciency). which design a predistorter based on a PA model. receiver enhancement techniques. [376] (maximum-likelihood decoding).37 2. in [259. or 3. Transmitter enhancement techniques include PAPR reduction schemes and PA linearization schemes. Distortionless techniques include coding (see [126.508] and reference therein). In [215.439. have been proposed. see [227] and its references}. tone reservation [169. 138. peak cancellation [330]. transmitter enhancement techniques. and multiple signal representation {aka selected mapping (SLM) or partial transmit sequences (PTS). the third category includes techniques that are based on transforming the OFDM signal prior to the PA. 329. trellis-shaping [377]. 382]. The second category. signal transformation techniques. The PAPR reduction schemes can be further divided into distortionless and non-distortionless techniques. in [395] a neural network learning technique is used. 268. 250. Finally. 567] nonlinear polynomial models are used. constellation extension [269]. 290. 569–571] a companding transform is suggested. 512]. and peak win- . 2. and applying the inverse transform at the receiver prior to demodulation. The various schemes can be placed in one the following three categories: 1. and in [87] (interference cancellation). receiver enhancement techniques. 122. 453] (signal reconstruction). have been suggested in [513]. In [230]. In [85. Non-distortionless dowing [403]. and in [86] a Volterra-based model is suggested. The PA linearization schemes attempt to predistort the OFDM signal such that the overall response of the predistorter followed by the PA is linear—essentially equalizing the ampliﬁer. Parametric techniques. schemes include signal clipping [27. an LMS algorithm is applied for adaptive predistortion.5 PAPR Mitigation Techniques There have been many schemes proposed in the research literature aimed at reducing the impact of the PAPR problem.

It is argued here that the eﬀectiveness of a PAPR reduction scheme must be measured not only by PAPR reduction. 377. 382]. Ps (2. but by the more meaningful measures of TDmin and IBOopt reduction.38 Signal Clipping The remainder of this section focuses on the eﬀectiveness of signal clipping. Therefore.2. a common assumption is that the PA is linear [27. the output is the clipped OFDM signal: sclip (t) = s(t). 290.27).15: Block diagram. (This has been called “polar clipping” in the literature [276]. does not reduce TD min nor does clipping reduce IBOopt for an OFDM system. The channel. Therefore. while an eﬀective PAPR reduction scheme.) The clipping severity is measured by the clipping ratio. the magnitude of the clipped signal does not exceed Amax and the phase of s(t) is preserved. has an impulse response h(τ ) = δ(τ ). 138. This result brings into question the usefulness of non-distortionless PAPR reduction techniques in general. 391]. (2. 391]. The input to the clipping block is the OFDM signal s(t) from (2. 382. . if |s(t)| ≤ Amax . It is shown that clipping. the earlier unclipped results serve as a performance benchmark in which to compare the clipped results. 382. if |s(t)| > Amax .54) Amax ejψ(t) .4. 290.53) where ψ(t) = arg[s(t)]. 87. as before. The system is evaluated with and without PAPR reduction. deﬁned as [375] Amax γclip = √ . 124. The system under consideration is shown in Figure 2. 380. When the switch is “on” the PAPR reducing signal clipper is used. The impact of “clipping noise”—the intercarrier interference caused by the clipping process—on system performance has been extensively analyzed [39. 39. 371. 375. However.15. When “oﬀ” the system is identical to the one studied in Section 2. which has been claimed to be the “simplest” and “most eﬀective” PAPR reduction scheme [27. 380. OFDM s(t) modulator PAPR reducing clipper oﬀ sin (t) on sclip (t) n(t) PA sout (t) h(τ ) r(t) OFDM demodulator Figure 2.

sclip (t) is unclipped. 3 .2 dB for γ clip = 5 dB and by 3. The rings have radius A max which correspond to various clipping ratios γ clip (dB). PAPRclip ≤ 8 dB. Figure 2. thereThis ﬁgure is made by generating 2 × 104 consecutive OFDM blocks. the peak-to-average power ratio of the clipped signal is PAPR clip ≤ 10 compared to the unclipped signal. The PAPR of the overall block is 13 dB.0001 PAPR improvement. and 4 dB. The PAPR of γclip = 5 dB. γclip = 4 dB. TB 1 |sclip (t)|2 dt TB 0 PAPRclip = (2. The PAPR of sclip (t) is max |sclip (t)|2 t∈[0.25 dB PAPR).17. and so forth.18 shows PAPRclip as a function of the clipping ratio. is 1.2 dB for the the unclipped signal is 13 dB3 . 2.55) Clipping’s eﬀectiveness at reducing PAPR is shown in Figure 2. Figure 2. For clipping ratio dB.16: Unclipped OFDM signal (9. The dark rings have radius Amax which correspond to clipping ratios γ clip = 0.T ) . for γclip = 4 dB. Notice that for large γclip .16 shows a typical OFDM signal on the complex plane.39 20 γclip 4 OFDM signal Clip radius 2 10 0 Imaginary axis 0 −10 −20 −20 −10 0 Real axis 10 20 Figure 2. The 0.

17: PAPR CCDF of clipped OFDM signal for various γ clip (dB). (N = 64) . γclip (dB) 6 8 10 Figure 2.40 100 10−1 P (PAPRclip > x) Clipped Unclipped 10−2 10−3 γclip 10−4 0 3 4 6 x (dB) 4 8 5 10 12 2 Figure 2.18: PAPR of clipped signal as a function of the clipping ratio. [N = 64] 16 14 PAPRs Peak-to-average power ratio (dB) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 −8 −6 −4 2 γclip PAPRclip PAPRclip as γclip → 0 −2 0 2 4 Clipping ratio.

For M = 16. the unclipped results are shown to provide a lower bound for the clipped. Clipping is clearly an eﬀective technique at reducing the PAPR. For example. 4 the PAPR reducing clipping yields nearly identical results as the unclipped system. For M = 2. the clipping is mild so the average power is PAPRclip → 0 dB. (N = 64) Thus the eﬀectiveness of a PAPR reduction scheme should be measured not only by its PAPR reducing capabilities but by its eﬀectiveness in reducing total degradation (which increases range) and reducing the optimum IBO (which increases power ampliﬁer . thus 2 peak power is A2 max = γclip Ps . system results. γclip = 3 dB increases the degradation by 1. therefore. using γclip = 2 dB increases TDmin by 1. For the region 3 dB < γclip < 6. does the PAPR reduction translate into reduced total degradation? Figure 2.19: A comparison of the total degradation curves of clipped and unclipped M -PSK/OFDM systems.19 compares the total degradation curves of the unclipped system [from Figure 2. The question is. Interestingly. sclip (t) is clipped so the 2 2 approximately the same as s(t). the peak and average powers converge. 10 M = 16 Total degradation (dB) 8 6 M =8 4 M = 2. As γclip → 0.12(b)] with the clipped system.2 dB.5 dB. PAPR clip ≈ γclip Ps /Ps = γclip .2 dB. reduced PAPR. However. IBO (dB) 8 10 Figure 2. and the TD curve associated with γclip = 2 dB is beyond the viewing range of the ﬁgure. 4 2 Ideal PA Unclipped Clipped: γclip = 4 dB 3 dB 2 dB 0 0 2 4 6 Input power backoﬀ. using the clipping ratio γclip = 3 dB for the M = 8 case increases the TD min by 0. the γclip = 4 dB result is nearly identical to the unclipped result.41 fore PAPRclip = PAPRs .2 dB. The clipper is shown to increase both the minimum total degradation and the optimum backoﬀ.

This is clearly shown to be the case for the clipped N = 64 M PSK/OFDM systems studied in this section. the eﬀectiveness of non-distortionless PAPR reduction schemes in general is suspect. but this reduction does not translate into increased PA eﬃciency.42 eﬃciency). In fact. The distortion caused by non-distortionless schemes can outweigh the beneﬁt of the reduced PAPR. The clipping is shown to reduce the 0.0001 PAPR by > 1 dB. It would be interesting to also study these schemes in terms of total degradation. For these types of techniques it is important to take into account the eﬀect of the nonlinear power ampliﬁer. Does a 3 dB reduction in PAPR results in a 3 dB reducing in IBOopt ? What is the resulting minimum total degradation? . This result brings into question the validity of the claims that clipping is an eﬀective scheme. The eﬀectiveness of distortionless PAPR reduction techniques are typically studied in terms of PAPR reduction and complexity.

which is undesirable particularly for battery-powered wireless systems. For the CE-OFDM signal the peak and average powers are the same. as depicted in Figure 3. Therefore.1.2 compares the instantaneous power of the OFDM signal and the mapped CE-OFDM signal. The instantaneous power of the resulting signal is constant. Figure 3. even with the use of eﬀective PAPR reduction and/or power ampliﬁer linearization techniques. CE-OFDM can be thought of as a mapping of the OFDM signal to the unit circle. typically require more input power backoﬀ than convention single carrier systems. The technique described in the remainder of the thesis takes a diﬀerent approach to the PAPR problem.Chapter 3 Constant Envelope OFDM Conventional OFDM systems. Signal Unit circle ⇒ OFDM CE-OFDM Figure 3. OFDM is considered power ineﬃcient.1: The CE-OFDM waveform mapping. 43 . thus the PAPR is 0 dB.

3) .2: Instantaneous signal power.k qk (t − iTB ) (3. speciﬁcally. The baseband signal is s(t) = ejαm(t) . a phase modulator. The mapping is performed with an angle modulator. This is in contrast to conventional OFDM which amplitude modulates the carrier.k } are the data symbols and {qk (t)} are the orthogonal subcarriers. m(t) is passed through a (3. (For complex-valued m(t).8 1 Figure 3. consider the baseband OFDM waveform N m(t) = i k=1 Ii.) For CE-OFDM.1) ventional OFDM the baseband signal is up-converted to bandpass as y(t) = m(t)ej2πfc t where {Ii. the OFDM signal is used to phase modulate the carrier.2 0.2) = Am (t) cos [2πfc t + φm (t)] . For real-valued m(t). For con- (3. where Am (t) = |m(t)| and φm (t) = arg[m(t)].44 5 OFDM CE-OFDM 4 Instantaneous signal power 3 2 1 0 0 0. That is. as an amplitude single-sideband modulation. φ m (t) = 0 and y(t) is simply an amplitude modulated signal.4 0. To see this.6 Normalized time 0. y(t) can be viewed phase modulator prior to up-conversion.

The bandpass signal is y(t) = = = s(t)ej2πfc t ejαAm (t) exp[jφm (t)] ej2πfc t e−αAm (t) sin φm (t) ej[2πfc t+αAm (t) cos φm (t)] (3. other approaches based on signal transformation have been suggested. however. the inverse transformation is performed prior to demodulation. At the receiver. The PAPR is still large relative to single carrier modulation. For real-valued m(t).3: Basic concept of CE-OFDM. 569–571] suggest a companding transform. CE-OFDM can also be thought of as a transformation technique. 329.3.5) Receiver Inverse From channel Phase demodulator transform OFDM demodulator Figure 3. . Transmitter Transform OFDM modulator m(t) Phase modulator s(t) Power ampliﬁer To channel (3.5.4) = e−αAm (t) sin φm (t) cos [2πfc t + αAm (t) cos φm (t)] . The advantage of the phase modulator transform is that the resulting signal has the lowest achievable peak-to-average power ratio of 0 dB. In particular. The companded signal has an increased average power and thus a lower peak-to-average power ratio than conventional OFDM. Therefore y(t) is a phase modulated signal. As mentioned in Section 2. y(t) = cos [2πfc t + αm(t)] . [215. as shown in Figure 3.45 where α is a constant. the high PAPR OFDM signal is transformed into a low PAPR signal prior to the power ampliﬁer. At the transmitter.

These papers don’t consider the PAPR implications. (San Diego. First. and others. 3. which is the contractor of the OFDM component for JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System). Thus the data symbols are selected from an M -PAM set. 575]. Mike Geile.3)? How does the system perform in a frequency-selective fading channel? These questions.k ∈ {±1. however. which is independent of the previous references. suggest using a phase modulator prior to the power ampliﬁer for PAPR mitigation—though intriguing. CE-OFDM requires a real-valued OFDM message signal. OH). Harmuth’s 1960 paper suggest transmitting information by orthogonal time functions with “amplitude or frequency modulation. Therefore the data symbols in (3. . The motivation is to reduce the 6 dB backoﬀ used in the JTRS radio. The subcarriers {q k (t)} must also . In fact. the CE-OFDM modulation is deﬁned. . (3. on the other hand. Using existing FM infrastructure for OFDM transmission has been suggested in [76. What is the power density spectrum of the modulation? How is the signal space affected? What is the optimum AWGN performance? What is the performance of a phase demodulator receiver (Figure 3. The origin of this work. [101] and [506].6) This one dimensional constellation is known as pulse-amplitude modulation (PAM).1 Signal Deﬁnition As indicated by (3. are addressed here. . suggested a low PAPR enhancement to OFDM by phase modulation. these papers lack a solid theoretical foundation and ignore fundamental signal properties such as the signal’s power density spectrum. φm (t) = 0. ±(M − 1)}. 77. ±3. that is. stems from work done at the US Navy’s spawar Systems Center.46 The idea of transmitting OFDM by way of angle modulation isn’t entirely new. Two conference papers. or any other type of modulation suitable for the transmission of continuously varying [waveforms]” [202].1) are real-valued: Ii. (Cincinnati.4). a principle engineer at Nova Engineering. CA). . Transmitting OFDM with phase modulation raises several fundamental questions.

and θ i is a memory term (to be described below). 0 ≤ t < TB .7) (3. sin πkt/TB .12) where h is referred to as the modulation index. cos 2πkt/T .7) can be computed with a discrete cosine transform (DCT).) The baseband CE-OFDM signal is s(t) = Aejφ(t) . and full-wave cosines and sines. N 2. .k qk (t − iTB ). 0 ≤ t < TB . Three possibilities are considered: half-wave cosines.8) with a discrete sine transform (DST).13) .9) k1 = k2 . . half-wave sines. qk (t) = 0. . (3. is set to CN ≡ 2 2. k > 0.9) by taking the real part of a discrete Fourier transform (DFT). N 2.8) For each case. k ≤ B qk (t) = sin 2π(k − N/2)t/TB . iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB . 2. The normalizing constant. . where Eq = TB /2. N . (3. for k = 1. (3. . qk (t) = 0. (i+1)TB qk1 (t − iTB )qk2 (t − iTB )dt = iTB 0. k 1 = k2 . (3. for k = 1. 0 ≤ t < TB . . cos πkt/TB . or equivalently by taking a 2N -point DFT of a conjugate symmetric data vector (see Appendix A. .11) where A is the signal amplitude. C N . otherwise. .10) In terms of implementation. otherwise. and (3. N σI (3. (3. 0 ≤ t < TB . N .47 be real-valued. (3. 2. The phase signal during the ith block is written as N φ(t) = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii. otherwise. the subcarrier orthogonality condition holds: Eq . (3.

18) φ(iTB − ) = K and φ(iT + ) = K Ii−1.48 2 where σI is the data symbol variance: 2 σI 2 = E |Ii. .k Ae (k). (3.k = l) = 1/M .21) where K ≡ 2πhCN . (3. which is only a function of the modulation index. Consequently. 3 1). k=1 N (3. for all i and k. l = ±1. .k | 1 = M = M2 M l=1 (2l − 1 − M )2 (3. . Ab (k) = qk (0) and Ae (k) = qk (TB − ). N ci = θi−1 − θi + K k=1 [Ii−1.k Ab (k)] . N log2 M N log 2 M (3. The signal energy is (i+1)TB Es = and the bit energy is Eb = iTB |s(t)|2 dt = A2 TB . k=1 (3.20) → 0. the phase signal variance is 2 σφ = E assuming equally likely signal points. TB ).17) The term θi is a memory component designed to make the modulation phase-continuous. the phase discontinuity is ci = φ(iTB − ) − φ(iTB + ). Therefore. . . At the ith signaling interval boundary. ±(M − 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB [φ(t) − θi ]2 dt N N = (2πh)2 2 2 TB N σ I (2πh)2 2 2 TB N σ I (i+1)TB iTB N k=1 0 TB k1 =1 k2 =1 E {Ik1 Ik2 } qk1 (t − iTB )qk2 (t − iTB )dt (3. ±3. Since qk (t) = 0 for t ∈ [0.14) −1 . it follows that / N → 0.k Ab (k). P (I i.k Ae (k) − Ii. (3.19) Ii.16) Es A2 TB = .15) = 2 2 σI qk (t)dt = (2πh)2 . that is.

In Figure 3. and the OFDM signal at the end of the (i−1)th block. . the memory term is a function of all data symbols during and prior to the ith block.k Ae (k)] . the memory term is set to N θi ≡ θi−1 + K k=1 [Ii. (b) With memory.k Ae (k) 0. 1. t/TB 50 −1. The recursive relationship can be written as ∞ N θi = K l=0 k=1 [Ii−l. θ i = 0.23) Thus. (3. therefore. the OFDM signal at the beginning of the ith block. A second consequence of the memory terms is the entire unit circle is used for the CE-OFDM phase modulation. i = N k=1 [Ii−1.4: Phase discontinuities. . ci 10 20 30 40 Normalized time.5 1 Phase discontinuity. . . This property is studied further in Section 3. for all i.5 0 (a) Without memory.5 0 − Ii. ci is plotted for memoryless modulation. ci = K phase discontinuities are eliminated with the use of memory as deﬁned in (3.22) Notice that θi depends on θi−1 .k Ae (k)] .5 −1 −0. N k=1 Ii.49 To guarantee continuous phase.5 0 −1.5 0 Phase discontinuity. c i = 0.k Ae (k). Figure 3.4(b) shows that the −0. This is illustrated in Figure 3.5 which plots continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples on the complex . 1. The beneﬁt of continuous phase CE-OFDM is a more compact signal spectrum. Figure 3.5 1 0.k Ab (k) − Ii−1−l.22). Figure 3.2.k Ab (k) − Ii−1.4(a).k Ab (k). that is.5 −1 10 20 30 40 Normalized time. ci 0. t/TB 50 1. that is.k Ab (k)].4 plots the phase discontinuities {c i } at the boundary times t = iTB . 49. (3. N k=1 Ii−1.

The approach taken in [34]. other techniques are required to understand the CE-OFDM spectrum. those in [328.5(b) shows that the phase signal occupies the entire unit circle. [421. k = 0.22) eliminates these lines. Insight can be gained by taking this approach.7) plane. ±3. The Fourier transform of the average autocorrelation function results in a two-dimensional deﬁnite integral.5: Continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples. on the complex plane.2 Spectrum CE-OFDM is a complicated nonlinear modulation and a general closed-form expression for the power density spectrum is not available. This makes the integrand very jagged for all but trivial values of N . 3. pp. where the phase signal occupies about one-half the unit circle. It can be shown that memoryless modulation (θ i = 0) results in spectral lines at the frequencies f k = k/TB . Viewing samples over L = 100 blocks. 207–217] to calculate the power spectrum of conventional CPM signals can be applied to CE-OFDM. .7. Using memory as deﬁned by (3. . . and numerical integration algorithms (for example. Figure 3. Since the Fourier transform approach isn’t computationally feasible. over L blocks. (2πh = 0. Figure 3. The simplest is with the Taylor . however.50 Unit circle Starting point (a) L = 1 (b) L = 100 Figure 3. ±1.5(a) shows signal samples over L = 1 block. versus a single phase pulse as in CPM. 419]) fail to converge in a timely manner. [17]. The problem is there are N sinusoidal phase pulses in CE-OFDM. The modulation index is 2πh = 0.

2). The CE-OFDM signal.24). As deﬁned in (3. of m(t) is W =2× N N = . the CE-OFDM bandwidth is at least W . deﬁned as the twice the highest frequency subcarrier. the n = 1 term is information bearing and has bandwidth W . = Es /TB = A2 is the signal power. 340–343] [437]. as shown by the Taylor expansion in (3.28). the OFDM waveform is well modeled as such (see Section 2. the RMS bandwidth can be less than W . Thus.24) where m(t) = CN i k=1 Ii. The result.51 expansion ex = ∞ n n=0 x /n!. for large N .5Ps (3. the n = 2 term has a bandwidth 2W .k qk (t − iTB ) (3. 0. The dashed lines represent the RMS (3.5Ps f 0 ˆ Φs (x)dx ˆ = FOBP(f ). the n = 0 term contains no information and thus has zero bandwidth.27) fractional out-of-band power curves for N = 64 and various 2πh. but. the bandwidth of s(t) is at least W . Figure 3. is used to calculate the f 0 fractional out-of-band power. 2TB TB (3. A more suitable . which assumes a Gaussian message signal. The eﬀective double-sided bandwidth. can be easily estimated by the Welch method ˆ of periodogram averaging [526]. Φs (f ). n! N (3.25) is the normalized OFDM message signal. Brms = σφ W = 2πhN/TB .26) The bandwidth of s(t) is at least W : in (3. and so on.24).6 shows estimated constant CN these curves are valid for any M . The results in Figure 3. and depending on the modulation index the eﬀective bandwidth can be greater than W . pp. The power density spectrum.28) The RMS (root-mean-square) bandwidth is obtained by borrowing a result from analog angle modulation [423. with θi = 0. FOBP(f ) = where Ps = ∞ −∞ Φs (f )df Φs (x)dx ≈ 0.6 shows that Brms accounts for at least 90% of the signal power. Due to the normalizing bandwidth. due to the n = 1 term. can be written as s(t) = Aejσφ m(t) ∞ =A n=0 (jσφ )n mn (t). Φs (f ) ≈ Φs (f ).

6. Figure 3. 1)W.4.29) accounts for 99.9).6 1. and compares it with the 90–99% bandwidths as determined by the Welch method. B s is a conservative bandwidth. With 2πh = 0. (N = 64) bandwidth is thus Bs = max(2πh.6).4 10−6 0. Notice that (3. (3.2 1. Memoryless.8) and (3. f /W 1. (3. for example.4 10−4 1.52 100 ˆ FOBP(f ) Brms 10−1 2πh 10−2 Fractional out-of-band power 2.2 10−7 0 0. non-continuous phase CE-OFDM is compared to continuous phase CEOFDM (the continuous phase examples are preﬁxed with “CP”).8 compares spectral estimates for CE-OFDM signals with the three subcarrier modulations from (3. The estimates are also .8% of the signal power (from Figure 3. (3.0 10−5 0. The modulation index is 2πh = 0.6 0.0 1.6: Estimated fractional out-of-band power.7).5 1 Normalized frequency.29) is an accurate 90–92% bandwidth measure for 2πh ≥ 1.8 10−3 1.5 2 Figure 3.29) Figure 3. For small modulation index.7 plots Bs versus 2πh.0.8 0.

8 2. n > 1.8 0.2 2 1.6 2. ∗ denotes the n .8 1 1. ∞ n=0 an (3.2 1 0.4 Normalized double-sided bandwidth.4 Modulation index.4 0. B/W 2. Un (f ) = Φm (f ). and Φm (f ) is the power The weighting factors {an } are Poisson distributed.7: Double-sided bandwidth as a function of modulation index. 2πh 1. n Φm (f ) ∗ Φm (f ). (3.6 0.6 0.53 3 2.30) 2n e−σφ σφ n! . and 3 δ(f ).31) n-fold convolution. n = 0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0. for example x(t) ∗ x(t) = x(t) ∗ x(t) ∗ x(t).8 2 Bs Welch: 90% 92% 95% 99% Figure 3.2 1. (3. (N = 64) compared to the Abramson spectrum [1]: ∞ ΦAb (f ) = A where an = and 2 n=0 2 an Un (f ).6 1. n = 1.8 1.4 1.32) = 1.6 1.

33) x = 0. the nth term in (3. Φm (f ) ∗ Φm (f ) has a fractional contribution (e −σφ σφ )/2. for all n [1]. has a fractional contribution of 2 The functions {Un (f )} have the property: sin πx . For example.54 0 Welch estimate terms from (3. the carrier component accounts for e −0. Therefore ∞ −∞ Un (f )df 4 e−σφ . (3. otherwise. (N = 64.2 in Figure 3. f /W 2 3 Figure 3. Notice that 2 2 2 (This explains why the 90–92% curves at 2πh = 0.) for 2πh = 0. πx (3.7 are equal zero. . the carrier component.6) density spectrum of the message signal m(t) according to (3.34) = 1. TB + sinc2 f+ k 2TB TB .8: Power density spectrum.30) has an an × 100% contribution to the overall spectrum.2. represented as δ(f ).30) ˆ ΦAb (f ) −10 n=2 −20 n=3 Power spectrum (dB) −30 n=4 n=1 DCT DFT −40 −50 DST CP-DFT −60 −70 CP-DCT −80 −3 −2 −1 0 1 Normalized frequency.25): Φm (f ) = where sinc(x) = TB 2N N sinc2 k=1 f− k 2TB 1. 2πh = 0.2 ×100 ≈ 96% of the signal power. and so on.

which isn’t phasecontinuous. . DST has a continuous phase [with or without memory since A b (k) = Ae (k) = 0.30). for all k]. This 100 10−1 Fractional out-of-band power 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 DST |f /W | > 1. the spectral height depends on the overall smoothness of the phase signal.9: Fractional out-of-band power. for k = N/2 + 1.6) . . and Ab (k) = Ae (k) = 1. conventional OFDM is also plotted.55 Figure 3.25. (N = 64. for all k] and has a lower out-of-band power than memoryless DFT.35) The Abramson spectrum is shown to match all estimates over the range |f /W | ≤ 1.5 1 1. 2πh = 0.5 2 Normalized frequency. The smoothest phase results from CP-DCT which. . (3. f /W 2. 4 terms in (3.9 shows estimated fractional out-of-band power curves that correspond to the signals in Figure 3. . For reference.5 is the same for each signal. 2.8.5 3 Figure 3. Figure 3. N . The continuous phase CE-OFDM signals are the most spectrally contained and are shown to have better than 99. and the resulting sum 4 ˆ ΦAb (f ) = A2 n=0 an Un (f ) ≈ ΦAb (f ). Over the range 0. 3. otherwise] while DCT doesn’t [Ab (k) = Ae (k) = 1. For example.99% containment at f /W = 1.8. Memoryless DFT results in a slightly smoother phase than memoryless DCT since one-half of the subcarriers have zero-crossings at the signal boundaries [A b (k) = Ae (k) = 0. has a ﬁrst derivative equal to zero at the boundary times t = iTB . For CE-OFDM OFDM Brms DCT DFT 10−6 10−7 CP-DFT CP-DCT 10−8 0 0. unlike DST and CP-DFT. Notice that the 99% spectral containment at f /W = 0. the CP-DCT is the most spectrally contained.5 ≤ f /W ≤ 0.8 plots the n = 1. Consequently.

This is due to the fact that for a large modulation index. smaller h can be used if a tighter spectrum is required. The tradeoﬀ is that smaller h results in worse performance.0 example has a broad spectrum. 341. otherwise CE-OFDM has more outof-band power for at least some frequencies f /W > 0.4 the fractional out-of-band power of CE-OFDM is always better than OFDM.6 0.4 10−6 0. The 2πh = 2. the system designer can trade performance for spectral containment.10 compares CE-OFDM.10: CE-OFDM versus OFDM.0 1. 100 CE-OFDM OFDM 10−1 2πh 10−2 Fractional out-of-band power 2. the higher-order terms in (3. Notice that the shape of the spectrum appears Gaussian shaped.5 2 Figure 3. They are Gaussian shaped due to the multiple convolutions of (3.8 10−3 1. to conventional OFDM. (N = 64) . 437.32) dominate.5 1 Normalized frequency. For 2πh ≤ 0.2 10−7 0 0. f /W 1.6 1.56 ﬁgure shows that the CE-OFDM spectrum has more out-of-band power than conventional OFDM.0 10−5 0. Therefore.8 0.5. as will be discussed in the next chapter. and visa versa. 472].2 1. The shape of “wideband FM” signals is well covered in the classical works of [1. Since the modulation index controls the CE-OFDM spectral containment. greater than OFDM over all frequencies.4 10−4 1. with CP-DFT modulation over a large range of modulation index. Figure 3.33).

5 2 Figure 3. 100 OFDM.4 0.11 compares CE-OFDM and OFDM with nonlinear power ampliﬁcation.57 Finally.5 1 Normalized frequency.6 0. (N = 64) . The CE-OFDM signals have a bandwidth that depends only on the modulation index and are not eﬀected by the PA nonlinearity. Ideal CE-OFDM 10−1 IBO (dB) 0 2 4 6 Fractional out-of-band power 10−2 10−3 10−4 2πh 0.7 10−5 0 0. TWTA OFDM. Figure 3.9) require > 6 dB backoﬀ to avoid spectral broadening.11: CE-OFDM versus OFDM with nonlinear PA.5 0. f /W 1. The OFDM curves (from Figure 2.

Chapter 4

**Performance of Constant Envelope OFDM in AWGN
**

In this chapter the basic performance properties of CE-OFDM are studied. The baseband signal, represented by (3.11) and (3.12), is up-converted and transmitted as the bandpass signal sbp (t) = s(t)ej2πfc t = A cos [2πfc t + φ(t)] , (4.1)

where fc is the carrier frequency. The received signal is rbp (t) = sbp (t) + nw (t), (4.2)

where nw (t) denotes a sample function of the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) process with power density spectrum Φ nw (f ) = N0 /2 W/Hz. The primary focus of the chapter is to analyze the phase demodulator receiver, depicted by the block diagram below. An expression for the bit error rate (BER) is derived by making certain high carrier-to-noise ratio (CNR) approximations. The analytical result is then compared against computer simulation and it is shown to be accurate for BER < 0.01. It is also

Bandpass ﬁlter Phase demodulator OFDM demodulator

rbp (t)

To detector

Figure 4.1: Phase demodulator receiver.

58

59 demonstrated that with the use of a phase unwrapper, the receiver is insensitive to phase oﬀsets caused by the channel and/or by the memory terms {θ i }. The phase demodulator receiver is a practical implementation of the CE-OFDM receiver and is therefore of practical interest. However, it isn’t necessarily optimum, since the optimum receiver is a bank of M N matched ﬁlters [421, p. 244], one for each potentially transmitted signal. In Section 4.2 a performance bound and approximation for the optimum receiver is derived; and then in Section 4.3, the performance of the phase demodulator receiver is compared to the optimum result. It is shown that under certain conditions the phase demodulator receiver has near-optimum performance. In Section 4.4 CE-OFDM’s spectral eﬃciency versus performance is compared to channel capacity. Finally, the chapter is concluded in Section 4.5 with a comparison between CE-OFDM and conventional OFDM in terms of power ampliﬁer eﬃciency, total degradation, and spectral containment.

4.1

The Phase Demodulator Receiver

The phase demodulator receiver essentially consists of a phase demodulator followed by a conventional OFDM demodulator. Figure 4.2 shows the model used in this analysis. The received signal is ﬁrst passed through a front-end bandpass ﬁlter, centered at the carrier frequency fc , which limits the bandwidth of the additive noise. Then the bandpass signal is down-converted to r(t), sampled, and processed in the discrete-time domain. The conversion from rbp (t) to r(t) is described ﬁrst1 , making use of the following trigonometric identities: cos(x − y) − cos(x + y) , 2 sin(x + y) + sin(x − y) sin(x) cos(y) = , 2 cos(x + y) + cos(x − y) cos(x) cos(y) = , 2 sin(x + y) − sin(x − y) cos(x) sin(y) = . 2 sin(x) sin(y) =

1

(4.3) (4.4) (4.5) (4.6)

This is the standard model used for representing received baseband signals, and more discussion of the model can be found in [421, sec. 4.1], [624, sec. 5.5], among other places.

60

Lowpass ﬁlter 2 cos(2πfc t) rbp (t) Bandpass u(t) ﬁlter −2 sin(2πfc t) j Lowpass ﬁlter r(t) r[i] t = iTsa Phase demodulator OFDM demodulator

Figure 4.2: Bandpass to baseband conversion. The output of the bandpass ﬁlter is u(t) = sbp (t) + nbp (t), where nbp (t) = nc (t) cos(2πfc t) − ns (t) sin(2πfc t) (4.8) (4.7)

is the result of passing nw (t) through the bandpass ﬁlter. The terms n c (t) and ns (t) are referred to as the in-phase and quadrature components of the narrowband noise, respectively, and have the power density spectrum N0 , |f | ≤ Bbpf /2, Φnc (f ) = Φns (f ) = 0, |f | > Bbpf /2, [421, pp. 157–158]. Writing sbp (t) in the form sbp (t) = sc (t) cos(2πfc t) − ss (t) sin(2πfc t), (4.10)

(4.9)

where Bbpf is the bandwidth of the bandpass ﬁlter. Note that B bpf is assumed to be

suﬃciently large so sbp (t) is passed through the front-end ﬁlter with negligible distortion

where sc (t) = A cos[φ(t)] and ss (t) = A sin[φ(t)], the ﬁlter output can then be written as u(t) = [sc (t) + nc (t)] cos(2πfc t) − [ss (t) + ns (t)] sin(2πfc t). (4.11)

61 The output of the top (in-phase) branch of the down-converter is 2 rc (t) = LP {u(t) × 2 cos(2πfc t)} = LP{[sc (t) + nc (t)] + [sc (t) + nc (t)] cos(4πfc t) − [ss (t) + ns (t)] sin(4πfc t)} = sc (t) + nc (t), where LP{·} denotes the lowpass component of its argument (i.e., double-frequency terms are rejected) [624, p. 364]. Likewise, the output of the bottom (quadrature) branch is rs (t) = LP {u(t) × −2 sin(2πfc t)} = LP{−[sc (t) + nc (t)] sin(4πfc t) + [ss (t) + ns (t)] − [ss (t) + ns (t)] cos(4πfc t)} = ss (t) + ns (t). The two are combined to obtain r(t) = s(t) + n(t), where s(t) is the lowpass equivalent CE-OFDM signal from (3.11), and n(t) = nc (t) + jns (t) (4.15) (4.14) (4.13) (4.12)

is the lowpass equivalent representation of the bandpass white noise, n bp (t) [421, p. 158]. The power density spectrum of n(t) is [421, p. 158] N0 , |f | ≤ Bn /2, Φn (f ) = 0, |f | > Bn /2, is [421, p. 158] φn (τ ) = N0 sin πBn τ . πτ (4.17)

(4.16)

where Bn = Bbpf is the noise bandwidth. The corresponding autocorrelation of n(t)

The continuous-time receive signal is then sampled at the rate f sa = 1/Tsa samp/s to obtain the discrete-time signal 3 r[i] = s[i] + n[i], i = 0, 1, . . . , (4.18)

2 Here, ideal phase coherence and frequency synchronization is assumed. In Section 4.1.2 the eﬀect of channel phase oﬀsets is considered. 3 Perfect timing synchronization is assumed.

0.3.20) iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB .4. (4.3: Discrete-time phase demodulator. i 1 = i2 . and the phase unwrapper is used to minimize the eﬀect of phase ambiguities.21) are the envelope and phase of n(t). and σn = fsa N0 .2. p.21) . N (t) sin [Θ(t) − φ(t)] A + N (t) cos [Θ(t) − φ(t)] (4. The discrete-time phase demodulator studied in this thesis is shown in Figure 4.1. Although the receiver operates in the discrete-time domain. it is convenient to analyze it in the continuous-time domain. arg(·) simply calculates the arctangent of its argument.62 Phase demodulator r[i] FIR ﬁlter arg(·) Phase unwrapper To OFDM demodulator Figure 4.19) 2 and therefore the sampling rate is f sa = Bn . This correlator bank is implemented in practice with the fast Fourier transform. As will be shown. 4. The terms N (t) and Θ(t) in (4. The output of the phase demodulator is processed by the OFDM demodulator which consists of the N correlators. As discussed in Section 2. The angle of the received signal is N arg[r(t)] = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii. The ﬁnite impulse response (FIR) ﬁlter is optional.1 Performance Analysis In this section a bit error rate approximation is derived for the phase demodulator receiver. (4. n i1 = i2 .k qk (t − iTB ) + ξ(t). where ξ(t) = arctan is the corrupting noise [624. where s[i] = s(t)|t=iTsa and n[i] = n(t)|t=iTsa . the unwrapper makes the receiver insensitive to phase oﬀsets caused by the channel and/or by the memory terms. one corresponding to each subcarrier. but has been found eﬀective at improving performance. the noise samples {n[i]} are assumed independent: E {n[i1 ]n[i2 ]} = 2 σ . 416].

the where. the variance of the coeﬃcient is proportional to the power density spectrum function noise at the output of a phase demodulator has a power density spectrum [423.k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB (i+1)TB iTB arg[r(t)]qk (t − iTB )dt = Si. 41–43] 1 1 N0 Φξ (f )|f =k/2TB ≈ . (4. (4. It is well known that. Ni.k Eq = 2πh TB 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB ξ(t)qk (t − iTB )dt. 41–43].27) 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB θi qk (t − iTB )dt.k } ≈ The third term in (4. .63 The kth correlator in the OFDM demodulator computes 1 TB The signal term is Si.k + Ψi. (4. .26).26) evaluated at f = k/2TB [442. Ψi. (4.8). 410] Φξ (f ) ≈ N0 .k is approximated as a zero mean Gaussian random variable with variance [442. (4. Ni. ξ(t) is well modeled as a sample function of a zero mean Gaussian process. given a high CNR. Therefore.n qn (t − iTB )qk (t − iTB )dt 1 2 Ii. N.25) which can be viewed as a Fourier coeﬃcient of ξ(t) at f = k/2T B Hz.k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB ξ(t) sin [πk(t − iTB )/TB ] dt.22) [φ(t) − θi ]qk (t − iTB )dt (i+1)TB N iTB n=1 2πhCN = TB = The noise term is Ni.24) For example.k .k = Since 0 TB (4. (4. W = N/TB is the eﬀective bandwidth of φ(t). with DST subcarrier modulation (3. k = 1.28) qk (t)dt = 0. 2N σI (4. A2 |f | ≤ W/2.k . . Moreover. p. from (3. var{Ni. 2. for high CNR.23) 2πhCN Ii. .k . pp.22). As TB → ∞.k + Ni.k = Ii. is expressed as Ψi. 2TB 2TB A2 This result is the same for DCT and DFT subcarrier modulation.29) . pp.

the probability of error is 1 Pouter = P (Ni.k = 0 and therefore has no eﬀect on system performance. in which case the bit error rate is approximated as [483. where d = 2πh 1 2.8) is inferior to DCT and DFT since Ψ i.35) .k > d) = Pinner .34) . 195] BER ≈ SER ≈2 log2 M M −1 M log2 M Q 2πh 6 log 2 M Eb M 2 − 1 N0 . The symbol error rate is computed by determining the probability of error for each error is signal point in the M -PAM constellation.64 for DCT and DFT modulations [(3. This highlights an important observation: DST subcarrier modulation (3.32) . ∞ is a constant. 194–195].k = 0 isn’t guaranteed. Pinner ≈ 2 =2 d[N0 /(2A2 TB )]−0. the probability of Pinner = P (|Ni. Notice that for 2πh = 1.7).k | > d) = 2P (Ni. as approximated by (4.k . the only signiﬁcant symbol errors are those that occur in adjacent signal levels. For high SNR.k }. (4. (4.k > d).31) (4.30) is not averaged over i nor k since var{N i. the overall symbol error rate is SER = M −2 2 Pinner + Pouter M M 6 log 2 M Eb M −1 Q 2πh ≈2 M M 2 − 1 N0 (4. p.] Due to the Gaussian approximation applied to the random variable N i. (3.33) (4.30) [Notice that (4.27).5 1 2πN0 /(2A2 T B) d ∞ exp −x2 / 2N0 /(2A2 TB ) dx (4. 2 Therefore.34) is equivalent to the SER for conventional M -PAM [483. Ψ i. 1 √ exp −x2 /2 dx 2π = 2Q 2πh 6 log 2 M Eb M 2 − 1 N0 = 2Q 2πh A2 TB 2 N0 N σ I For the two outer points. pp. 2N σI (4.9)]. For the M − 2 inner points.

The performance of S1 is slightly worse than S2 since the output of the phase demodulator. The former is referred to as System 1 (S1). phase unwrapping a noisy signal is a diﬃcult problem and the unwrapper makes mistakes.3) has length Lﬁr = 11 and normalized cutoﬀ frequency fcut /W = 0. (4. the unwrapper works perfectly and the performance of S1 isn’t degraded. The system is computer simulated with a sampling rate fsa = JN/TB .20) with the addition of the channel oﬀset term. Figure 4. Also.4 for more on the ﬁlter design. 4 . Which is identical to (4.38) Therefore. S1 and S2 are shown to have identical performance.3.4 compares the performance of N = 64. where J = 8 is the oversampling factor 4 . the later as System 2 (S2). and the analytical approximation in (4. See Section 4.65 4.7 example. This demonstrates a limitation of the phase demodulator receiver: for a large modulation index and low signal-to-noise ratio. and without (θi + φ0 = 0). the FIR ﬁlter (see Figure 4. For a smaller modulation index.22).37) iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB . 2π)}. except the third term is Ψi.k qk (t − iTB ) + φ0 + ξ(t). Proper phase unwrapping is therefore required.5. has more phase jumps since the received phase crosses the π boundary more frequently.01. With the 2πh = 0.k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB [θi + φ0 ]qk (t − iTB )dt = 0. As a result the performance degrades slightly.35) is applicable. M = 2 CE-OFDM with phase oﬀset {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0. (4.35) closely matches the simulation results for BER < 0. the phase oﬀset due to the channel has no impact on performance. S1 is shown to have a 1 dB performance loss compared to S2. the arg(·) block in Figure 4. The kth correlator is the same as (4.1. In this case. However. the analytical approximation is shown to be overly optimistic.2.36) arg[r(t)] = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii. The received signal is then r(t) = s(t)ejφ0 + n(t). For Eb /N0 ≥ 10 dB and 2πh ≤ 0. the phase demodulator has diﬃculty demodulating the noisy samples. For these cases the analytical approximation (4.1.2 Eﬀect of Channel Phase Oﬀset Suppose the channel imposes a phase oﬀset of φ 0 . The angle of r(t) is N (4.

N = 64.26).40) is the noise power. below a threshold value. and System 2 (S2) doesn’t (θ i + φ0 = 0).5 0. 624].39) Pn = Φn (f )df = Bn N0 −∞ (4.66 100 System 1 System 2 Approx (4.3 0.1.17). From (3. 2π)}.2 0. J = 8] 4. In this section. r(t).7 0. is CNR = where A2 is the carrier power. the carrier power can be written in the form A2 = Eb N log 2 M . which leads to the BER approximation (4. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 Figure 4. [M = 2. and ∞ A2 .3 Carrier-to-Noise Ratio and Thresholding Eﬀects The high-CNR approximation made in (4. The CNR at the output of the analog front end. the CNR is deﬁned and the threshold eﬀect for CE-OFDM is observed by way of computer simulation. is a standard technique for analyzing phase demodulator receivers [423.4: Performance with and without phase oﬀsets. A well-known characteristic of such receivers is: at low CNR. System 1 (S1) has phase oﬀsets {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0. the approximation is invalid and system performance degrades drastically.35) 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 2πh 0.35).1 10−4 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. TB (4.41) . Pn (4.

10 dB can be considered an appropriate threshold level. pp. N = 64.5. 87–91]. In subﬁgures (a) and (b) the system is below and above the 10 dB threshold.19)]. 120–138]. J (4.67 thus CNR = (Eb /N0 )N log2 M .43) Therefore. pp. the system is observed to be above threshold. Below 10 dB. and (4. This threshold level is studied in the following two ﬁgures. a region where the system is useless. J = 8. to where the system is above threshold.35). Figure 4.42) reduces to CNR = (Eb /N0 ) log 2 M . There is. Gaining more insight into this issue is a subject for future investigation. above CNR = 10 dB.42) Since the noise samples are assumed independent [see (4. Bn = fsa = JN/TB . and inversely proportional to the oversampling factor. simulation results for an M = 8.6 shows results for more values of 2πh.35).5 system are compared to (4. A commonly accepted threshold CNR for analog FM systems is 10 dB [472. This transition region is diﬃcult to study analytically.44) (4. Clearly. a transition region—that is. the carrier-to-noise ratio is proportional to E b /N0 and M . and for CNR < 5 dB. with simulation results closely matching the analytical approximation. 2πh = 0. [501. the performance begins to deviate from (4. TB Bn (4. however. For each case. In Figure 4. respectively. the performance quickly degrades to a bit error rate of 1/2. . with a BER of 1/2.

4 0. (M = 8.5: Threshold eﬀect at low CNR.6: Threshold eﬀect at low CNR. (b) Above 10 dB threshold.2 10−1 Simulation Approx (4. N = 64.68 Bit error rate Bit error rate 10−2 Simulation Approx (4. N = 64.6 Simulation Approx (4.35) 10−1 Simulation Approx (4. Figure 4. 2πh = 0.35) 10−3 10 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 11 12 13 14 15 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 16 (a) Below 10 dB threshold. various 2πh. (b) Above 10 dB threshold.2 10−2 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 10−3 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 24 (a) Below 10 dB threshold.6 0. J = 8) .8 0.35) 0. Figure 4.8 10−2 0.5) 2πh 0. (M = 8.35) Bit error rate 10−1 Bit error rate 0. J = 8.4 2πh 0.

(M = 2. designed using the window technique described in [422. The ﬁlter. For fcut /W ≥ 0. Figure 4. Hamming windows are used5 . This is explained by noting that the (single-sided) signal bandwidth is at least W/2 Hz.05. The ﬁlters with L ﬁr > 5 and fcut /W > 0.35) is BER = 0.1.5 distort the signal.69 4. This is due to the wide transition 10−1 Bit error rate Lﬁr = 3 5 7 9 11 21 31 61 101 No ﬁlter Approx (4.5 are shown higher-order ﬁlters with fcut /W < 0. . the better than the unﬁltered result. N = 64. fcut /W . The higher-order ﬁlters. Notice that the L ﬁr = 11 ﬁlter band of the lower-order ﬁlter.2 0.3) can improve performance.7: Performance for various ﬁlter parameters L ﬁr . has equally good performance so long as f cut /W ≥ 0.5 and Eb /N0 = 10 dB) 5 It has been observed that the window type has negligible impact on performance. 623–630]. The mation (4.4 0.1.5 to yield good performance. pp. N = 64. J = 8.4 FIR Filter Design The FIR ﬁlter preceding the phase demodulator (see Figure 4. while the analytical approxi- and a normalized cutoﬀ frequency 0 < f cut /W ≤ 1. The SNR is held constant at E b /N0 = 10 dB. J = 8.5 system.8 1 Figure 4.6 Normalized cutoﬀ frequency. 2πh = 0.7 shows BER simulation results of an M = 2.012. which have a narrower transition bands.4 all the ﬁltered results are shown to be to have roughly the same performance. Therefore. has a length 3 ≤ L ﬁr ≤ 101 performance without a ﬁlter is shown to be BER = 0. 2πh = 0.35) 10−2 0 0. fcut /W 0. require fcut /W > 0.

has worse BER performance than the other ﬁlters. The ﬁlter lowers the error ﬂoor resulting in a 9 dB improvement at BER = 10−6 .7 Magnitude response (dB) 3. 0. These results show that the ﬁlter becomes important for larger modulation index: for 2πh = 0.7 there is a 2 dB improvement in the range 10−3 < BER < 10−5 .5 2 Normalized frequency. The ﬁgure above shows the magnitude response of the various Hamming FIR ﬁlters.1 −40 101. The Lﬁr = 31. . for 2πh = 0.7 9. Notice the error ﬂoor developing below 10 −5 . Figure 4.1 −80 −100 0 0.1 the ﬁltered and unﬁltered results are the same. This is a consequence of imperfect phase demodulation.7.9 compares the performance of binary (M = 2) CE-OFDM with and without the FIR ﬁlter. f /W 2.8: Magnitude response of various Hamming FIR ﬁlters. The Lﬁr = 11.3 the ﬁltered performance is a fraction of a dB better than the unﬁltered. for 2πh = 0. The ﬁlters with relatively ﬂat response over |f /W | ≤ 0.5 result in good performance. 0. 0.1 example is shown to not have this property. 0.1 −60 31. fcut /W = 0.5 1 1.70 0 Lﬁr . as shown in Figure 4. and. fcut /W −20 9.5 3 Figure 4. fcut /W = 0. 0.2 ﬁlter is used.

45) where K = 2πhCN . 0 ≤ t < TB . but not necessarily optimum.35) 10−1 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.7 0.2 The Optimum Receiver As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter. Results obtained here are used in the following section to compare the phase demodulator receiver to optimum performance. The set of all possible signals. Consider the mth bandpass signal N sm (t) = A cos 2πfc t + θ0 + K k=1 Ik (m) qk (t) . (M = 2. the optimum. . . . J = 8) 4.1 10−4 10−5 10−6 0 5 10 15 20 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. In this section. . yet impractical. the phase demodulator receiver is a practical implementation. I2 (m) . The optimum m=1 (m) N . During each block one of M N CE-OFDM signals is transmitted.3 0. N (4. IN ]}M . CE-OFDM receiver is studied.9: CE-OFDM performance with and without FIR ﬁlter.71 100 Without FIR ﬁlter With FIR ﬁlter Approx (4. is determined by the m=1 set of all possible data symbol vectors {I (m) = [I1 (m) . {s m (t)}M . N = 64. Eb /N0 (dB) 25 30 Figure 4.

The bit error probability is used interchangeably with the bit error rate. . as shown in Figure 4. Determining exact expressions for the above probabilities is intractable for large N . . The detector then selects the largest result [421. correlates the received signal. The second is the data symbol error probability.72 receiver.2. Likewise for the symbol error probability and symbol error rate. upperbounds and approximations can be derived in a straightforward way.1 Performance Analysis It is desired to obtain an analytical expression for the bit error probability 6 . with each potentially transmitted signal. P (bit error). the receiver selects a diﬀerent signal than the one transmitted. r bp (t) = sm (t) + nw (t). 242–247]. 6 . R TB 0 (·)dt s1 (t) R TB 0 (·)dt s2 (t) Received signal rbp (t) .10: The optimum receiver. 4. . as described below. The ﬁrst is the probability that the output of the optimum receiver is in error—that is.10. . there are two other probabilities to consider: P (signal error) and P (symbol error) . . However. pp. Select the largest Output decision R TB 0 (·)dt Sample at t = TB sM N (t) Figure 4. However.

47) where ρm.50) d2 min 2N0 .n.n = 1 Es TB sm (t)sn (t)dt. it provides an upperbound given that λ = ρmax = m.n 0 TB [sm (t) − sn (t)]2 dt (4.n ). (4.46) The above expression is the probability of detection error for M N signals with equal correlation −1 ≤ λ ≤ 1. (4.49) the signal correlation properties must be studied.n (4. m=n where d2 = m.53) (4. Therefore. p.52) Therefore to obtain the performance bound (4. 0 (4. min (4.n thus d2 = 2Es (1 − ρmax ). m=n 1 exp − y − 2 2 2Es (1 − λ) dy.51) is the squared Euclidean distance between s m (t) and sn (t). This quantity is related to the signal correlation as d2 = 2Es (1 − ρm. m.73 An upperbound for P (signal error) is [373]: 1 P (signal error) ≤ √ 2π ∞ −∞ 1 − [1 − Q(y)]M N −1 × (4. m. N0 max ρm. as a function of the phase . 288] where Kd2 P (signal error) ≈ Kd2 Q min min is the number of neighboring signal points having the minimum squared d2 = min min d2 .n is the normalized correlation between s m (t) and sn (t): ρm. and in particular ρ max must be determined.46) and the approximation (4.n.48) An approximation for P (signal error) is [421. The normalized correlation between the mth and nth signal.49) Euclidean distance m.n .

e ja cos b ∞ = i=−∞ Ji (a)eji(b+π/2) . Writing (4. The double frequency term is ignored since f c cos 2K 0 d=1 ∆m.n (K) = A2 2Es TB 0 ∞ i1 =−∞ ∞ ··· iD =−∞ Ji1 [2K∆m.n (K) = A2 2Es TB D where {kd }D are the indices where the data symbols diﬀer.58) ··· Ji1 [2K∆m. the DCT modulation (3. .56) A2 = 2Es exp [j2K∆m. ∆ m.74 constant K = 2πhCN . Notice that for k where ∆ m. is ρm.n (k1 )]× iD =−∞ · · · × JiD [2K∆m.n (k) = 0. Making use of the Jacobi-Anger expansion [580].n (kd ) = 0.n (kd )qk (t)] dt. the data symbols are the same. Therefore A2 ρm.56) is written as ρm. and these indices don’t contribute to the correlation. that is.n (K) = 1 Es TB sm (t)sn (t)dt 0 TB N A2 = Es cos 2πfc t + θ0 + K 0 k=1 Ik (m) qk (t) × (4.55) D is the total number of diﬀerences.n (k)qk (t) dt. 1/TB (m) is assumed. (4.n (kd )qk (t) dt (4. (4.5[Ik A2 2Es 0 TB N cos 2K k=1 (n) ∆m.n (kD )]ejσ(i) dt = A2 2Es TB 0 ∞ i1 =−∞ ∞ (4.54) Ik qk (t) dt (n) N cos 2πfc t + θ0 + K k=1 = where ∆m.55) in exponential form yields ρm. d=1 To proceed.57) where Ji (a) is the ith-order Bessel function of the ﬁrst kind. (4.n (k1 )] × · · · × JiD [2K∆m. and d=1 exp j2K 0 TB 0 D d=1 ∆m.n (K) = 2Es TB D − Ik ].n (kd )qk (t) dt.n (kD )] cos[ω(i) + ψ(i)]dt.n (k) = 0.7) is assumed.

62) ≈ NQ error probability is approximated as P (symbol error) ≈ A minimum distance signal error results in one data symbols error. Index values that ρi.n (K) for M = 2. a symbol error can result in 1 to log 2 M bit errors.n (K) = J0 [2K∆m.11(b) plots all unique ρm. . N }. . Notice that the largest correlation function is associated with D = 1. p.n (kd )] cos[ψ(ii )]. For CE-OFDM signals of interest.n (K) doesn’t depend on the subcarrier frequency fk1 = k1 /TB . = NQ Es [1 − ρmax ]/N0 Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 .d [2K∆m.59) is slightly diﬀerent since both sinusoids and cosinusoids are used as subcarriers.D ].75 where σ(i) = ω(i) + ψ(i).60) for |∆m. .61) (4.58) simpliﬁes to D and ψ(i) ≡ π 2 D d=1 id . .49). For DFT modulation.1 . Note that ρm. . . just on the magnitude of the diﬀerence |∆ m. ρmax = J0 (2K).. .11(a) plots tion [580. (4. . For D = 1. (4.n (k1 )| ∈ {1. k1 ∈ {1. 2. For M > 2. ii. Figure 4. i = 1. (M − 1)}. Also plotted is the envelope of the 0th-order Bessel func- Figure 4. (4. For any given signal. a symbol .n (k1 ) = 1|. . ω(i) ≡ πt TB D d=1 id kd result in ω(i) = 0 have no contribution. so (4.60) Therefore the correlation is simply the 0th-order Bessel function. d2 min 2N0 (4. ρm. (4. . . 2. 2. one symbol error corresponds to one bit error.59) where ii ≡ [ii. K d2 the probability of signal error is approximated as P (signal error) ≈ Kd2 Q min min = N . and from (4.n (k1 )].63) For M = 2.j (K) = i d=1 Jii. represent the vectors whereby ω(i i ) = 0. the symbol P (signal error) ≈Q N Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 . there are N other signals with D = 1: therefore. . This result is the same for DST modulation except ψ(i i ) = 0. . Therefore. Assuming each outcome is equally likely. . 121]. N = 8 DCT subcarrier modulation. (4. .

8 ρm.2 K 0.5 (b) All unique ρm.n (K). N = 8 DCT modulation.5 0 1 2 K 3 4 5 (a) D = 1.6 0.3 0. Figure 4. 1 J0 (2K) 0.n (K) for M = 2.4 0.n (K) p 1/πK 0 −0.n (K) 0.11: Correlation functions ρ m.1 0.5 ρm.76 1 0. .40 0.

Eb /N0 (dB) 18 21 Figure 4.46) with λ = ρmax = J0 (2K): 1 P (bit error) ≤ √ 2π ∞ −∞ The bit error probability is bounded by noting that P (bit error) ≤ P (signal error). The analytical approximation (4.5(log 2 M + 1) bit errors. log2 M (4. 1 − [1 − Q(y)]M N −1 × (4.65) Figure 4.3 10−4 10−6 0 3 6 9 12 15 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. The number of correlators at the receiver is therefore 2 8 = 256.35.3 and 2πh = 0.64) and using (4.65) Simulation 0.12 shows simulation results of the optimum receiver for M = 2 and N = 8.77 error results in 1 log2 M log2 M i i = 0.5(log 2 M + 1) ≈ Q Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 .7 which corresponds to K = 0.12: CE-OFDM optimum receiver performance. (M = 2.5(log 2 M + 1) P (symbol error) log2 M 0. N = 8) .64) is shown to be very accurate. 100 1 exp − y − 2 2 2Es [1 − J0 (2K)] dy. Two values of modulation index are plotted: 2πh = 0.15 and K = 0.64) Bound (4. Thus P (bit error) ≈ 0. The upperbound (4.7 10−5 2πh 0.65) is shown to be within 3 dB of the simulated results for high SNR. N0 10−1 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 Approx (4.

πK the envelope of the 0th-order Bessel function. The phase modulator thus drastically alters the signal space.5 ρm. Prior to the phase demodulator.13: All unique ρm. 4.n (K) ≤ ρmax (K) ≤ d2 (K) ≥ d2 (K) ≥ 2Es m.2 Asymptotic Properties In Figure (4.13) each correlation function is plotted for M = 2. 1 0. ρm. from (3. the bandwidth tends to inﬁnity as 2πh → ∞. p. The functions are shown to be bounded by 1 .67) Notice that as K → ∞ the CE-OFDM signals become orthogonal. a M N -dimensional orthogonal space.n min 1− 1 πK .n (K) p 1/πK 0 −0.n (K) for M = 2.78 4.66) (4.2.3 Phase Demodulator Receiver versus Optimum Figure 4. and as the modulation index becomes very large. Therefore.29). the space is transformed into a M N -dimensional space (due to the linear independence of the signal set [421. the OFDM signal space is described by 2N dimensions (2 per subcarrier). At the output of the phase modulator. However. (4. N = 4 DCT modulation. The simulation . 164]).5 0 1 2 K 3 4 5 Figure 4.14 shows simulation results for the phase demodulator receiver with N = 64 and for various modulation index values 2πh and modulation order M . N = 4 DCT modulation.

2 10−4 2. That is. 268] ∞ pξ (x) = 0 y y 2 + A2 − 2yA cos x exp − dy. This implies that the phase demodulator receiver is nearly optimum.26). 0.35) Approx (4.15 compares (4. and near optimum performance of the phase demodulator receiver is expected.35) and the optimum receiver approximation (4.68) to the Gaussian probability density function. and the noise at the output of the phase demodulator must be “white” and Gaussian. For this to be true. (N = 64) results are compared to the analytical approximation (4.14: Phase demodulator receiver versus optimum. The probability density function of ξ(t) samples is represented by the well-known form [421. 0. As shown by (4. . The SNR per bit is E b /N0 = 30 dB. ξ(t) is approximately “white”. 2 2 2πσn 2σn (4. All curves are shown to be essentially identical for BER < 0. This shows that ξ(t) is well approximated as Gaussian.64).68) 2 where σn = Bn N0 is the power of the noise signal n(t).2 16. 2πh 8. the phase demodulator must perfectly invert the phase modulation done at the transmitter.01.64) Simulation 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 M . 1.79 100 Approx (4. Eb /N0 (dB) 35 40 Figure 4. Figure 4. is comprised of the transmitted message signal plus an AWGN corrupting signal. φ(t) + ξ(t). the OFDM demodulator is optimum given that the input.2 10−5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.3 4. p.8 16. 0. 0.

2 cycles per sample for M = 2.0. 8 and 16.5 Figure 4. This is predicted by (4. Notice that for M ≥ 4 and 2πh > 1. it is shown that the performance of CE-OFDM is determined by the modulation index.0. as shown in Section 3. 4 and 8. p(x) 10−5 10−10 10−15 10−20 −1. since for 2πh = 1. It is ﬁrst demonstrated that CE-OFDM with modulation index 2πh > 1 can outperform the underlying M -PAM subcarrier modulation.80 100 pξ (x) Gaussian Probability density function. and 0. the expression is equal to the to operate in the region 2πh > 1.4 Spectral Eﬃciency versus Performance In the previous sections. 4.35). For CE-OFDM .5 0 x 0. The bit error rate is plotted against the SNR per bit on the bottom x-axis and the carrier-to-noise ratio on the top x-axis. (E b /N0 = 30 dB) 4. The oversampling factor is J = 8 for M = 2.5 1 1. The results are compared to channel capacity. The FIR ﬁlter has length Lﬁr = 11 and a normalized cutoﬀ frequency 0. The viewable range is such that CNR ≥ 5 dB. and J = 16 for M = 16. CE-OFDM outperforms M -PAM. 7 performance of M -PAM. the spectral eﬃciency (b/s/Hz) versus performance (E b /N0 to achieve a target bit error rate) is plotted for a variety of CE-OFDM signals.15: Noise samples PDF versus Gaussian PDF. it is better than M -PAM. also controls the signal bandwidth. and for 2πh > 1. In this section. Figure 4.2. the carrier-to-noise ratio must be above threshold.16 shows simulation results7 for M = 2.5 −1 −0. 4 and 16.3 cycles per sample for M = 8. which.

. .1‡ } 10−2 10−3 10−3 10−4 10−4 2πh ∈ {1. 1. 0. (N = 64.35) 4-PAM 10−2 Bit error rate Bit error rate 2πh ∈ {0. 1.0. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 15 20 25 30 35 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 0. . 0. . †=leftmost curve.2.1‡ } 10−4 2πh ∈ {2. .0† .5.1‡ } 10−5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.0† .4. Eb /N0 (dB) (a) M = 2. .5† . 0. 1. . ‡=rightmost curve) .81 5 10−1 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 15 Simulation (4. Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 15 20 25 30 Simulation (4. (d) M = 16.1. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. .9. .35) 8-PAM 10−2 Bit error rate Bit error rate 10−2 (b) M = 4.2. . Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 15 20 25 30 35 Simulation (4. .35) 20 5 10−1 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 15 20 25 Simulation (4. 0. Figure 4. 1. 0.1‡ } 10−5 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. .16: Performance of M -PAM CE-OFDM. .35) 16-PAM 5 10−1 10 35 5 10−1 10 40 10−3 10−3 10−4 2πh ∈ {1.5† . Eb /N0 (dB) (c) M = 8. 1. . .9. 0. .

82 To plot the spectral eﬃciency versus performance, the data rate must be deﬁned, which for uncoded CE-OFDM is R= N log 2 M b/s. TB (4.69)

Using (3.29) as the eﬀective signal bandwidth, the spectral eﬃciency is R/B = log2 M R = b/s/Hz. Bs max(2πh, 1) (4.70)

Figure 4.17 shows result for M = 2, 4, 8 and 16. The target bit error rate is 0.0001. For reference the channel capacity is also plotted, which is expressed as [421, p. 387] C = B log 2 1 + or equivalently, Eb 2C/B − 1 = . N0 C/B

10 M =2 M =4 M =8 M = 16 Capacity M = 16: 2πh = 2.0, 1.8, . . . , 0.6 M = 8: 2πh = 1.4, 1.2, . . . , 0.4

C Eb B N0

,

(4.71)

(4.72)

7 6 5 Spectral eﬃciency (b/s/Hz) 4 3

2 M = 4: 2πh = 1.0, 0.8, . . . , 0.2

1 M = 2: 2πh = 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2

0.5-1.6

0

5 10 15 20 Performance: Eb /N0 (dB) to achieve 0.0001 bit error rate

25

Figure 4.17: Spectral eﬃciency versus performance. There are two main observations to be made. First, for a ﬁxed modulation index, CE-OFDM has improved spectral eﬃciency with increase modulation order M at the cost of performance degradation. For example consider 2πh = 0.4. The spectral eﬃciency

83 is 1, 2 and 3 b/s/Hz for M = 2, 4 and 8, respectively. However, M = 4 requires 4 dB more power than M = 2, and M = 8 requires nearly 5 dB more power than M = 4. This type of spectral eﬃciency/performance tradeoﬀ is the same for conventional linear modulations such as M -PAM, M -PSK and M -QAM [421, p. 282]. The second observation is that CE-OFDM can have both improvements in spectral eﬃciency and in performance. Compare M = 2, 2πh = 0.5 with M = 4, 2πh = 1.0, for example. The spectral eﬃciency doubles in the later case while also having a 2 dB performance gain. Conventional CPM systems also have the property of increase spectral eﬃciency and performance [14]. However, with CPM the receiver complexity increases drastically with M (due to phase trellis decoding), which isn’t the case for CE-OFDM.

4.5

CE-OFDM versus OFDM

The total degradation, as deﬁned in Section 2.4.2, is TD(IBO) = SNRPA (IBO) − SNRAWGN + IBO, [in dB]

where SNRAWGN is the required signal-to-noise ratio required to achieve a target bit error rate, SNRPA (IBO) is the required SNR when taking into account the nonlinear power ampliﬁer at a given backoﬀ. Applying the PA model from Section 2.3 to CE-OFDM, the input signal is sin (t) = A exp[jφ(t)], and the output is sout (t) = G(A) exp j[φ(t) + Φ(A)] . (4.74) (4.73)

The instantaneous nonlinearity results in a constant amplitude and a constant phase shift. Therefore the PA has no impact on the CE-OFDM performance and no backoﬀ is needed. The total degradation for CE-OFDM is deﬁned as TD = SNRPM − SNRsub , (4.75)

where SNRsub is the required SNR for the underlying subcarrier modulation and SNR PM is the required SNR for the phase modulated CE-OFDM system. By this deﬁnition, the total degradation can be negative since, as observed in Figure 4.16, CE-OFDM can outperform the underlying subcarrier modulation at the price of lower spectral eﬃciency.

84 Figure 4.18 compares CE-OFDM with conventional OFDM in terms of PA eﬃciency, total degradation and spectral containment. Binary modulation is used in both systems. The target BER is 10−5 and the number of subcarriers is N = 64. Both the SSPA and TWTA models are considered. The lowest TD for the TWTA system is 10.5 dB at 8 dB backoﬀ, which corresponds to an 8% eﬃciency as shown in Figure 4.18(a). At this backoﬀ level, the 99.5% bandwidth occupancy is roughly the same as undistorted ideal OFDM as shown in Figure 4.18(c). For the SSPA model, the lowest TD is 3.8 dB at IBO = 1 dB. In this case, the PA eﬃciency is improved to 40% but the bandwidth requirement is 73% more than ideal OFDM. Since CE-OFDM has a constant envelope, the PA can operate at IBO = 0 dB thus maximizing ampliﬁer eﬃciency. The total degradation is 5 dB for 2πh = 0.6 and the corresponding bandwidth requirement is 26% more than ideal OFDM. For 2πh = 0.4, the total degradation is 8 dB but the bandwidth reduces to f /W = 0.98 which is 8% less than ideal OFDM. This shows that the modulation index for CE-OFDM can be chosen accordingly to balance performance and bandwidth. Also, since the PA imposes no additional distortion on the CE-OFDM signal, the resulting spectrum can be well contained with no power backoﬀ and at the same time have optimal PA eﬃciency.

85

50 Class-A PA eﬃciency, ηA (%) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Input power backoﬀ, IBO (dB) 8 9 10

(a) PA eﬃciency.

16 Total degradetion (dB) 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 00 2 4 6 Input power backoﬀ, IBO (dB) 8 10 OFDM, TWTA OFDM, SSPA OFDM, ideal CE-OFDM: 2πh = 0.4 0.5 0.6

(b) Total degradation for target BER 10−5 .

2 99.5% bandwidth, f /W 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0 2 4 6 Input power backoﬀ, IBO (dB)

OFDM, TWTA OFDM, SSPA OFDM, ideal CE-OFDM: 2πh = 0.4 0.5 0.6

8

10

(c) Spectral containment.

Figure 4.18: A comparison of CE-OFDM and conventional OFDM. (M = 2, N = 64)

e. αe jφ0 δ(τ ). and n(t) is the complex Gaussian noise term represented in (4.2) 86 .4)]. N0 (5. In the frequency domain. respectively.Chapter 5 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Nonselective Fading Channels In this chapter. ∞ −∞ h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t) [see (1. the channel is frequency nonselective. Such a channel model. performance analysis of the phase demodulator receiver is extended to fading channels.2). where the channel impulse response is h(τ ) = is. The received signal can be written as r(t) = (2. the channel is H(f ) = F{h(τ )}(f ) = αe jφ0 . The lowpass equivalent representation of the received signal is r(t) = αejφ0 s(t) + n(t) (5. is commonly referred to as ﬂat fading.15). and is thus constant at all frequencies—that In the previous chapter only the simple case of α = 1 (i. since it’s frequency nonselective.1) where s(t) is the CE-OFDM signal according to (3. α and φ 0 is the channel amplitude and phase. The signal-to-noise ratio per bit for a given α is γ = α2 Eb .11). no fading) was considered. In this chapter the channel amplitude is treated as a random quantity.

and KR = ρ2 2 2σ0 (5. 102] pγ (x) = (1 + KR )x (1 + KR )e−KR exp − I0 2 γ ¯ γ ¯ KR (1 + KR )x . γ 817]: BER(¯ ) = γ 0 ∞ BER(x)pγ (x)dx.10) . x ≥ 0. is [483. For channels without a line-of-sight. p.6) To obtain BER(¯ ). N0 (5.5) 2 is the Rice factor: ρ2 and 2σ0 represent the power of the LOS and scatter component. exp − (1 + KR ) sin2 θ + c2 γ /2 2¯ (5. (5. p. where c1 = 2(M − 1)/(M log 2 M ) and c2 = 2πh √ BER(x) = c1 Q(c2 x). so long as the for all x ≥ 0.8) system is above threshold.1 it is shown that √ BER(x) ≈ c1 Q c2 x . p.1. (5. distributed [483. (5. For channels with a line-of-sight (LOS) component.9) If this were true. ρ → 0 and γ is Rayleigh 1 x exp − γ ¯ γ ¯ pγ (x) = . 817] γ = E{γ} = E α2 ¯ Eb . the bit error rate for the Ricean channel.7) In Section 4. the conditional BER is averaged over the distribution of γ [421. 40].4) where I0 (·) is the 0th-order modiﬁed Bessel function of the ﬁrst kind.4). (5. (5. p. 101]: respectively [401.3) It is desired to calculate the bit error rate at a given γ . p. This ¯ γ quantity depends on the statistical distribution of γ.87 and the average SNR per bit is [421. denoted here as BER(¯ ). assume 6 log 2 M/(M 2 − 1). described by (5. p. the probability density function of γ is [483. For the moment. 102] BERRice (¯ ) = γ c1 π π/2 0 (1 + KR ) sin2 θ × (1 + KR ) sin2 θ + c2 γ /2 2¯ KR c2 γ /2 2¯ dθ. γ ¯ x ≥ 0.

This is due to the inaccuracy of the Q-function for large modulation index ¯ cases (see Figure 4.1(a) compares simulation results 1 to (5. (5. Figure 5. as discussed in Section 4. as described by (5.9) is false.10) is overly optimistic since the system is ¯ ¯ more likely to experience channel fades which take the system below threshold—in which case the bit error rate isn’t accurately represented by the Q-function. N = 64 system in the Ricean channel with KR = 10 dB.11) However. γ (dB) ¯ 10−5 0 10 20 30 40 50 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit. isn’t simply expressed by the Q-function for all values of SNR. normalized cutoﬀ frequency.3. (N = 64) Unless otherwise stated. γ (dB) ¯ (a) M = 8. (5. (5.6 Bit error rate 10−2 2πh 10−3 1. that is.16 (see the footnote in on page 80).1. as a result of the threshold eﬀect.11) are not generally accurate. 101] BERRay (¯ ) = γ c1 2 1− c2 γ /2 2¯ 1 + c2 γ /2 2¯ .4.10) 10−1 10−1 100 Simulation Approx (5.11) Bit error rate 10−2 2πh 10−3 1. Figure 5.6). [483. for example). Rayleigh. Ricean KR = 10 dB. Lﬁr .1: Performance of CE-OFDM in ﬂat fading channels.10) for an M = 8.8 0. Consequently (5. (b) M = 4. (5. For 2πh = 0.2 0.88 and for the Rayleigh channel. 1 . p.10) for γ > 15 dB. For the 2πh = 1.8 example. For lower values of γ . and so forth—are the same as those used for the result shown in Figure 4.6 the simulation result closely matches (5.10) and (5. the simulation parameters—J.4 10−4 10−4 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit. the bit error rate of CE-OFDM.10) is overly optimistic by at least 3 dB for all values of γ . 100 Simulation Approx (5.

9). An M = 4. However. (5.89 Figure 5. and a more elaborate approach is required which accounts for the transition region. for the large modulation index case of 2πh = 1.1.11) is that the conditional bit error rate. otherwise the BER is equal to the Q-function.] Consequently. (5.12) Determining x0 for a given M and 2πh. see Figure 4.4.16) the following observation can be made: above a certain SNR.12) are the problems that remain to obtain an accurate approximation of BER(¯ ).10) and (5. BER(x).8) holds. at low SNR the bit error rate is roughly 1/2. the values shown in Figure 4.13) This simpliﬁed model. For the low modulation index case of 2πh = 0. A Semi-Analytical Approach The problem with (5. that is.6(a)]. As observed γ in Section 4. (5.11) is somewhat accurate.7) can be approximated as x0 ∞ BER(¯ ) = γ 0 x0 BER(x)pγ (x)dx + x0 ∞ BER(x)pγ (x)dx c1 Q(c2 x)pγ (x)dx. Therefore (5. [For more examples of the transition region. Assume for the moment that BER(x) = 1/2 for x ≤ x 0 . (5. . the conditional bit error rate closely matches the Q-function. and dealing with BER(x)pγ (x)dx in (5. say x 0 . For a limited range of 2πh (for example. (5.3 [see Figure 4. Notice that the two-region model doesn’t account for the transition region in which BER(x) ≈ 1/2 √ to where BER(x) ≈ c1 Q(c2 x).11) is shown to be oﬀ by 5–7 dB. is not accurately described by the Q-function at low SNR and/or for large modulation index.6.13) is not generally accurate. x0 x0 0 ≈ BER(x)pγ (x)dx + 0 √ (5. is illustrated in Figure 5. Also shown is the observed simulation result. referred to as a two-region model since the conditional BER is split into two regions.2: below x 0 the BER is 1/2. then BER(¯ ) ≈ γ 1 2 x0 ∞ pγ (x)dx + 0 x0 √ c1 Q(c2 x)pγ (x)dx.1(b) further illustrates the inaccuracy of assuming (5. N = 64 system is simulated in the Rayleigh channel.2.

90

Transition region 1 0.5 Conditional bit error rate, BER(x)

0.1

Two-region model Observed (simulation) Q-function (4.35)

0.01

x0 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit, x (dB)

Figure 5.2: A simpliﬁed two-region model. (M = 8, N = 64, 2πh = 0.6) This is done by splitting the SNR region 0 ≤ x ≤ x 0 into n sub-regions:

x0 γ1

BER(x)pγ (x)dx =

0 γ0 γ2

BER(x)pγ (x)dx+

γn

(5.14) BER(x)pγ (x)dx,

BER(x)pγ (x)dx + . . . +

γ1 γn−1

where γi > γi−1 , i = 1, 2, . . . , n, γ0 = 0 and γn = x0 . Due to the analytical diﬃculty of describing BER(x) over 0 ≤ x ≤ x0 , computer simulation is used. The system is It is assumed that BER(x) ≈ BERi for γi ≤ x ≤ γi+1 to obtain the approximation

n−1 γi+1 ∞

simulated at SNR values γi , i = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1, to get the result BER i , i = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1. √ c1 Q(c2 x)pγ (x)dx.

BER(¯ ) ≈ γ

BERi pγ (x)dx +

i=0 γi γn

(5.15)

For SNR in the range 0 ≤ x ≤ γ1 the bit error rate is assumed to be BER 0 = 1/2. Figure 5.3 illustrates the n + 1 regions of (5.15). Notice that for n = 1, (5.15) is equivalent to (5.13). In other words, (5.15), a (n+1)-region model, is a generalization of the two-region model (5.13). CE-OFDM systems are simulated in Rayleigh and Ricean (K R = 3 dB and KR = 10 dB) channels. The values of modulation index are as follows: for M = 2, 2πh ≤ 0.6;

91

1 BER0 = 1/2 BER1 BER3 BER2 Conditional bit error rate, BER(x) BER4 . . . BERn−2

BERn−1

(n + 1)-region model Observed (simulation) Q-function (4.35)

0.01

← γ0 = −∞

γ1

... γn−2 γ2 γ3 γ4 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit, x (dB)

γn−1

γn

Figure 5.3: A (n + 1)-region model. (M = 8, N = 64, 2πh = 0.6) for M = 4, 2πh ≤ 1.2; for M = 8, 2πh ≤ 1.8; and for M = 16, 2πh ≤ 2.4. The results are shown in Figure 5.4: the circles represent Rayleigh results; the squares and triangles represent the Ricean results for K R = 3 dB and KR = 10 dB, respectively. The solid lines are the results of the semi-analytical approach, (5.15). The transition starting point is γ1 = −5 dB. Therefore γi = 0.5(i − 1) − 5 dB, i = 1, 2, . . . , n. The region is sampled every 0.5 dB, that is, γ i+1 − γi = 0.5 dB, i = 1, 2, . . . , n − 1; the

is approximated with the Q-function (5.8). This criteria used for γ n is based on the observation that, for the modulation index values under consideration, the Q-function is accurate for BER < 0.01. As shown in the ﬁgure, this semi-analytical approach yields curves for BER(¯ ) that closely match simulation. γ Figure 5.5 shows the improvement of (5.15) over (5.10) and (5.11). and (5.11) are overly optimistic by several dB. The advantage of the technique described in this section is it gives an accurate result in a small fraction of the time required for direct simulation. For example, the The semi-

sampling continues until BERn < 0.01. For SNR x ≥ γn the conditional bit error rate

analytical approach closely matches the simulation results, even at low SNR, while (5.10)

92

100 Bit error rate 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(a) M = 2, 2πh = 0.2 Bit error rate

100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(b) M = 2, 2πh = 0.6

10 20 30 40 Average SNR per bit, γ (dB) ¯

50

10 20 30 40 Average SNR per bit, γ (dB) ¯

50

100 Bit error rate 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(c) M = 4, 2πh = 0.4 Bit error rate

100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(d) M = 4, 2πh = 1.2

10 20 30 40 Average SNR per bit, γ (dB) ¯

50

10 20 30 40 Average SNR per bit, γ (dB) ¯

50

100 Bit error rate 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(e) M = 8, 2πh = 0.6 Bit error rate

100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(f) M = 8, 2πh = 1.8

10 20 30 40 Average SNR per bit, γ (dB) ¯

50

10 20 30 40 Average SNR per bit, γ (dB) ¯

50

100 Bit error rate 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(g) M = 16, 2πh = 0.8 Bit error rate

100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(h) M = 16, 2πh = 2.4

10 20 30 40 Average SNR per bit, γ (dB) ¯

50

10 20 30 40 Average SNR per bit, γ (dB) ¯

50

Figure 5.4: Performance of CE-OFDM in ﬂat fading channels. (Circle=Rayleigh; square=Rice, K = 3 dB; triangle=Rice, K = 10 dB. Solid line=Semi-analytical curve, (5.15); points=simulation. N = 64)

93

100 Rayleigh simulation Rayleigh approximation (5.11) Ricean (KR = 3 dB) simulation Ricean (KR = 3 dB) approximation (5.10) Ricean (KR = 10 dB) simulation Ricean (KR = 10 dB) approximation (5.10) Semi-analytical technique (5.15)

10−1

Bit error rate

10−2

10−3

10−4

10−5 0

10

20 30 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit, γ (dB) ¯

40

50

Figure 5.5: Comparison of semi-analytical technique (5.15) with (5.10) and (5.11). (M = 4, N = 64, 2πh = 1.2) simulated Rayleigh result in Figure 5.5 requires about 6 hours of computer time (on a workstation with 1 gigabytes of memory and a single 3 gigahertz microprocessor). The semi-analytical result, on the other hand, requires less than 7 s (to obtain {BER i }, and perform numerical integration): a speed improvement of 4 orders of magnitude. The disadvantage, however, is that this technique doesn’t yield a closed-form expression. As of the time of this writing, such a solution, that is general and accurate, doesn’t seem possible.

1. the processed samples are Nc −1 rp [i] = r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i]. 94 i = 0. . TB .11) and n(t) is the complex Gaussian noise term represented by (4. p. . where τmax is the channel’s maximum propagation delay. .1) is due to the law of causality [401. CE-OFDM has the same block structure as conventional OFDM. A guard interval of duration Tg ≥ τmax is inserted between successive CE-OFDM blocks to avoid interblock interference. (6. The channel is time dispersive having an impulse response h(τ ) that can be non-zero over 0 ≤ τ ≤ τmax . Using the discrete-time model outlined in Section 2. the guard time samples are discarded and the block time samples are processed. by deﬁnition of the maximum propagation delay.2. At the receiver. (6. with a block period. designed to be much longer than τmax . 245]: h(τ ) = 0 for τ < 0. NB − 1.15). The lower bound of integration in (6.Chapter 6 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Selective Channels In this chapter the performance of CE-OFDM in frequency-selective channels is studied. .2) . The upperbound is τ max since. The received signal is ∞ r(t) = = 0 −∞ τmax h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t) h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t).1) where s(t) is the CE-OFDM signal according to (3. h(τ ) = 0 for τ > τ max . r(t) is sampled at the rate f sa = 1/Tsa samp/s.

the ZF frequency-domain equalizer perfectly reverses the eﬀect of the channel.5) H ∗ [k] |H[k]|2 + (Eb /N0 )−1 (6. . followed by an IDFT. Transmitting a cyclic preﬁx during i=−N the guard interval makes the linear convolution with the channel equivalent to circular convolution. . .3) where {H[k]} is the DFT of {h[i]} and {S[k]} is the DFT of {s[i]}. . . . The MMSE criterion (6. the ZF suﬀers from noise enhancement. which are computed as [463] where {Rp [k]} is the DFT of the processed samples and {C[k]} are the equalizer correc1 H[k] C[k] = for the zero-forcing (ZF) criterion. When noise can’t be ignored. . . Thus rp [i] = 1 NDFT NDFT −1 H[k]S[k]ej2πik/NDFT . NB − 1. Ignoring noise (n[i] = 0).6) for the minimum mean-square error (MMSE) criterion. k=0 i = 0. which corrects the channel . . . NB − 1.7) = S[k]ej2πik/NDFT i = 0. NB − 1. and C[k] = (6. (6.95 Note that the discarded samples are {r[i]} −1 g . The FDE output is s[i] = ˆ 1 NDFT NDFT −1 Rp [k]C[k]ej2πik/NDFT .5) is s[i] = ˆ 1 NDFT 1 NDFT 1 NDFT NDFT −1 H[k]S[k]C[k]ej2πik/NDFT k=0 NDFT −1 = H[k]S[k] k=0 NDFT −1 k=0 1 j2πik/NDFT e H[k] (6. For example. The eﬀect of the channel can be reversed with the frequency-domain equalizer: a DFT followed by a multiplier bank. . a but ampliﬁes the noise by a factor of 1000. (6. Therefore.4) tion terms. the output of the frequency-domain equalizer using (6. k=0 i = 0.6) takes into account fade of −30 dB results in a correction term with gain +30 dB. = s[i]. .

10 µs]. the performance of CE-OFDM using the MMSE and ZF frequencydomain equalizers is compared over six frequency-selective channels. {s[i]} and {n[i]} are Figure 6. System performance is generated then used to calculate the received samples (6.96 the signal-to-noise ratio. 2 |H[k]| H[k] (6.1 MMSE versus ZF Equalization In this section.8) Eb /N0 →∞ The system under consideration is shown in Figure 6. The subcarrier spacing is 1/T B = 7812.1: CE-OFDM system with frequency-selective channel. 6.5 Hz and the mainlobe bandwidth is W = N/TB = 500 kHz. The guard period is Tg = 10 µs. For Channels A–C the maximum propagation delay is τ max = 0. The samples {h[i]}.1 Channel Description shown in Table 6. resulting in a transmission eﬃciency η t = 128/138 ≈ 0.1. the performance of the MMSE and ZF equalizers are compared over various frequency-selective channels.1.25 µs. Notice that the MMSE and ZF are equivalent at high SNR: lim C[k]|MMSE = H ∗ [k] 1 = = C[k]|ZF . and the sampling period is Tsa = 1/fsa = 0.1. with a block period of TB = 128 µs. therefore the sampling rate is f sa = JN/TB = 4 Msamp/s. CE-OFDM Modulator s(t) h(τ ) n(t) r(t) r[i] Remove CP rp [i] FDE CE-OFDM Demodulator estimated by way of computer simulation. over the corresponding guard interval [0. In Section 6. making an optimum trade between channel inversion and noise enhancement. described statistically. In both sections an N = 64 CE-OFDM system is considered.2. The simulation uses an performance is evaluated for frequency-selective fading channels. in which case {h[i]} is 6. In Section 6.2) which are then processed by the FDE and the demodulator. The study is separated into two parts.75 The channel samples {h[i]}. are . oversampling factor J = 8.1.93.

01e+j0.08e+j1.50 3.93e−j1.98 0.75 6.20e+j2.96 0.75 1.00 6.22e+j0.00 0 0.01 0.71e−j0.24e+j1.89 0.13e−j0.01e−j0.03e+j0.64 0.05e−j2.09e+j0.02e−j2.1: Channel samples of frequency-selective channels.01e+j3.20 0.49 0.21e−j2.07e+j0.02e+j0.58 0.01e−j1.54 0.01e−j0.18 0.00 0.29 0.82 0.56 0.01e−j2.12 0.15e+j0.50 1.01e−j0.00 5.13 0.01e−j3.05e−j1.58 0.89 0.20 0.04e+j3.01e+j2.24e+j0.10 0.40 0.29 0.88 0.93 0.02e+j3.17 0.57 0.72 0.01e−j0.01e+j2.00 3.06 0.07e−j0.62e+j0.00 2.23e+j1.08e−j2.83 0.01e+j0.21e−j1.40 0.07e−j2.50 0.19e+j0.39 0.93 0.02e+j0.99 0.69 0.86 0.76 0.25 7.22 0.13 0.50 9.01e+j0.18e+j1.75 9.90 0 0.09e+j0.01e−j2.02e+j2.47e−j1.82 0.75 4.05e+j1.13e+j2.02e−j1.02e−j1.11 0.43 0.01 0.17e+j0.15 0.16e−j2.23 0.30e−j2.13e+j2.03e+j2. i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Delay (µs) τi = iTsa 0.01e−j0.75 3.01 0.12e−j0.02e+j2.34 0.11 0.80e−j2.02e+j1.25 6.97 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel C h[i] 0.75 5.01e+j0.25 8.98 0.25 2.12e+j1.49 0.25 4.05 0.48 0.01 0.02e+j2.92 0.93 0.01e−j2.50 5.77 0.20 0.02e−j1.25 0.00 9.96 0.04e−j1.19 0.36 0.70e+j2.56e−j0.25 5.18 0.03e−j1.02e−j2.00 0.01e−j2.14 0.05 0.33e+j2.75 2.55 0.00 0.36 0.75 8.75 10.17 0.14e+j1.14 0.00 1.00 4.92 0.01e+j2.01e−j0.10e−j0.05e+j2.56 0.42 0.25 9.00 8.25e−j1.08 0.67 – – – – – .01e−j1.01e+j2.05e+j1.08e+j1.38 0.99 0.37 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel B h[i] 0.06e−j1.60 0.75 7.93 0.10e+j1.27e+j1.02e+j2.54 0.03e+j0.01e−j1.41 0.06e−j0.05e+j0.97 0.00 7.67 0.59e+j3.01e−j1.96 0.03e+j2.68 0.76 0.50 2.14 0.95 0.12e−j0.01e+j0.13e+j0.50 7.33 0.03 0.47e−j0.01e−j1.10 0.01 – – – – – Channel E h[i] 0.91 0.04e−j1.50 6.25 3.36 0.50 4.08e−j0.97 Table 6.00 0.14e−j2.91 0.92 0.42 0.12e+j1.53 0.98 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel D h[i] 0.16e−j0.02e−j0.00 0.50 8.01e+j1.22 0 0.25 1.09 0.11 – – – – – Channel F h[i] 0.42 0.04 0.09e−j1.51e−j0.28 0.61e+j0.33 0.11e+j1.01e−j3.81 0.30 0.30 0.0 Channel A h[i] 0.42e−j0.03e+j0.01e+j1.01e−j0.25e−j1.01e+j2.11 0.01e+j2.07 0.11 0.05e+j0.26 0.87 0.

the channel is frequency selective.11) where f is the normalized frequency variable having units cycles/samp [422.12) as H[k] = H(fk ). NDFT − 1. . (6. 1. NDFT − 1. In subﬁgure (a). 16]. Nc −1 H[k] = i=0 h[i]e−j2πik/NDFT . (6. . that is. k = 2 1 (6.75/0. . where [422. The x-axis is scaled as [422. . For Channels D–F. . .10) is related to the discrete Fourier transform.9) Channels A–C are single realizations of an approximation to the maritime channel model in [350]. 256] Nc −1 H(f ) = i=0 h[i]e−j2πf i . −2. .5 dB range. p. .5 dB ≤ |H(f )|2 ≤ 6 dB. thus Nc = 8. p. 2 fk ≡ k NDFT + 1. . The Fourier transform (6. . p. NDFT . . . (6.75 µs. 1. |H(f )|2 is plotted. k = 0.10) is the Fourier transform of h[i]. NDFT .2 shows Channel D in the time and frequency domains.75/0. −250 kHz ≤ f ≤ 250 kHz. (6.14) Stochastic models are discussed in the next section. |h[i]|2 . Channels D–F are single realizations of a stochastic model which has an exponential delay power density spectrum 1 . Notice that over the signal’s mainlobe frequency range. . The channels are normalized such that Nc −1 i=0 |h[i]|2 = 1. NDFT − 1.25 + 1 = 36.19)]. .98 µs. k = 0. Figure 6. is plotted. 24] f = f fsa Hz. . NDFT − 1.25 + 1 = 4 samples [see (2. the power of the time samples. In subﬁgure (b). . The magnitude response ﬂuctuates over a 8. .13) where the discrete set of frequencies {f k } are deﬁned as k k = 0. (6. which results in Nc = τmax /Tsa + 1 = 0. τmax = 8.

Figure 6.15 0. iTsa (µs) 7 8 9 (a) Time domain.3 0.2 0. Equalizer response. |H(f Equalizer response.4 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Propagation delay. f = f fsa (kHz) 100 200 (b) Frequency domain.99 0. .2: Channel D. 10 Magnitude response (dB) Channel D response. MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 10 20 )|2 ZF dB dB dB 5 0 −5 −200 −100 0 Frequency.35 0.1 0.25 |h[i]|2 0.

The ZF response.100 Using a DFT size NDFT = JN = NB and noting (6. which is to be expected from (6. and 20 dB.11). (6. their frequency response become the same at high E b /N0 . . The magnitude response |H(f )|2 spans a 3 dB region in a nearly linearly manner. |h[i]| 2 is plotted in subﬁgure (a). This is to be expected since. The frequency response of this channel is more severely varying than Channel A.4 and 0. 1. . As with the previous example.. . The equalizers are shown to able from the simple AWGN curves.5). For each case. 0.6 example at the lower SNR values E b /N0 < 10 dB. NDFT .3. For the 2πh = 0. and diﬀerent values of the modulation index. h. . Results are plotted for 2πh = 0.2(b) is the response of the MMSE and ZF equalizers.3–6.15) + 1. . Included in Figure 6.1. JN TB = fk = fk fsa = fk k TB − fsa . Channel A is the most mild in terms of its frequency-domain response. The modulation order is M = 2. NDFT − 1. . but the two equalizers have essentially the same performance at the eﬀectively correct the channel: the BER curves in Figure 6.6).3(b). the 2πh = 0. The results are shown in Figures 6. the frequency samples {H[k]} correspond to the frequencies k . The results for Channel A are shown in Figure 6.3 and 0. For this particular channel the MMSE and ZF are shown to be equivalent for Eb /N0 ≥ 20 dB. the simulation results are compared against the simple AWGN channel.9). is shown for Eb /N0 = 0. 6.1. for higher values of SNR the performance of the two equalizers becomes nearly identical. 0. Due to the channel normalization (6. The MMSE response.8. .2.6 over Channel B are shown in Figure 6. as illustrated in Figure 6.6. . Over the signal bandwidth. (6. Of the six test channels. the ZF result is shown to be slightly worse than the MMSE result.6 example for Eb /N0 < 10 dB).e. and the bit error rate performance results are shown in subﬁgure (c). TB k = 0. |H(f )|2 spans a 6 dB range.2 Simulation Results The N = 64 CE-OFDM system is simulated over Channels A–F. are selected.4. . is simply the inverse of the channel. Results for 2πh = 0. . . the channel and equalizer frequency-domain responses are plotted in subﬁgure (b). 10.8). 0.1. . the MMSE is shown to slightly outperform the ZF at low SNR (i.3(c) are nearly indistinguish- . 2 k= NDFT 2 (6. Notice that at high SNR the MMSE approaches the ZF equalizer.

35).4 0.3 0.2 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.3 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4.5 0.1 0 Magnitude response (dB) 2 0 |h[i]|2 −2 Channel A ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB −4 −6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay. Figure 6. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain.6 0. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.101 0.7 0.6 0.3: Channel A results.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain. .

iTsa (µs) 8 9 4 2 0 −2 Channel B ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB −4 10 dB 20 dB 30 dB −6 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.2 0.4 0.4: Channel B results.2 0.7 0.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.3 0.8 Magnitude response (dB) 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.102 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 |h[i]|2 0. . f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain.9 0.35). Figure 6.

Channel F. Figures 6.001. when compared to the simple AWGN result.5. These results show that frequency selective channels having deep fades in the signal bandwidth impact performance greatly. As shown in Figure 6. for example. the large amount of frequency selectivity of this channel results in a large performance degradation when compared to the AWGN results. The degree that the each channel varies over the signal bandwidth progresses from Channel D to Channel F.1.3 Discussion and Observations At this point. is the most harsh of the test channels. This equivalence is also demonstrated in Figure 6.001. At the bit error rate 0.103 higher SNR values.1 case.8(c) show the dramatic performance degradation as a consequence of the severe frequency selectivity.8 show the results for Channels D–F. It is also shown that very high SNR is required for the MMSE response to approach the ZF response. several observations can be made. the degradation is 10 dB for the 2πh = 0. First. having a 50 dB attenuation at 185 kHz. for example—the performance degradation is minor. channel.6–6. As stated earlier.6. the three channels are three diﬀerent realizations of a stochastic model with an exponential delay power density spectrum. is slightly less than 1 dB.1 and 0. the ZF case degrades more than 20 dB further. the two are equivalent only for E b /N0 > 35 dB. At the bit error rate 0. B and D. The improvement of the MMSE is pronounced for 2πh = 0. For BER ≤ 0.5(b). is experienced for the 2πh = 0. the ZF performance gradually approaches the MMSE performance at these high SNR values. MMSE example at the bit error rate 0.5(c): for the 2πh = 0. For channels with a relatively mild frequency response— Channels A. A 40 dB loss is suﬀered for the 2πh = 0.1 example. Clearly. 6.001 the degradation caused by the frequency selective Channel C has the most frequency-selective response of the three maritime channel realizations. the MMSE outperforms the ZF by 7 dB. An 18 dB loss. compared to the AWGN performance. The results in Figure 6. The noise enhancement that results from equalizing channels with severe frequency responses— . the magnitude response varies over a 20 dB range.3 cases.001. Over the frequency range −250 kHz ≤ f fsa ≤ −200 kHz. the performance of the equalized CE-OFDM systems studied depends on the amount of frequency selectivity over the signal bandwidth. and is only 2 dB worse than the performance over the simple AWGN channel.

4 |h[i]|2 0.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.6 0.104 0.35).35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain. .2 0.3 0.5 0.5 Magnitude response (dB) 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 35 40 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency. Figure 6.5: Channel C results.1 0 20 10 Channel C ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB 30 dB 35 dB 0 −10 −20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.

35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 35 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4.35 0. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.4 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.6: Channel D results.105 0.35).1 0. iTsa (µs) 8 9 Magnitude response (dB) 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 −6 −8 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.25 |h[i]|2 0.2 0.2 0.15 0.3 0. Figure 6.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.6 0. f = f fsa (kHz) Channel D ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB 200 (a) Time domain. . ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.

10−1 (b) Frequency domain.2 0.35).6 0.15 0. Figure 6. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.25 0.7: Channel E results.3 0.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. Eb /N0 (dB) 35 40 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. . f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.35 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.05 Magnitude response (dB) 10 MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 10 20 30 Channel E ZF dB dB dB dB 5 |h[i]|2 0 −5 −10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.106 0.1 0.

1 0.8: Channel F results.2 0.15 0.6 0.35).1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.3 0.3 0. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.25 |h[i]|2 0. Figure 6. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.107 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay. Eb /N0 (dB) 60 65 70 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. iTsa (µs) 8 9 Magnitude response (dB) 40 Channel F ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB 30 dB 20 0 −20 −40 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.6 2πh 0. .1 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 0.

and thus estimating Eb /N0 pays substantial dividends—the 2πh = 0.16) .108 Channels C.4 per bit. In the study here. p. with a focus on the various aspects of simulation. the MMSE equalizer oﬀers signiﬁcant improvement over the ZF equalizer when averaging performance over many channel realizations of a stochastic channel model. the MMSE equalizer is more complicated than the ZF equalizer since the SNR this added complexity doesn’t always translate into improved performance. The results of this study show that cases in Channel B. the complexity of the frequency-domain equalizers is determined by the DFT size. which were deterministic as deﬁned in Table 6. 244]. more recently P¨tzold’s text. This assumption is based on the Parsons and Bajwa ellipse model for describing multipath channel geometry [401. This is in contrast to conventional time-domain equalizers which have a complexity that depends on the number of paths in the multipath channel. The channel’s impulse response is L−1 h(τ ) = l=0 al δ(τ − τl ). must be estimated at the receiver. it is assumed that the channel is composed of discrete paths. As demonstrated in the following section. Last. That is. the ZF performance is the same as the MMSE performance for many cases—the 2πh ≤ 0. the widely used assumption of WSSUS (wide-sense stationary uncorrelated scattering) is applied. 6. for example. provides a a excellent treatment of the topic. (6. The mathematical foundation for stochastic time-variant linear channels was pioneered by Bello [50].1. In other cases. Eb /N0 . Also. E and F—degrades performance dramatically. Mobile Fading Channels [401]. each having an associated gain and discrete propagation delay. the MMSE performs much better. Second.5 case for Channel C illustrates this point.2 Performance Over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels In contrast to the test channels used in the previous section. not by the number of non-zero channel terms h[i]. the channels used in this section are described statistically.

l = 0. . a clear distinction is made between stochastic channel a models. In P¨tzold’s text. has a zero mean and a variance 2 σal = E |al |2 . . . L − 1. The gain is complex valued.20) the fundamental characteristic functions and quantities of the channel models. . (6. Each l=0 l = 0. Also. . the total number of paths is represented by L. The relevant formulas are expressed Sτ τ (τ ) = l=0 2 σal δ(τ − τl ). L − 1.22) The phrase “delay power spectral density” is also commonly referred to as “power delay proﬁle” (PDP) or “multipath intensity proﬁle” (MIP). p. (6.18) l = 1.109 where al is the complex channel gain and τl is discrete propagation delay of the lth path. 2 . 2. . 277–279]) are not discussed. .19) Both the real and imaginary parts of the path gains are Gaussian distributed [401. 269]. the channels are normalized L−1 2 σal = 1. thus τl = lTsa .17) That is. L − 1. (6. For each simulation trial. “delay power spectral density” is used here. and “deterministic” channel models which are generated in software or hardware for simulation purposes. Also. which provide the theoretical and mathematical foundations. l=0 (6. l=0 2 As outlined in P¨tzold’s text (pp. (6. since only time-invariant channels are considered in this thesis. delay of the 0th path is deﬁned as τ0 ≡ 0. pp. • Delay power spectral density: L−1 delay power spectral density and the delay spread 2 . they are set equal to the sampling period of the simulation [401. For the sake of simplicity. . . thus the envelope |al |2 is Rayleigh distributed.21) • Average delay: (1) Bτ τ = L−1 2 σ al τ l . 276–279) the parameters σ al . such as the below. time correlation function and coherence time (see [401. the Doppler power spectral density. τl and L determine a (6. p. 1. The propagation delay diﬀerences are ∆τl = τl − τl−1 ≡ Tsa . For the sake of being consistent with [401]. the set of path gains {a l }L−1 are generated randomly. . 1. this distinction isn’t stressed here (which results in a slightly diﬀerent notation for the expressed formulas in his text). . . such that 267].

• Coherence bandwidth: The coherence bandwidth is the smallest positive value alent to BC which fulﬁls |rτ τ (BC )| = 0. path). 3 .27) is the normalizing constant used to guarantee (6.24) The variable v is referred to as the frequency separation variable [401.20) and (6.1 Channel Models CE-OFDM is simulated over four frequency-selective fading channel models.2. due to (6. 278].e. (6. 35 Channel Af has a weak secondary path (one-tenth. is equivL−1 l=0 2 σal e−j2πBC τl − 1 = 0.26) where C Cf = 1 l=0 exp(−τl /2e-6) = 0. 0 ≤ τl ≤ 8.. p. .1188 .75 µs.C = 0.2 deﬁnes the parameters {σal } and {τl }. Note that the maximum propagation delay is 8. Channel Af and Bf are similar to the maritime channel models in [350]3 .20).24). the power of the primary (6.5|rτ τ (0)|.110 • Delay spread: (2) Bτ τ L−1 = l=0 (σal τl )2 − Bτ τ (1) 2 (6. Table 2 6. −3 dB. To avoid notational ambiguities.. Both have a secondary path with a 5 µs propagation delay. Channel Bf has a stronger secondary path (one-half.e. i. 2 (6.75 µs. .25) Notice that BC is the 3 dB bandwidth of rτ τ (v ). i. −10 dB. which. the channel model labels in this section have the subscript “f” (“fading”). the power of the Channel Cf has an exponential delay power spectral density: CC e−τl /2µs .23) • Frequency correlation function: L−1 rτ τ (v ) = l=0 2 σal e−j2πv τl (6. primary path). f 2 σal . 6. otherwise.

85e-2 3.111 Table 6.00 8.75 9.75 6.65e-2 2.25e-2 8.75 4.A 10/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Bf 2 σal .41e-2 1.75 5.50 4.37e-2 3.0 Channel Af 2 σal .75 8.91e-3 5.60e-3 4.70e-3 5.50 7.50 9.00 0.00e-2 2.50 8.95e-2 4.00 5.18e-1 1.75 1.36e-2 5.B 2/3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Cf 2 σal .00 1.25 7.00 2.75e-3 8.61e-2 4.C 1.25 0.50 6.00 3. l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Delay (µs) τl = lTsa 0.50 0.16e-3 2.2: Channel model parameters.25 5.75 2.50 3.04e-1 9.58e-3 3.59e-3 6.60e-2 1.16e-2 7.00 6.00 9.82e-2 1.75 7.25 8.50 2.25 6.79e-3 2.D 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 0 0 0 0 0 .25 4.25e-2 1.50 5.25 9.75 10.49e-3 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Df 2 σal .22e-3 4.10e-2 9.75 3.06e-2 1.50 1.00 7.33e-2 2.25 2.00 4.17e-3 1.20e-2 6.46e-3 2. Path no.06e-3 3.60e-3 7.69e-3 1.92e-3 1.25 3.40e-2 3.25 1.

D = 0.24) are plotted for each of the four models.25) for each model is labeled.2 Simulation Procedure and Preliminary Discussion The average performance of various CE-OFDM systems is evaluated over the four above. is normalized to unity. the simulation runs for at least 20. Notice that Channel Df has the smallest coherence bandwidth. The corresponding average delay (6. as shown in subﬁgure (b). For Channel Af the coherence bandwidth isn’t ﬁnite since. The likelihood of a deep channel fade depends on the number of independent ˛ ˛ 10 1 For Channel Af .9 the delay power density spectrum (6. has a uniform delay power density spectrum: CD .23) and coherence bandwidth (6. B C = 67 kHz.75 µs. 0 ≤ τl ≤ 8.29) In Figure 6. whichever happens ﬁrst. with zero stochastic channel models. the channel may be fading such that the gain is less than unity.22). are complex-valued quantities.000 bits are transmitted. |rτ τ (v )| > −3 dB for all frequency separation values 4 . f 2 σal . 6. 4 9 11 1 2 > ≈ −3 dB.1. as stated 2 mean and variance {σal }—computing the received samples (6. on average. or until 100. Some channel realizations result in very poor performance (for example. min |rτ τ (v )| = min ˛ 11 + 11 exp(−j2πv 5 µs)˛ = 5 Example simulation code can be found in Appendix C.2. CDf = 1/36. delay spread (6. resulting in degraded performance. (6.112 The last model. while others result in a bit error rates not much worse than that of the simple AWGN channel.000. however. This corresponds to many thousands of channel realizations5 . see Figure 6. At each average Eb /N0 considered. then processing the samples with the frequency-domain equalizer and the CE-OFDM demodulator. This performance diﬀerence is attributed to the severity of the channel’s frequency response. as observed with the several examples in Section 6. Due to (6. otherwise.2).000 bit errors. for a given trial. Channel Df . .28) where the normalizing constant is (6. drawn from the Gaussian distribution.8). This is done by randomly generating {a l }—which. The performance also depends on the gain of the channel realization.20) the channel gain.21) and the frequency correlation function (6.

v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay. τ (µs) 9 10 Figure 6.75 µs −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 140 300 Frequency separation.9: Fundamental characteristic functions and quantities [(6. Channel Cf 0 −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 = 1.21)–(6. τ (µs) 9 10 (c) Delay power spectral density.25)] of the four channel models considered. Channel Bf 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 Bτ τ = 1.38 µs = 2. Channel Bf 0 −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 = 2.44 µs (2) (1) (b) Frequency correlation function.78 µs (2) Bτ τ (1) (f) Frequency correlation function. Channel Df 0 = 4. . v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay.113 (a) Delay power spectral density. Channel Cf 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 Bτ τ = 1. τ (µs) 9 10 (g) Delay power spectral density.67 µs (2) Bτ τ (1) (d) Frequency correlation function. v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay. Channel Af 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 Bτ τ = 0. Channel Af 0 −3 −6 −9 BC → ∞ −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 150 300 Frequency separation. Channel Df 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 (1) Bτ τ (2) Bτ τ (h) Frequency correlation function.36 µs −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 74 150 300 Frequency separation.60 µs −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 67 150 300 Frequency separation.45 µs Bτ τ = 1. τ (µs) 9 10 (e) Delay power spectral density. v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay.

over Channel C f . in the presence of power ampliﬁer nonlinearities. the impact of multipath studied.10.10 compares the performance of a CE-OFDM system. and thus these diversity—and its frequency-domain dual frequency diversity—on CE-OFDM systems is 6. performance results of an M = 4. For reference. That is. The simulation results over the multipath channel models A f –Df are labeled with circles and triangles.11 compares the performance of a CE-OFDM system with ﬁxed M but varying h over Channel C f .2. while the ZF equalized results use dashed lines. as determined by {σ al }. the multipath diversity depends not only on the number of independent paths but also 2 on the way in which the power is distributed over the paths. In Figure 6. 2πh = 1. over the four channel models. Channel Df can be said to have the most multipath diversity: the gain of a given realization depends on 36 independent paths. with ﬁxed modulation order M and modulation index h. and Figure 6.3 Simulation Results The simulation results of this study are presented over three ﬁgures: Figure 6. It is unlikely that multiple paths fade simultaneously. channels characterized by multiple propagation paths possess a type of diversity known at multipath diversity— which can be exploited by the receiver. 2 have L = 1 path of which 100% of the channel gain depends (σ a1 = 1).] In the results that follow. For each case. N = 64. Channel Af can be said to have the least amount of multipath diversity: over 90% of the channel gain depends on a single path. each having.114 propagation paths [the WSSUS assumption makes each path in (6. Of the four models considered in this study. an equal contribution. the performance of the system over the simple AWGN channel is plotted (with dash-dot lines) along with the performance over the Rayleigh frequency-nonselective fading channel (represented by the thick solid line). Figure 6. the MMSE equalized results have solid lines connecting the points. on average. Channel B f has more multipath diversity than Channel Af since the gain is distributed more equally between the two paths. These results show the signiﬁcant performance improvement .16) independent].0 CE-OFDM system are plotted.12 compares the performance of constant envelope and conventional OFDM systems. the number of subcarriers is N = 64. [It is worth noting that the frequency-nonselective channel models considered in Chapter 5 channels have no multipath diversity. For this reason.

The fact that constant envelope OFDM exploits multipath diversity is an interesting result since conventional OFDM doesn’t. which has more multipath diversity than Channel A f . Eb /N0 (dB) 40 Figure 6. for example. These results also show the impact of over Channels Af –Df is better than the performance over the frequency-nonselective channels is at least 5 dB better than the performance over the single path channel. (Multipath results are labeled with circle and triangle points. the Rayleigh. the performance Rayleigh (L = 1 path) channel.10: Performance results. This was shown in Section 2. For E b /N0 > 15 dB.1.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit. M = 4.0) that is to be had by using the MMSE equalizer.001. speciﬁcally. The performance over Channel B f . is in fact better than the performance over Channel Af . L = 1 AWGN AWGN approx (4. MMSE outperforms ZF by 10 dB for Channel D f . results in a better performance that all the other channels.1. For BER ≤ 0. These results indicate that the CE-OFDM receiver exploits the multipath diversity of the channel. . Consider the MMSE results. the performance over the multipath Notice that Channel Df .115 10−1 MMSE: Channel Af Bf Cf Df ZF: Channel Af Bf Cf Df Rayleigh. N = 64. multipath diversity. At the bit error rate 0. which has the most multipath diversity. 2πh = 1. L = 1 result is that of the frequency-nonselective channel model.001.

This can be seen by viewing the CE-OFDM waveform by the Taylor series expansion [see Section 3.1. However. where A is the signal amplitude.1. (6. it is best to view the problem in the frequency domain. and a cyclic preﬁx is transmitted during the guard interval. The frequency domain dual to multipath diversity is frequency diversity. since this thesis only deals with uncoded systems. Therefore any frequency diversity inherent to the channel—that is.116 by (2. So long as the duration of the guard interval is greater than or equal to the channel’s maximum propagation delay.1. CE-OFDM. n ≥ 2. In the context here. and m(t) = CN N k=1 Ik qk (t). has the ability to exploit the frequency diversity of the channel since the phase modulator. Example 6. this property was considered beneﬁcial since ISI is avoided. the wideband frequency-selective fading channel is converted into N contiguous frequency-nonselective fading channels.2. It can be said that OFDM lacks frequency diversity as well. This property is best demonstrated by way of a simple example. .24)]: s(t) = A 1 + jσφ m(t) − 2 σφ 2 m2 (t) − j 3 σφ 6 m3 (t) + . is the normalized . As identiﬁed in Section 1. over the signal bandwidth the frequency response of the channel varies. in contrast. . σφ = (2πh)2 is the phase signal variance. (3. that is.30) 2 0 ≤ t < TB . To understand why CE-OFDM has improved performance over multipath fading channels (compared to single path fading channels) while OFDM doesn’t. In other words. these topics are beyond its scope—and are topics for further research.9). which oﬀers diversity. results in a frequency spreading of the data symbols.2. spreads the data symbol energy in the frequency domain. however. CN = 6/N (M 2 − 1). this property is considered a weakness since the multipath diversity of the channel isn’t leveraged6 . in eﬀect. the multipath fading performance is the same as single path fading performance. which can be taken advantage of by the receiver to obtain performance better than ﬂat fading—is not exploited by the OFDM receiver. . T g ≥ τmax . In the context of Section 2. 0 ≤ t < T B . the performance of OFDM in a time-dispersive channel is equivalent to ﬂat fading performance.2.1 Consider a CE-OFDM waveform with an OFDM message signal composed of N = 2 orthogonal 6 Note that OFDM systems typically employ channel coding and frequency-domain interleaving. The higher-order terms m n (t). OFDM message signal.

m2 (t).35) The expansions above are represented in Table 6. the data symbols mix across the k = 0. . 1. 6.75I1 I2 c3 + 0. (6. 1.117 cosine subcarriers modulated with binary data symbols (M = 2): 2 m(t) = k=1 Ik cos 2πkt/TB . The data symbol contribution at each tone cos 2πkt/TB .75I1 I2 c4 2 3 + 0.5I1 c2 + (I1 I2 ) c3 + 0. . . let’s deﬁne write m2 (t) and m3 (t) in terms of I1 . which gives the CE-OFDM system the potential to exploit the frequency diversity in the channel.3. For notational simplicity.75I1 I2 c0 + 0. .75I1 I2 c5 + 0.30). 0 ≤ t < TB . In general. Assume that the modulation index.5I2 c0 + (I1 I2 ) c1 + 0. . however. ck ≡ cos 2πkt/TB . For m3 (t). it can be said that the N data symbols that constitute the constant envelope OFDM signal are not simply conﬁned to N frequency bins—as is the case with conventional OFDM. Thus. The simple example above shows how the data symbols spread across multiple frequency bins. (6. . 1.5I1 + 0.5I2 c0 + (I1 I2 ) c1 + 0. k = 1. This isn’t necessarily the case. (6. It is desired to but is simply done.25I1 + 0.5I2 c4 (I1 c1 + I2 c2 ) 2 3 2 3 2 = 0. For small values of modulation index. (6. The second-order term is calculated as m2 (t) = (I1 c1 + I2 c2 )(I1 c1 + I2 c2 ) 2 2 2 2 = 0.5I1 I2 c1 + 1. and 4 frequency bins. Referring to the tones as frequency bins.25I1 I2 + 0. .5I2 c2 3 2 2 + 0. is such that the higher-order terms m2 (t) and m3 (t) contribute to the make up of s(t) according to (6. k = 0. 3.5I1 + 0. . This task requires some algebra. for m(t).33) (6. 2.25I2 c6 .34) and the third-order term as m3 (t) = 2 2 2 0.5I2 c4 .5I1 c2 2 + (I1 I2 ) c3 + 0. h. it can be said that for m(t) the two data symbols are simply contained in the k = 1 and k = 2 frequency bins.75I1 + 1.32) (6. The phase modulator mixes and spreads—albeit in a nonlinear and exceedingly complicated manner—the data symbols in frequency. 6 frequency bins. 2. For the second-order term. I2 and {cos 2πkt/TB }. the data symbols mix across the k = 0. m2 (t) and m3 (t) is shown.31) is written as m(t) = I1 c1 + I2 c2 .31) where Ik ∈ {±1}. .

75I1 .3) is used at various input backoﬀ levels. 2πh = 3. Figure 6.0. and M = 16.5I1 2 1. for the large modulation index example 2πh = 1.001 the multipath performance is over 10 dB better than the single path performance.0. The SSPA model (see Section 2.30) contribute.5I1 I2 kth tone. In the ﬁnal ﬁgure. This property is demonstrated in Figure 6. 2 0.11. First. Notice that the single path and multipath performance is essentially the same. results for 2πh = 0.1 are shown. 2πh = 2.5I2 2 0. N = 64 CE-OFDM system are shown.5I2 5 – – 2 0.3: Data symbol contribution per tone for m n (t). 0 – 2 0. (6.75I1 I2 where only the ﬁrst two terms in (6.36) the CE-OFDM signal doesn’t have the frequency spreading given by the higher-order terms. the CE-OFDM systems exploit . the multipath performance is signiﬁcantly better than the single path performance. M = 8. Three diﬀerent CE-OFDM systems are tested: M = 4. s(t) ≈ A [1 + jσφ m(t)] . A) and therefore doesn’t have the ability to exploit the frequency diversity of the channel. 2.1. n =1. QPSK data symbols are used. Simulation results of an M = 4. the CE-OFDM signal is essentially equivalent to a conventional OFDM signal.75I1 I2 6 – – 3 0. To demonstrate that CE-OFDM with a small modulation index lacks frequency diversity. Simply put. CE-OFDM has frequency diversity when the modulation index is large and doesn’t have frequency diversity when the modulation index is small. The system is simulated over the single path Rayleigh ﬂat fading channel and over the multipath fading model Channel C f . 2πh = 0.9. that is. 2 1. at the bit error rate 0. For example. By contrast. Second.25I1 . The advantage of the CE-OFDM systems is twofold.25I1 I2 .118 Table 6.12. 2 0. the CE-OFDM systems operate with IBO = 0 dB.25I2 I1 I2 3 0.75I1 I2 m(t) m2 (t) m3 (t) 1 I1 I1 I2 3 0. cos 2πkt/TB 2 3 4 I2 – – 2 0.5I1 . The systems are simulated over Channel Cf . 3 0. and 3.75I1 I2 2 0. The x-axis is adjusted to account for the negative impact of input power backoﬀ. (plus a relatively large DC term. For the OFDM system.5I2 2 0. jσφ m(t). In this case. the performance of constant envelope OFDM is compared to conventional OFDM in the presence of power ampliﬁer nonlinearities.

Even so.5 and 1.0 respectively) which results in spectral broadening.3). 2πh = 0. MMSE) the frequency diversity inherent to the channel. Channel C f .14).12 also highlight the poor performance of CE-OFDM at low SNR due to the threshold eﬀect (as studied in Section 4. IBO = 6 dB is preferred since the performance is the same but the power eﬃciency is higher (see Figure 2. The M = 8 and M = 16 systems have spectral eﬃciencies of 1. Also. the OFDM system has essentially the same performance with backoﬀ levels of 6 and 10 dB. Notice that the OFDM system with IBO = 0 dB results in an irreducible error ﬂoor just below the bit error rate 0. N = 64.119 100 Multipath Single path 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 2πh 1.001 the CE-OFDM systems outperform the OFDM system by at least 10 dB. At the bit error rate 0. The results in Figure 6.3 b/s/Hz. is about the same as the M = 4. which. Making a direct comparison between CE-OFDM and conventional OFDM is diﬃcult ≤ Eb /N0 ≤ 10 dB. Over the region 0 dB it should be noted that the M = 8 and M = 16 CE-OFDM systems shown have large modulation index values (2πh = 2. Roughly speaking. the spectral eﬃciency of the QPSK/OFDM system is 2 b/s/Hz. Eb /N0 (dB) 45 50 Figure 6. respectively.0 and 2πh = 3.11: Single path versus multipath. the OFDM system performs better than the CE-OFDM system.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit.70). according to (4.1. . (M = 4.9 CEOFDM system. therefore.1 0. At this bit error rate.1. the 6 dB backoﬀ required by the OFDM system is still far less desirable as the 0 dB backoﬀ used by the CE-OFDM system.

0 M = 16. while the CE-OFDM system is relatively unaﬀected. MMSE) due to the various parameters involved (M . N = 64. the OFDM system has a very high irreducible error ﬂoor due to the power ampliﬁer distortion. Also. Channel C f .. {H[k]}) is known at the receiver .9 M = 8. a thorough study comparing CEOFDM. 2πh = 0. time-varying channels. etc. IBO.. phase noise. Further work is needed to study the eﬀects of channel coding. fading channels—so long as the channel information (i. and due to the fact that system requirements vary from system to system. At this backoﬀ level. two extra FFTs) is acceptable.0 5 10 15 20 25 Eb /N0 + IBO (dB) 30 35 40 10−4 0 Figure 6. if operation at low SNR is important. then the input power backoﬀ of 0 dB should be chosen.12: CE-OFDM versus QPSK/OFDM.). (SSPA model. Alternatively. then CE-OFDM may not be well suited due to the threshold eﬀect. 2πh. OFDM and single carrier frequency-domain equalizer (SC-FDE) systems could provide for interesting results.120 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 OFDM: IBO = 0 dB 3 dB 6 dB 10 dB CE-OFDM: M = 4. if power ampliﬁer eﬃciency is the most important requirement.e. and so forth. The results in this chapter show that CE-OFDM can perform quite well in multipath and so long as the added complexity of the frequency-domain equalizer (i.e. For example. 2πh = 2. 2πh = 3.

The eﬀect of the phase modulator on the transmitted signal’s spectrum is studied. The approximation of the optimum receiver closely matches simulation results. For a large modulation index. It is shown that the amount of backoﬀ required to reduce spectral growth and performance degradation is signiﬁcant: 6–10 dB depending on the subcarrier modulation used. For a larger modulation index the phase demodulator receiver becomes sub-optimum due to the limitations of the phase demodulator and phase unwrapper. It is shown that the modulation index controls the spectral containment. The optimum receiver is analyzed and a performance bound and approximation is derived. the CE-OFDM signals become less correlated which improves detection performance. The high PAPR OFDM signal is transformed to a 0 dB PAPR constant envelope waveform. For the CE-OFDM technique described. The modulation index also controls the system performance.Chapter 7 Conclusions In this thesis the peak-to-average power ratio problem associated with orthogonal frequency division multiplexing is evaluated. phase modulation is used. For a small modulation index and high signal-to-noise ratio. It also closely matches a derived bit error rate approximation for a practical phase demodulator receiver. At the receiver. Large backoﬀ is an unsatisfactory solution for battery-powered systems since PA eﬃciency is low. 121 . The PAPR statistics are studied and the eﬀect of power ampliﬁer nonlinearities as a function of power backoﬀ is evaluated by computer simulation. the phase demodulator receiver is nearly optimum. the inverse transform is performed prior to the OFDM demodulator. A signal transformation method for solving the PAPR problem is presented and analyzed.

Future work includes experimenting with lower sampling rates for reduced receiver complexity. such as linear minimum mean-squared error (LMMSE) estimation and reduced complexity singular value decomposition (SVD) approaches. CE-OFDM might be a viable alternative to convention continuous phase modulation systems which are complex due to phase trellis decoding and sensitive to multipath. The impact of imperfect channel state information on the performance of the frequency-domain equalizer is of interest. 259. which requires minimal backoﬀ. 273. Depending on the channel condition. The performance of the phase demodulator is a crucial element to the overall CE-OFDM performance. 547]. due to power backoﬀ. For systems. ineﬃcient. 469. CE-OFDM is relatively robust in multipath fading channels with the use of the frequency-domain equalizer. Therefore. therefore reducing receiver complexity. Phase modulation is used exclusively in this work. 251. CE-OFDM might be used as a stand-alone modulation technique or as a supplement to an existing OFDM system. It would be interesting to evaluate CE-OFDM frequency modulation systems and compare them to the results in this thesis.122 This problem can be suppressed with the use of a properly designed ﬁnite impulse response lowpass ﬁlter which precedes the phase demodulator. An adaptive radio might sense times where power eﬃcient CE-OFDM. Many conventional OFDM systems (those that don’t use diﬀerentially encoded modulations) also require channel state information. Such a system can adaptively switch between conventional and constant envelope modes. at times the channel might be relatively benign so the OFDM systems is an overkill and. 144. Thus techniques for channel estimation in OFDM has been extensively researched [105. the frequencydomain equalizer requires knowledge of the channel. 213. further research is needed to evaluate more advanced phase demodulation techniques such as digital phase-locked loops. is more applicable. 257. In terms of performance over frequency-selective fading channels. such as power-limited satellite communications. where a constant envelope is very desirable. Applying the known techniques. For example. . if not required. 204. to CE-OFDM is a subject for future investigation. equalization might not be required. However. The simulation results of the CE-OFDM performance curves use an oversampling factor of J = 8. a conventional OFDM system is designed for severe multipath channels.

considering diﬀerent equalization techniques. This work is being funded by the United States Oﬃce of Naval Research under an STTR (small business technology transfer) initiative with UCSD being the university partner. A study is needed to compare these modulation techniques to CE-OFDM taking into account the eﬀects of the PA at various backoﬀ levels. using CPM with a cyclic preﬁx is an interesting idea. spectral eﬃciency. only 64 subcarriers are used). power ampliﬁer eﬃciency. 154. The goal of the prototype is to oﬀer a second low-power mode for the existing JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System) wideband component which uses OFDM. Additional future work includes comparing CE-OFDM with other block modulation technique in terms of PAPR. Such research will help provide insight into good designs for future wireless digital communication systems that require power eﬃciency and high data rates. Comparing the complexity and spectral eﬃciency of such a technique with CE-OFDM would be interesting. a channel characterized by a two-path model with a weak secondary path. 463.123 For example. most single carrier modulations have a non-constant envelope due to pulse shaping and multilevel QAM symbol constellations. CE-OFDM might provide acceptable performance without equalization. OH). 574]. CPM systems in the other hand require high quality coherent channels. Also. There has been an increasing amount of attention given to conventional single carrier modulation with the addition of a cyclic preﬁx which allows for frequencydomain equalization [107. Research challenges that remain include evaluating CE-OFDM with many subcarriers (in this thesis. developing synchronization schemes and studying the impact of channel coding and the eﬀects of time-varying channels. 460. . However. performance and complexity. In the near term a CE-OFDM prototype is being developed by Nova Engineering (Cincinnati.

.3) . . Sampling x(t) at N equally spaced intervals over 0 ≤ t < T B yields the N −1 x[i] = x(t)|t=iTB /N = k=0 Xk ej2πki/N .2) which is the inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) of the vector X = [X0 . a real-valued OFDM signal is required. {X k }N −1 are the data symbols and TB is the k=0 sequence. . The spectral eﬃciency of the real-valued OFDM signal is the same as the spectral eﬃciency of the complex-valued OFDM signal.1 Signal Description The baseband OFDM signal is typically written as N −1 x(t) = k=0 Xk ej2πkt/TB . (A. 0 ≤ t < TB . 124 (A. . XN −1 ]. block period. (A. A. N − 1. . This can be done by taking a DFT of a conjugate symmetric vector. i = 0. X1 . 1.Appendix A Generating Real-Valued OFDM Signals with the Discrete Fourier Transform For some applications. .1) where N is the number of subcarriers. . .

10) .4) and X0 = XN/2 = 0. N/2−1 XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N x[i] = 2 k=1 N/2−1 Xk ej2πki/N . . 1. (A.8) i = 0. i = 0. . The IDFT is then N −1 (A. 1.9) And since {AB} = {A} {B} − {A} {B}. N − 1. N − 1. 1. . N/2−1 x[i] = 2 k=1 {Xk } cos(2πki/N ) − {Xk } sin(2πki/N ). . . (A.5) x[i] = k=1 Xk ej2πki/N N/2−1 = k=1 N/2−1 XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N + XN/2+k ej2π(N/2+k)i/N ∗ XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N + XN/2−k ej2π(N/2+k)i/N . . k=1 (A.6) can be written as N/2−1 (A. . N − 1.7) x[i] = k=1 ∗ XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N + XN/2−k e−j2π(N/2−k)i/N . . (A. =2 k=1 (A.6) = i = 0. . . But since ej2π(N/2+k)i/N = ej2π(N/2+k)i/N e−j2πN i/N = ej2π(−N/2+k)i/N = e−j2π(N/2−k)i/N . However it can be made real-valued by making X conjugate symmetric: ∗ XN/2+k = XN/2−k (A. Using the identity A + A ∗ = 2 {A}. .125 The sequence is complex-valued in general. .

= Bandwidth (Hz) N/TB (A. . (N/2) − 1. 2/TB . Xk = {Xk } + j {Xk }.11) Now. .2 Spectral Eﬃciency Complex-valued baseband signals are transmitted as bandpass signals. [(N/2) − 1]/TB Hz. This is the case for the complex-valued signal in (A. Passing the sequence through a D/A converter yields the continuous-time real-valued OFDM signal: N/2−1 x(t) = 2 k=1 {Xk } cos(2πkt/TB ) − {Xk } sin(2πkt/TB ). . .11) has the same spectral eﬃciency as the complex-valued signal. . centered at a carrier frequency fc Hz. and the subcarriers are centered at fc . . . 1/TB . therefore the spectral eﬃciency is S1 = Bits per second (b/s) N log2 M/TB = log2 M b/s/Hz. The eﬀective bandwidth of assumed to be selected from a M -ary constellation).e. Transmitting the {Xk }. . 2. . fc + 2/TB . .126 i = 0. . and likewise. x(t) is shifted to the right by f c Hz. . x[i] is real. {Xk } ∈ {±1. .12) In other words. where {Xk }.. . for all k. (A. k = 1. suppose the data symbols are derived from a M 2 -QAM (quadrature-amplitude modulation) constellation. A.13) (A. (N/2) − 1. ±(M − 1)}. Thus. The transmitted signal is represented as s1 (t) = x(t)ej2πfc t . . N − 1.11) is a real-valued M -PAM OFDM signal. processing M 2 -QAM data with the IDFT. they are The real-valued OFDM signal in (A.15) the signal is therefore N/TB Hz. fc + (N − 1)/TB Hz. . the real and imaginary components are derived from M -PAM (pulseamplitude modulation) constellations. . . signal as-is. (A. modulate cosine subcarriers centered at ulate sine subcarriers at the same frequencies.1). ±3. k = 1. . The eﬀective bandwidth of the signal is {Xk }. Each data symbol represents log 2 M bits (i.14) In the frequency domain. 1. (A. that is. so long as it is transmitted at baseband. mod- . 2. . Therefore. (A. fc + 1/TB .

[This has a spectral component only at k/T B Hz and is thus considered single sideband. f ≥ 0. This is due to the fact that the cosine and sine subcarriers in (A.16) Therefore the spectral eﬃciency is the same as for the complex case. and since the real and imaginary parts of X k represent 0. which has complex sinusoids: exp(j2πkt/T B ) 1 Only the positive frequencies.11) have a double sideband spectrum: that is. count. the spectral eﬃciency of the real-valued signal is 1/2 that of the complexvalued signal if the real-valued signal is translated up to a carrier frequency.5(N/2) log 2 M/TB = = log 2 M b/s/Hz. the spectral eﬃciency of the real-valued OFDM signal is S2 = Bits per second (b/s) 2 × 0. so the frequency Consequently.5 log 2 M bits. the passband transmission of (A.] The carrier frequency is typically much larger than the signal bandwidth. However. isn’t the case for the complex-valued signal. . Bandwidth (Hz) (N/2)/TB (A.127 (N/2)/TB Hz1 .11) results in a signal with double the bandwidth and 1/2 the spectral eﬃciency. cos(2πkt/TB ) [or sin(2πkt/TB )] has a spectral components at ±k/T B Hz. translation brings all the negative frequencies to the positive side: −(N/2)/T B + fc 0.

Then. R. in 1967 M. Around this time. Sunde’s (Bell Laboratories) comments found at the end of the journal paper. Saltzberg and R. suggested multiplexing orthogonal waveforms. al described a 34 subcarrier military radio named Kathryn. This observation was made six years after Cooley and Tukey published details of the fast Fourier transform. J. Weinstein and Ebert. A. Japanese researcher suggest OFDM for wireless communications [207–209] (also see [6]). CA. W. F. Then. where to ﬁrst to suggest using a DFT for OFDM modulation [579]. these developments were signiﬁcant since all modern OFDM systems are based on the FFT. Zimmerman et.445 on OFDM [82]. Signiﬁcant theoretical contributions were made by B. L. in the early 80’s researchers from IBM’s Watson Research Center suggests OFDM for a wireline DSLtype application [408]. a researcher at General Dynamics. NY. each diﬀerentially phase modulated. 455]. Developed at the Collins Radio Company. Rochester. Bello [51]. Cimini’s 1985 paper [102] generated interest when he suggested applying OFDM 128 . This paper caused some interest and some controversy as indicated by E.488. al in 1958 [354]. A decade passed with little mention of OFDM in the literature. S.Appendix B More on the OFDM Literature The ﬁrst OFDM-like radio to be found in the research literature is the Kineplex system presented by Mosier et. In his 1960 paper [202]. Burbank. the radio used 20 tones separated by 110 Hz. Chang of Bell Laboratories [83. H. In 1970 Chang was issued US patent 3. Harmuth. D. The ﬁrst paper to identify the Doppler sensitivity of such a radio was by P. in 1971. 84. They were the ﬁrst to suggest bit loading.

power ampliﬁers. In the US. Kalet and Zervos compare OFDM to single carrier with decision feedback equalization [248. Some statistics of the current author’s attempt are displayed below. The major focus in the OFDM literature includes OFDM’s sensitivity to Doppler. over the course of a PhD. 552]. and nonlinearities. Conducting a 100% thorough literature review in this ﬁeld. In terms of digital broadcasting. 392]. so a detail discussion of it here would be overly ambitious. OFDM is being developed for ultra-wideband systems. task. Channel estimation and synchronization techniques are of interest. contributed to this work. phase noise. is a formidable. 105.11 and the ETSI HYPERLAN/2 standards [552]. OFDM is being used for IBOC broadcasting [221. OFDM is being applied to indoor wireless local area networks under the IEEE 802. Now. computer simulation techniques. In the late 80’s and early 90’s OFDM received wide interest for the applications of DSL and for wireless digital broadcasting. continuous phase modulation. 95–97. 614]. 477. [9. 446]. 604]. 264. Also included in the bibliography are papers dealing with general digital communications. carrier frequency oﬀsets. and for power line communication [119. And as mentioned in Chapter 1. Cioﬃ et al. 160. along with techniques to address the PAPR problem. The acceptance of OFDM into xDSL standards was lead primarily by Stanford University’s J. 61. M. if impossible. Literature Survey Statistics The OFDM literature is immense.129 to mobile systems. The bibliography of this thesis does provide a somewhat current snapshot of the OFDM literature. OFDM is widely deployed for this consumer electronics application. . wireless metropolitan area networks. in some way. OFDM has been accepted for the European DAB and DVB standards [162. FM analog communications. Active OFDM research continues. cellular systems. and other miscellaneous papers that have.

however long-term it may be. (b) Cumulative paper count. to get an idea of the size of the literature. is the goal. As of the year 2004. So. Figure B. 1400 Journal papers Journal plus conference papers 4000 1200 3500 1000 3000 4500 Journal papers Journal plus conference papers 800 Papers Papers 600 2500 2000 1500 400 1000 200 500 0 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 0 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 (a) Papers each year. Being familiar with the relevant literature. Besides the OFDM-speciﬁc papers.1 shows the result of searching for “OFDM” in the IEEE online literature database. . there are many interesting and fundamental papers dealing with the general area of digital communications and information theory. there are over 800 OFDM-speciﬁc IEEE journal papers and over 4300 papers when including papers presented at IEEE conferences. which may include several thousands of papers published over many decades. there are many papers to read and to learn from.130 First. Figure B.1: “OFDM” search on IEEE Xplore [222].

A ﬁled paper has been printed out. spanning my ﬁnal year as a PhD student. . It brieﬂy dipped below 150 papers. but the literature is too large—and the battle continues. added to a citation list (using BibTeX).2: Papers. the pile is in good health. ﬁled and piled. This ﬁgure shows the number of ﬁled and the number of piled papers as a function of time. a concerted eﬀort was made to “kill the pile”. read. In late Spring 2005. and brieﬂy summarized in one or two paragraphs. As the ﬁgure shows. A piled paper is in queue waiting to be ﬁled.131 600 550 500 450 Papers 400 350 300 250 200 150 Oct 2004 Jan 2005 Filed Apr 2005 Jul 2005 Piled Oct 2005 Figure B.

4 shows a histogram of the ﬁled papers’ publication year. and Figure B. and 100 papers per year from 1980 to present. A histogram of this projected goal in relation to the current progress is shown in Figure B. Say 350 papers are read per year (which. . 50 papers per year from 1960–1980. assume that 100 are current-year.8 years to “kill the pile”. Of these 350 papers.132 8 Papers read per day (log scale) 4 2 1 Oct 2004 Jan 2005 Running average Apr 2005 Jul 2005 Daily points Oct 2005 Figure B. of which roughly 3700 have yet to be ﬁled.5. isn’t entirely unreasonable).3: Running average of papers read per day. It would therefore take 3700/250 = 14. One unknown is the true papers-ofinterest count. Figure B. 4300 papers are of interest.3 shows the running average of papers read per day.3. according to Figure B. According to the model. A simple model might be: 20 papers per year from 1920–1960. leaving the remaining 250 papers to be from the past.

100 Desired? 80 Papers 60 40 20 Current 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Figure B.5: Projected year histogram? .133 70 60 50 Papers 40 30 20 10 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Figure B.4: Year histogram.

In this appendix sample code is provided. % min bits sent per SNR Error_min=2e1. SNRmax=50. % min errors per SNR else % long run (use for accuracy/final result) Trans_max=100e6. % equals 0 or 1 if shortrun % (use for speed/testing) Trans_max=1e5. % target BER % max SNR (dB) 134 . Channel Cf result.1 GNU Octave Code Below is GNU Octave code used to obtain the results for the Channel C f . % max bits sent per SNR Trans_min=2e4. % min errors per SNR end targetBER=1e-5. 2pih=1. % GNU Octave code for M=4.Simulation parameters -----------------------------------% for a good time. % max bits sent per SNR Trans_min=1e6. % min bits sent per SNR Error_min=2e5. N=64. max min sqrt shortrun=0. % Written by: Steve Thompson % ------. The code can easily be adapted to obtain other results.Appendix C Sample Code The simulations were performed using GNU Octave [188] and the ﬁgures were generated with Gnuplot [189]. as outlined below. MMSE curve in Figure 6. C.10.

0 0 1 1.3]. Fsa=J*N/TB. 1 1 0. 1 1 0 0. M=4. 1 0 0]. A=1. 1 0 1. 0 1 0 0. ip=[Ng:NF-1]+io. modh=1. 0 1 1 1.1. 0 0 0 1. % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % index offset signal amplitude modulation order modulation index number of subcarriers block time oversampling factor sampling rate sampling period guard time frame time samples per guard interval samples per symbol samples per frame processing indices DFT size (for equalizer) maximum delay spread of channel (sec) number of channel taps number of received samples blocks/channel realization (vectorize) %% Bit and symbol mappings (depends on modulation order) if M==2 SymMap=[-1. 1 0 0 1. 0 0 1. Ng=Tg*Fsa. J=8... L=8. 0 1.0/(2*pi). % data symbol mapping BitMap=[. 0 1 0. NB=TB*Fsa. 1 1 1 1. Tsa=1/Fsa. taumax=9e-6. end varI=sum(SymMap. .. 0 1 1 0. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[0. % bit mapping end if M==4 SymMap=[-3. 1 0].1]. 0 0 1 0. N=64. 0 1 1. Ndft=512. Nc=taumax*Fsa. . % data symbol mapping BitMap=[. 1 1 1.. NF=TF*Fsa. 0 1 0 1. 1]. % bit mapping 0 0 0. TF=Tg+TB. 1 1 1 0. end if M==8 SymMap=[-7:2:7]’. 1 0 1 1. 1 1. 1 1 0 1.. 1 0 1 0. Tg=10e-6. end if M==16 SymMap=(-15:2:15)’... TB=128e-6..^2)/M. % bit mapping 0 0. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[.-1. % bit mapping 0 0 0 0. Nr=Nc+NF-1. % variance of data ... 1 0 0 0].135 io=1.

54-0. % delay n2=(d+1):(d+NB). else h1(i)=sin(wc*(n1(i)-(Mf-1)/2))/(pi*(n1(i)-(Mf-1)/2)). % delay PDS % ------. % initialize SNR vector dx=2.. % SNR step size iSNR=1. % time vector p=1/tauRms*exp(-t/2e-6). (Error_num<=Error_min & Trans_num<=Trans_max) .k)=sin(2*pi*(k-N/2)*t/TB)’. % Hamming window hf=h1. % windowed filter coefficients %% Channel delay power spectral density (exponential) t=[0:Nc-1]’*Tsa. % initialize unitary matrix for k=1:N/2 % W is a set of orth. % normalized cutoff frequency (cyc/samp) wc=2*pi*fc. end %% Design FIR filter: improves performance of phase demodulator %% See Proakis’s DSP text for design details Mf=11. % time vector W=zeros(NB.136 CN=sqrt(2/(N*varI)). % desired.Simulation ----------------------------------------------BER=0. % filter length n1=0:(Mf-1).. % SNR counter go=1. Trans_num=0. end for k=(N/2+1):N W(:.N). % initialize for i=1:Mf % compute coefficients if n1(i)==((Mf-1)/2) h1(i)=wc/pi. % filter sample index d=(Mf-1)/2. % normalized cutoff frequency (rad/samp) h1=zeros(1.5. sines and cosines W(:.2.46*cos(2*pi*n1/(Mf-1)). % initialize BER vector EbN0_dB=0. % initialize while Trans_num<=Trans_min | .*w1. % normalizing constant %% Subcarrier matrix t=0:Tsa:(TB-Tsa).Mf).k)=cos(2*pi*k*t/TB)’. end end w1=0. delayed indices fc=0. % initialize loop while go % run until max SNR condition Error_num=0.

% filtered signal. % complex Gaussian noise=sqrt(N0*Fsa)*tmp2. % channel (normalize average power) %% Received signal plus noise (to be processed by FDE) rp=zeros(NB.1)+j*randn(Nc.x(:. % equalize x=ifft(hatS.1)). % initialize CE-OFDM phase signal for i=1:L % cyclic prefix phi(:.*(C*ones(1. % correction term (MMSE) X=fft(rp.Ndft).L)-pi.i))). % signal energy Eb=Es/(L*N*log2(M)). % Gaussian noise rp(:. % data symbols m=CN*W*I.1)).L). % filtered signal hats(:.s(:. % CE-OFDM signal %% Determine noise power Es=sum(sum(abs(s). % Gaussian vector Ch=sqrt(p/sum(p)).i)+theta0(i)].i))).i)=tmp(n2). % bit energy EbN0=10^(EbN0_dB(iSNR)/10).’./(abs(H).*tmp.L). % OFDM message signal theta0=2*pi*rand(1.. 2*pi*modh*m(:. % channel gains C=conj(H).1)+j*randn(NB. end s=A*exp(j*phi).i)=[2*pi*modh*m(NB-Ng+1:NB. % initialize for i=1:L tmp=(conv(hf...137 %% Generate L blocks in=ceil(M*rand(N. % discard cyclic prefix tmp2=sqrt(1/2)*(randn(NB. % to time domain %% Filter signal hats=zeros(NB.L)).^2))*Tsa. % initialize for i=1:L tmp1=(conv(Ch.^2+EbN0^(-1)).Ndft). % received samples plus noise end %% Frequency-domain equalizer H=fft(Ch./EbN0.Ndft). % random symbol index I=SymMap(in). desired indices . % received samples tmp1=tmp1(ip). % noise spectral height %% Channel tmp=sqrt(1/2)*(randn(Nc.i)=tmp1+noise.’.L)). % memory terms (assume uniform) phi=zeros(NF.L).i)+theta0(i). % SNR N0=Eb. % to frequency domain hatS=X.

else % keep going iSNR=iSNR+1. EbN0_dB(iSNR)=EbN0_dB(iSNR-1)+dx. BER=%1.1f.M).1). J. Error_num. end end % end simulation %% Plot semilogy(EbN0_dB.138 end %% Demodulate and detect hatphi=unwrap(angle(hats)). 2πh. EQ. % phase demodulate Ihat=W’*hatphi/((2*pi*modh*CN)*NB*1/2). % index estimate. % (>=1) Errors=sum(sum(BitMap(in. ’. % bit errors Error_num=Error_num+Errors. equalizer settings. 2pih=%1. For Channel Af : .1f. the above code is used with diﬀerent values of M ... ’. fc. EbN0=%2.:)~=BitMap(inHat. M=%d. EbN0_dB(end).:))).. % correction term (ZF) The other fading channels are generated by changing the code that deﬁnes the channel. J=%d. % cumulative bit errors Trans_num=Trans_num+L*N*log2(M).1e’]. 2*pi*modh.BER) %% Save tmp=[EbN0_dB’ BER’]..10*L*N*log2(M))==0 % print-frequency clc printf([’MMSE. save -ascii data tmp To get other results.. (<=M) inHat=max(inHat.. % cumulative bits %% Display (optional) if rem(Trans_num. The ZF equalizer is simulated by changing the equalizer to C=1. M. Trans_num.. and/or channel deﬁnitions./H.1f. Error_num/Trans_num) end end % end this SNR BER(iSNR)=Error_num/Trans_num. ’Error_num=%d. ’fc=%1. % bit error rate for current SNR %% Test for max SNR condition if BER(iSNR)<targetBER | EbN0_dB(iSNR)>=SNRmax go=0. fading ChC. Trans_num=%d. % matched-filter output inHat=min(round((Ihat+(M-1))/2)+io.

% path index p(i+io. set term pslatex monochrome dashed rotate 8 set format "$%g$" set logscale y 10 set format y "$10^{%T}$" . % path index p(i+io. zeros(Nc-length(p). % delay PSD Additionally. Below is sample code which generates Figure 6. the above template can be used for conventional OFDM with some minor alterations. % discrete propagation delays p=ones(size(t)). % path delays power_dB=[0 -3].2 Gnuplot Code The majority of the ﬁgures in this thesis were generated with Gnuplot. # Tell Gnuplot what kind of plot to generate and give it # some parameters.139 %% Channel delay power spectral density (two-path) tau=[0 5e-6]. % zero-pad For Channel Df : %% Channel delay power spectral density (uniform) tau=[0:Nc-1]’*Ts. % path power (dB) power=10.1)]. % delay PSD end p=[p. % zero-pad For Channel Bf : %% Channel delay power spectral density (two-path) tau=[0 5e-6].10.^(power_dB/10). % path power for n=1:length(tau) i=tau(n)*Fs.1)]. % path power (dB) power=10. % path delays power_dB=[0 -10]. % path power for n=1:length(tau) i=tau(n)*Fs. % delay PSD end p=[p.1)=power(n). zeros(Nc-length(p).1)=power(n).^(power_dB/10). C.

$\mathcal{L}=1$’ w l ls 5.5 border 31 linewidth 0.0 set style line 4 lt 1 lw 1 pt 8 ps 1.\ "results/AWGN" t ’AWGN’ w l ls 6.\ "results/ZF/ChA/" t ’ZF: Channel A’ w lp ls 11.0 set style line 44 lt 3 lw 1 pt 8 ps 1.5e-1 output "p_ber" # Define line styles. plot.0 set style line 33 lt 3 lw 1 pt 7 ps 1.\ "results/MMSE/ChD" t ’D’ w lp ls 4.\ "results/approx" t ’AWGN approx \eqref{eqn:approx}’ w l ls 7 .5 grid size 1.140 set set set set set set ticscale 0.0. (The data files are in a make-believe # directory called ‘results’ plot [5:44][1e-4:2e-1]\ "results/MMSE/ChA" t ’MMSE: Channel A’ w lp ls 1.0 set style line 3 lt 1 lw 1 pt 7 ps 1.4.\ "results/flat" t ’Rayleigh.0 set style line 22 lt 3 lw 1 pt 6 ps 1.\ "results/ZF/ChB/" t ’B’ w lp ls 22.\ "results/MMSE/ChB" t ’B’ w lp ls 2.1. set xlabel ’[t]{Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit.1 41.1.4 key width -23.\ "results/ZF/ChD/" t ’D’ w lp ls 44.5 height 1 box lw 0. set style line 1 lt 1 lw 1 pt 9 ps 1.\ "results/MMSE/ChC" t ’C’ w lp ls 3.0 set style line 11 lt 3 lw 1 pt 9 ps 1.0 set style line 2 lt 1 lw 1 pt 6 ps 1.\ "results/ZF/ChC/" t ’C’ w lp ls 33.0 set style line 5 lt 1 lw 3 set style line 6 lt 5 lw 3 set style line 7 lt 5 lw 1 # Define labels.\ $\mathcal{E}_\text{b}/N_0$ (dB)}’ set ylabel ’Bit error rate’ # Now.

Abbreviations A/D AM/AM AM/PM AWGN b BER CCDF CE CE-OFDM CNR CP CPM dB D/A DAB DC DFE DFT DSL DVB ETSI FDE FFT FIR FOBP Hz IBO IBOC ICI IDFT IEEE IFFT ISI JTRS analog-to-digital converter amplitude/amplitude conversion of power ampliﬁer amplitude/phase conversion of power ampliﬁer additive white Gaussian noise bit bit error rate complementary cumulative distribution function constant envelope constant envelope OFDM carrier-to-noise ratio cyclic preﬁx continuous phase modulation decibels. 10 log 10 (·) digital-to-analog converter digital audio broadcasting direct current decision feedback equalizer discrete Fourier transform digital subscriber line digital video broadcasting European Telecommunications Standards Institute frequency-domain equalizer fast Fourier transform ﬁnite impulse response fractional out-of-band power Hertz (1 cycle/s) input power backoﬀ in-band on-channel intercarrier interference inverse discrete Fourier transform Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers inverse fast Fourier transform intersymbol interference Joint Tactical Radio System 141 .

000 s) .000.142 kHz LAN LMMSE LMS LOS M -PSK M -PAM M -QAM MAN Mb/s Msamp MHz ML OFDM P/S PA PAM PAPR PLC PSK QAM QPSK RLS RMS s S/P samp SC-FDE SER SDR SNR SSPA STTR SVD TWTA UWB W WSSUS µs kilohertz (1 thousand cycles/s) local area network linear minimum mean-squared error least-mean-square line-of-signal M -ary phase-shift keying M -ary pulse-amplitude modulation M -ary quadrature-amplitude modulation metropolitan area network megabits per second (1 million b/s) megasample (1 million samples) megahertz (1 million cycles/s) maximum-likelihood orthogonal frequency division multiplexing parallel-to-serial conversion power ampliﬁer pulse-amplitude modulation peak-to-average power ratio power line communication phase-shift keying quadrature-amplitude modulation quadrature phase-shift keying recursive least-square root-mean-square second serial-to-parallel conversion sample single carrier frequency-domain equalizer symbol error rate software deﬁned radio signal-to-noise ratio solid-state power ampliﬁer small business technology transfer singular value decomposition traveling-wave tube ampliﬁer ultra-wideband Watts wide-sense stationary uncorrelated scattering microsecond (1/1.

exponential function exponential function expected value Fourier transform 0th-order modiﬁed Bessel function of the ﬁrst kind inverse discrete Fourier transform imaginary part √ −1 ith-order Bessel function of the ﬁrst kind maximum minimum limit natural log log base x lowpass component probability Gaussian Q-function real part sine sinc function variance 143 . . .71828182845905. xN Operators and Miscellaneous Symbols arg(·) cos(·) DFT{·} e e(·) exp(·) E{·} F{·}(f ) I0 (·) IDFT{·} {·} j Ji (·) max min lim ln(·) logx (·) LP{·} P (·) Q(·) {·} sin(·) sinc(·) var{·} argument cosine discrete Fourier transform 2.Symbols Set Theory ∈ ∈ / [·] [·) {xn }N n=1 is an element of is not an element of closed interval open interval set of elements x1 . x2 . . . . .

β φ ηA K Φ(·) maximum input level input saturation level gain AM/AM conversions sharpness parameter for the SSPA model AM/PM parameters for the TWTA model eﬃciency of Class-A power ampliﬁer backoﬀ ratio AM/PM conversions . . .144 x(t) x[i] δ(·) π ∞ b a (·)dx (·)dx N n=1 N n=1 n! x→a x∗y |·| (·)∗ · · = ≡ = ≈ ≤ ≥ < > x as a function of t discrete-time samples of x at the ith index delta function 3. inﬁnity deﬁnite integral indeﬁnite integral multiple product multiple sum factorial x approaches a x convolved with y absolute value complex conjugate ceiling function ﬂoor function equal equal by deﬁnition not equal approximately equal less than or equal to greater than or equal to strictly less than strictly greater than much less than much greater than Power Ampliﬁer Amax Asat g0 G(·) p αφ .14159265358979.

145 Channel 2 2σ0 al BC (1) Bτ τ (2) Bτ τ C h(τ.n d2 (K) m. t) h(τ ) h[i] H[k] KR L rτ τ (v ) Sτ τ (τ ) v ∆τl ρ 2 σ al τ τl τmax scatter component power of frequency-nonselective channel complex-valued gain of the lth path coherence bandwidth average delay delay spread channel capacity time-variant channel impulse response time-invariant channel impulse response samples of the channel impulse response discrete Fourier transform of h[i] Rice factor number of discrete paths frequency correlation function delay power spectral density frequency separation variable propagation delay diﬀerence between τ l and τl−1 . ∆τl = τl − τl−1 line-of-sight component power of frequency-nonselective channel average power of the lth path continuous propagation delay discrete propagation delay of the lth path maximum propagation delay Signal A Ab (k) Ae (k) Amax Bbpf Bn Brms Bs C[k] CN d2 m.n d2 min D Eb Eb /N0 Eq Ex f signal amplitude the value of the kth subcarrier at the beginning of the block interval the value of the kth subcarrier at the end of the block interval clip level bandwidth of bandpass ﬁlter noise bandwidth root-mean-square bandwidth eﬀective bandwidth of CE-OFDM signal frequency-domain equalizer terms normalizing constant squared Euclidean distance between mth and nth signal squared Euclidean distance between mth and nth signal as a function of the phase constant minimum squared Euclidean distance total number of data symbol diﬀerences energy per bit signal-to-noise ratio per bit subcarrier energy energy of signal x frequency variable (cycles/s) . that is.

146 f fc fsa FOBP(f ) ˆ FOBP(f ) g(t) h I ˆ I J kb K K d2 min Lﬁr m(t) M n(t) n[i] nbp (t) nc (t) ns (t) nw (t) N N0 /2 Nc NB Ng pγ (x) pξ (x) Px PAPRx qk (t) r(t) rbp (t) R R/B s(t) s[i] sbp (t) sc (t) ss (t) S(f ) S[k] t normalized frequency variable (cycles/samp) carrier (or center) frequency (cycles/s) sampling rate (samp/s) fractional out-of-band power estimated fractional out-of-band power pulse shape modulation index data symbol estimated data symbol oversampling factor bits per symbol phase signal constant. K = 2πhCN number of neighboring signal points having minimum squared Euclidean distance d2 min ﬁlter length message signal modulation order of data symbol constellation lowpass complex-valued zero mean additive Gaussian noise samples of n(t) bandpass representation of n(t) [bandpass Gaussian noise] in-phase component of nbp (t) quadrature component of nbp (t) white Gaussian noise number of subcarriers spectral height of additive white Gaussian noise number of channel samples number of block samples number of guard samples probability density function of signal-to-noise ratio per bit probability density function of ξ(t) samples average power of signal x the peak-to-average power ratio of signal x kth subcarrier lowpass equivalent representation of received signal bandpass representation of r(t) rate. b/s spectral eﬃciency. b/s/Hz lowpass equivalent representation of transmitted signal samples of s(t) bandpass representation of s(t) in-phase component of sbp (t) quadrature component of sbp (t) frequency domain representation of s(t) discrete Fourier transform of s[i] time variable .

W = N/T B data symbol diﬀerence between mth and nth signal at the kth subcarrier signal-to-noise ratio per bit (used interchangeably with E b /N0 ) average signal-to-noise ratio per bit clipping ratio normalized carrier frequency oﬀset transmission eﬃciency memory term during ith CE-OFDM block interval noise at the output of phase demodulator data symbol variance variance of noise samples. estimated power density spectrum of signal x.n (k) γ γ ¯ γclip fo ηt θi ξ(t) 2 σI 2 σn 2 σφ ρm.n ρm.147 TB Tg Ts Tsa W ∆m. n[i] phase signal variance correlation between mth and nth signal correlation between mth and nth signal as a function of the phase constant maximum correlation among signals phase signal noise autocorrelation function Abramson spectrum estimated Abramson spectrum power density spectrum of signal x.n (K) ρmax φ(t) φn (t) ΦAb (f ) ˆ ΦAb (f ) Φx (f ) ˆ Φx (f ) block period guard period symbol period sampling period eﬀective bandwidth of OFDM signal. .

. pp. [5] J. Parsons.” IEEE Trans. X. Akansu. P. Abrishamkar. Lett. vol.. 8.” IEEE Trans. Speech. “Performance of Trellis Coded 256 QAM Super-Multicarrier Modem using VLSI’s for SDH Interface Outage-Free Digital Microwave Radio. vol.. 1415–1421. Mar. Commun. Al-Dhahir and J. 1963. Lett. 32. Aug. [8] N. vol. Feb. pp. Adachi and J. 16. Apr. 407–414. 1997. Y. 304–306. “A Bandwidth-Optimized Reduced-Complexity Equalized Multicarrier Transceiver. Commun. pp.” IEEE Trans. Acoust. vol.. 265–270.” IEEE Trans. Lin. no. 37. pp. 44. Aikawa.” IEE Electr. 1998. Signal Processing. vol. no. de Courville. 982–986. Nakamura. July 2001. 7. 56–64. D. 1./Apr. 200–210. [3] M. [4] F. Dec. Cioﬃ. 45. and M. 1994. 4. [9] N..” IEEE Commun. [10] ——. N. 42. vol. Abuelma’atti. T.” in Proc. “Orthogonal Transmultiplexers in Communication: a Review. 1. 1989./Mar. Jan. no. Commun. Oct. Al-Dhahir. [7] A. 1988. M. 1476–1477.. no.Bibliography [1] N. Aug. no. “Frequency-Dependent Nonlinear Quadrature Model for TWT Ampliﬁers. “Error Rate Performance of Digital FM Mobile Radio with Postdetection Diversity. 979–995.” IEEE Trans. Takanashi. 5. 46. IEEE Milcom.. Commun. “Class of Compact Spectrum Coded Signals Over Multipath Fading Channel. Ahn and H. 1984. 3. no.” IEEE Trans. Duhamel. “Bandwidth and Spectra of Phase-and-Frequency-Modulated Waves. Abramson. [2] F. pp. pp. 148 . vol. no. vol. pp.. 1996.. “Optimum Finite-Length Equalization for Multicarrier Transceivers.” IEEE Trans. and H. pp. 29. 948–956. “Single-Carrier Frequency-Domain Equalization for Space–Time Block-Coded Transmissions Over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels. 8. vol. no. “Frequency Domain Equalisation of OFDM Signals Over Frequency Nonselective Rayleigh Fading Channels. pp. pp. Commun. Aug. 1993. 2/3/4. Commun. [6] S. Lee. S.

Aulin. Sundberg. M. Commun. pp. C. and G. Veh. “Digital Linearizer for RF Ampliﬁers. Dec. Salz. pp. Anderson. pp. W. “Spectra of Digital FM. vol. com-33. R. “A Simple Transmit Diversity Technique for Wireless Communications. 1998. “Advances in Constant Envelope Coded Modulation. Select.” IEEE Trans.” Bell Syst. 1985. Annamalai. Rydbeck. 52. May 2002.. 544–552. pp. vol. 1965. “Adjacent Channel and Cochannel Interferences in CPFSK Systems with Nonlinear Transmitters and Limiter-Discriminator Detection. 5. Alm´si and D. vol. H. 1976.149 [11] S. Banelli. Amoroso. pp. 1997. 44. Digital Phase Modulation. no. W. Mag. 187–195. Tellambura. pp. C. Commun. [22] A. Alamouti. no. Corazza. vol. pp. Andrisano. AMC SIGPLAN Conf. 841–852. pp.. pp. 2. May 1988.” IEEE Trans. York: Plenum Press. May 2005. “Pulse and Spectrum Manipulation in the Minimum (Frequency) Shift Keying (MSK) Format. 53. “Near-Capacity Coding in Multicarrier Modulation Systems. 294–303. vol. “A General Method for Calculating Error Probabilities Over Fading Channels.. vol.-E.” IEEE Trans. 1880–1889. New [15] J. 8. Andreoli. “Power-Bandwidth Performance of Smoothed Phase Modulation Codes. Sundberg. no. Commun. Sundberg. 975–985. 1986..” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Commun. 36–45. 2004. Nov. [21] O. no.. Broadcast. G.-E. R. Immovilli. and N. R. Ladisa. Andrisano and N. Anderson. Commun. 29. 1451–1458. B. 381–384. no. [19] O. Anderson and C. B. 43. 3. Bhargava. Technol. and C. Commun. 1981.-E. G. Mar. no.. pp. no. com-24. 1991. 3. 12–19. and V. 5.” IEEE J. 1165–1189.. Mar. Berlin. vol. K. [12] G..” in Proc. Padua. 9. [23] M. [20] ——. Esmailian. and F. “On the Spectral Eﬃciency of CPM Systems over Real Channel in the Presence of Adjacent Channel and Cochannel Interference: A Comparison Between Partial and Full Response Systems. “On the Availability of Multilevel CPFSK Systems with Modulation Pulse Shaping During Multipath Propagation. 1. Tech. 11.” IEEE Trans. 37. July–Aug. Mar. [13] F. . [17] R.. May 1990. T. vol.. “MaJIC: Compiling MATLAB for Speed and a Responsiveness. vol. vol. Areas Commun. Anderson and J. J. 5. no. 36.. Kschischang. no.” IEEE Trans. 39. T.” IEEE Trans. [18] S. and P. pp. vol. no. [14] J. 16. Oct. Commun.” IEEE Trans. T. [16] J. Aulin.. pp. McClure. Sept. 89–100. Ardakani.

Armada. 3. Commun. Commun. 47. 1. “Minimum Euclidean Distance and Power Spectrum for a Class of Smoothed Phase Modulation Codes with Constant Envelope. Aue and G. IEEE ICC. Taylor.” in Proc. 2. [27] J. no. “Exact Asymptotic Behavior of Digital FM Spectra. IEEE VTC. Lett. 38.” IEEE Commun. “A Comparison of the Performance of Linearly Equalized Single Carrier and Coded OFDM Over Frequency Selective Fading Channels Using The Random Coding Technique. 29. 1981. Low-Complexity Communication Over Fading Dispersive Channels. 365–369. Armour. and C. 1748–1754.. [31] T. 1981. Nix.-E. “Continuous Phase Modulation—Part I: Full Response Signaling. vol. 30. 1999. “Analysis of New and Existing Methods of Reducing Intercarrier Interference Due to Carrier Frequency Oﬀset in OFDM. IEEE VTC.” IEEE Trans. Oct. Nov. pp. 1506–1510. Rydbeck. Mar.. Sundberg. [29] ——. Commun.” in Proc. 210–224.. Sundberg. 1982. no. “An easy way to calculate power spectra of digital FM. Jan. 3.. 1998. pp. Oct. pp. [26] S. 7. June 2001. [34] ——. no. vol. Armstrong. “Peak-to-average power reduction for OFDM by repeated clipping and frequency domain ﬁltering. Aulin and C. “Bandwidth Expansion for Robust. pp. Bull. 196–209. Mar.. Feb. pp. Aulin and C. [28] ——. 753–757. 153–159. no. May 2001. W. 1.” IEEE Trans. pp. 2. P. vol. Fettweis. pp. Sept. vol. Lett. J. “The Impact of FFT Size on the Performance of a Combined OFDM-Equalization Radio Modem.. [30] V. Atlanta.. no. 2. [32] T. [25] ——. “Phase Noise and Sub-Carrier Spacing Eﬀects on the Performance of an OFDM Communication System. pp. vol.. Commun. 2438–2449. 246–247. vol. 519–526. Broadcast. and D.” IEEE Trans.150 [24] A.” IEEE Trans. “New OFDM Peak-to-Average Power Reduction Scheme. Greece. vol. July 1982. pp.” IEE Electr. 3. Sundberg. G. 130. 1999.” IEEE Trans. no. Commun. Baas and D. “Understanding the Eﬀects of Phase Noise in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM). P. 1983.” in Proc. vol.. vol. 756–760. 3. 29..-E. Commun. vol. vol. 2002. Mar. 2001. N. 1721–1729.-E. 47. vol. . [35] T. pp. [36] N. pp.” IEEE Trans. no. [33] ——. no. June 1998. 6. no.” IEE Proc. no. 5. pp. 49. 10. “Continuous Phase Modulation—Part II: Partial Response Signaling. 11–13. vol. 11. W. pp. Rhodes. A.” IEEE Trans. 30. Aulin.

Oct. Torti. 6. pp.” IEEE Trans. vol. Nov. Huber. Banelli. Banelli and S. 371–379. no. Circ. O. C. Theory. Inform. “Theoretical Analysis and Performance of OFDM Signals in Nonlinear Fading Channels. [42] P. 9.” IEE Electr. 47. . 2003. pp. R. no. pp. vol. Bahai. 2. [47] C. Broadcast. “Nonlinear Models of TWT Revisited for OFDM Systems. Select. vol. Lett.. 2. 3.” IEEE Trans. “A “Better Than” Nyquist Pulse. June 2002.” IEEE Commun. Areas Commun. 9. 2056–2057. pp. “A Multicarrier Transmission Scheme for Wireless Local Communications. and M. “Chirped-OFDM For Transmissions over Time-Varying Channels with Linear Delay/Doppler Spreading. Tan. 4. Aug. [45] S. 2004. “Pulse Shaping for Wireless Communication Over Time. vol.. S. R. vol. vol.” IEEE J. pp.” in Proc.” in Proc. 1996. Bar-David and S. 2377–2380. 522–525. Theory. 32.. 48.. 1999. Sys. Conner. [48] R. Mar. 1. 284–293. [44] ——. 3. C. Commun. no. 1406–1419. IEEE ICASSP. G. G. Apr. Select. 2001. Baruﬀa. Inform. C. J. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. Salt Lake City.” IEEE J. Bahai and B. 2. 430–441. Lett. (Shitz). 34. Baum and K. [40] P. Mar.” IEEE Trans. 367–368. P. vol. F.. June 2001. pp. R. and J. vol.” IEEE Trans. R. 14.” IEEE Trans. pp. “A New Approach for Evaluating Clipping Distortion in Multicarrier Systems. and L. May 2001. pp. A. [43] I.. no. [39] A. no. and S. 1996. Fischer.. no. pp. Multi-Carrier Digital Communications: Theory and Applications of OFDM. 1037–1046. “Reducing the peak-to-average a power ratio of multicarrier modulation by selected mapping. “Theoretical Analysis and Performance of OFDM Signals in Nonlinear AWGN Channels. Cacopardi.. pp.151 [37] ——. 1477–1479. Beaulieu.. vol. 5. no. “On Information Transfer by Envelope-Constrained Signals over the AWGN Channel. Barbieri. [46] A. no. “Eﬀects of HPA Non Linearity on Frequency Multiplexed OFDM Signals. B¨uml. M. Banelli. Saltzberg. W. 5. Damen. Areas Commun. “On the Rice Model of Noise in FM Receiver. Wireless Commun. Midwest Symp. B. 34. Sept. Cariolaro. and B. vol. 1988. 52. H. 2000. Goldsmith. pp. 22. 521–529. 1995. Cacopardi. Barbarossa and R. pp. Commun. S. vol. Saltzberg. S. May 1988. [41] P. no. 123–136. 3. no. Singh. Sept. [38] A.” IEEE Trans. R. Vangelista. W. [49] N.or Frequency-Selective Channels. 20. vol.

Berberidis and J. 6. Mandarini. Biglieri. Mag. “An Application of MMSE Predistortion to OFDM System.” in Proc. Barberis. Amea. “Analysis and Compensation of Nonlinearities in Digital Transmission Systems. Mar. Boyd. Commun. no. vol. D. Lett. Areas Commun. IEEE Globecom. D. “Compensation of nonlinear distortions for orthogonal multicarrier schemes using predistortion. 38. vol.” IEEE Trans. Lopresti. Oct. 1986. Nov. Mar.” in Proc. vol..” IEEE Commun. Jan. pp. 5–14.152 [50] P.-G. Biglieri. [59] E..” IEE Electr. 42–51. . vol. 1995. Nov. Commun. “The Optimal Linear Receiving Filter for Digital Transmission Over Nonlinear Channels.” IEEE J. 2051–2053. pp. A. IEEE Globecom. 11. no. Singapore. “The Eﬀect of Frequency Selective Fading on Intermodulation Distortion and Subcarrier Phase Stability in Frequency Modulation Systems. Chouly. pp. [54] N. 5. 22. Dec. vol.” IEEE Trans. 1990.. 1909–1914. Tomasin. vol. “Multicarrier transmission using quadrature frequency/phase modulation. [51] ——. [58] E. Palicot. [63] A. May 1990. pp.” IEEE Trans.. “Characterization of Randomly Time-Variant Linear Channels. and F.. 1964. “On the Blind Estimation of the Parameters of Continuous Phase Modulated Signals. 1963.” IEEE Trans. Bello. 10.” IEEE Trans.. Circuits Syst. pp. 1994. Inform. June 2002. May 2005.” IEEE Trans. pp. 44. 1417–1420.” IEEE Trans. 1988. 267–269.” IEEE J. pp. [62] S. Biglieri and M. “A Simple Derivation of the Power Spectrum of Full-Response CPM and Some of its Properties. and L. Brajal and A. vol. no. pp. San Francisco. Visintin. 947–955. Nov. 1965. [57] E. [60] H. Elia. 98–102. pp. Benvenuto and S. “Multitone Signals with Low Crest Factor. 320–333. A. vol. S. Bello and B. “On the Comparison Between OFDM and Single Carrier Modulation With a DFE Using a Frequency-Domain Feedforward Filter. 6. 1. [61] J. 3. [55] K. no. 32.. Select. pp. Commun. and M.. 23. “Multicarrier Modulation for Data Transmission: An Idea Whose Time Has Come. vol.. Benedetto and P. pp. 33. C. no. Bilgekul and H. Loubaton.. Commun. Catena. no. 35. 944–962. no. 620–625. no. 360–393. A. 1018–1022. 1. [53] M. [56] P. 1996. Commun. pp. pp. Oct. vol. Sept. 87–101. Commun.. Areas Commun. “A Frequency-Domain Decision Feedback Equalizer for Multipath Echo Cancellation. Theory. Nelin. Bianchi. 1996. pp. 50. [52] P. Bingham. M. Sirven. May 1989.” IEEE Trans. “Selective Fading Limitations of the Kathryn Modem and Some System Design Considerations. 3. 3. Select. P.

[75] N. 725–728. [73] G. pp. S. “OFDM for Data Communication Over Mobile Radio FM Channels–Part II: Performance Improvement. and L.. 783–793. Br¨ ninghaus and H.” IEEE Trans. pp. A. ICCS..” in Proc. 1980.” in Proceedings of the IEEE National Aerospace and Electronics Conference. pp. Brown and R. L.” IEEE Trans. vol. “Optimum Bandwidth-Distance Performance in Full Response CPM Systems. Ottawa. pp. 63–72. 1088–1119. May 2000..” IEEE Trans. Mamola. 1994. “Spectral Analysis at the Output of a TWT Driven by an OFDM Signal. pp. pp. Commun. 47. 5. 40. McGraw-Hill. [76] E.. Feb. no. 7. Leung. A. 1988. Faso. Vangelista. [70] ——. Complex Variables and Applications. Dayton. Deneire. Select. 6. Churchill. no. Commun. J. F. R. May 1991. “Performance of Digital Phase-Modulation Communication Systems. [66] S. and G. vol. pp. 8. Syst. pp. Aug. Ness. OH. 653–657. 36. Sept. “Nonlinearity Model With Variable Knee Sharpness. 1995. Dec. 62. and S. pp. L. Cariolaro and F. vol. 1110–1118.. 1992. C. “Multi-Carrier Spread Spectrum and its u Relationship to Single-Carrier Transmission. 5. vol. Campanella. Vagliani. “Performance of OFDM With Modiﬁed RA Codes and Clipping. no. 2001. no. no. 4. vol. Lett. Nov.” IEEE J. Bussgang. IEEE. and M. B. 9. Gulliver. 680–683. 1996. G. 1586–1599. Casas and C. S. R. . Stivanello. vol. Carson and T. Cann. 440–442. 1. May 1989. and J. Aerosp. Venkatesh. 1974. 48. Cahn. “Comparison of Two Modulation Techniques using Frequency Domain Processing for In-House Networks.” IEEE Commun. “Analysis of Nonlinear Systems with Multiple Inputs. L.. 1. 39. no. Carron. pp.. 16. Nov. Bulumulla. 3. no. Cariolaro. pp. Consumer Electron. Commun. vol. no. Oct.” IRE Trans. [69] M. “A Systematic Approach to Detecting OFDM Signals in a Fading Channel. IEEE VTC.” in Proc. [74] G. vol. [68] C. 3–6. May 1959. Rohling.” IEEE Trans. Singapore. vol. Graham.” IEEE Trans. [72] G. vol. U. W. Ehrman. “Some Results on the Spectral Eﬃciency Improvement in Partial Response CPM Systems. USA. vol. Areas Commun. G. 874–877. Engles.. Michieletto. 2. 13. pp.” IEEE Trans. Electron. 2329–2332. no. May 1998.. 10. 6th ed. 9. “OFDM for Data Communication Over Mobile Radio FM Channels–Part I: Analysis and Experimental Results. [77] ——. [65] K. J. “An OFDM Scheme with a Half Complexity. V. Commun. [71] A. 53–58. vol. Kassam. pp. 2003. [67] J.” Proc. L. Apr. Commun. der Perre.153 [64] J.

4.” IEEE J. San Francisco. Dec. “Performance Analysis of Equalized OFDM Systems in Rayleigh Fading. Commun. Eleftheriou.. 6. 721–732. “Performance Analysis of Viterbi Decoder Using Channel State Information in COFDM System. Nov. jin Kang. Pottie. 169–171. Ol¸er. 14. Chung. no. J. W.” in Proc. vol.. [82] R. M. 1775–1796. [84] R. vol. May 1998. Chang.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans. and K. 2. 6. IEEE ISSPA. pp. Areas Commun. Chen and G. Cherubini. pp. no. “Multicarrier transmission in a mobile radio channel. Caswell. Wireless Commun. “A 20 Mbits/s OFDM Demodulator at 5 GHz: System Design. pp. “Eﬃcient Equalizers for Single and Multi-Carrier Environments with Known Symbol Padding. 45. Haimovich. 736–740. San Antonio. J. Dec. Chen and A. no. Castle and A.154 [78] R. 1962–1963. vol.” IEEE Commun. Kuala Lumpur. IEEE VTC.445. vol. 607–610. no. issued Jan. 2001. J. 1998. 4. vol. com-16. pp. IEEE Globecom. 1996. [79] A. “Filtered Multitone Modulation for Very High-Speed Digital Subscriber Lines. “An Orthogonal Projection-Based Approach for PAR Reduction in OFDM. Chang and E. Gibby. K.. Chang and R. 1966. Park. [89] W. 488–496. vol. Lett. 2. vol.” IEE Electr.” IEEE Commun. vol. 5.” Bell Syst. 32. vol. Lett. “Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing.” in Proc. June 2002. and S. Technol. 5. 5. pp. 1016–1028. C. Chang and Y. Moonen. 1966. 2002. “Synthesis of band-limited orthogonal signals for multichannel data transmission. W. pp. Powers. H. Lett. Oct. E. May 2002..488. pp. T. Jones. Chang. no. Aug. “A Theoretical Study of Performance of an Orthogonal Multiplexing Data Transmission Scheme. 7. no. 20. [86] S.” in Proc. 2001. [87] H.” IEEE Trans. Nov. 44. 2000. 1968. 21. IEEE Globecom. Aug.. 3080–3084.-M. J. [81] M. cheol Lee. vol. pp. “A Simpliﬁed Predistorter for Compensation of Nonlinear Distortion in OFDM Systems. 529–540. vol. ¨ c [90] C. Oct. 305–307. bae Kim. [88] H. [83] ——.-X.. Tech. 2. 1295–1299.” in Proc.. Cendrillion and M. pp. . Broadcast. Implementation and Experimental Results. no. ﬁled Nov. 7.. 1970. O. pp. pp. [80] R. E. 4. and J. Select. “Iterative Estimation and Cancellation of Clipping Noise for OFDM Signals. Su. Powers.” US patent 3. 1. Ottawa. [85] S. vol. A. July 2003. pp. “A Compensation Scheme for Nonlinear Distortion in OFDM Systems.

. pp. 2001. J. 773–775. vol. B. B. [102] L. [101] C. [99] J. pp. 1. Sollenberger. no. 5. [97] P. Tu.” in Proc. A. Chow. 9. no. Select. Cassara. Mag. pp. [100] J. Jr. Commun. “High-Speed Wireless Data Access Based on Combining EDGE with Wideband OFDM. 43. C. 7. pp. Commun. pp. J. 2–11. 1. Bingham.. vol. vol. Select. pp. no. and N. 895–908. 1999. “Analysis and Simulation of a Digital Mobile Channel Using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing. Mag. Areas Commun. J. 49. S. vol. vol. Cioﬃ. Daneshrad. SAC-5. pp. 92–98.” IEEE J.. Oct. Aug. “Clustered OFDM with Transmitter Diversity and Coding. C. 9. .” IEEE Trans. Areas Commun. Commun. M. A. 78–87.-I.. 1375–1387. vol. vol. pp. Beijing. 1. IEEE Globecom.” IEEE Trans. J. Broadcast. J. 244–251. G. Zhao. P. Wu. McNair. Jr.” in Proc. Cho. and J. pp. J. [96] P. “On Channel Estimation and Detection for Multicarrier Signals in Fast and Selective Rayleigh Fading Channels.. R. Mar.. Sollenberger. pp.-S. Mar. “Maximum-Likelihood Frequency Recovery for OFDM Signals Transmitted Over Multipath Fading Channels. 1996. Tu. Chuang. July 2000. no. and J. Voltz. [94] Y. L... and M. and S. 909–919. 879–889. Lin. 1998. L. June 1987. 629–632. Suzuki.-M. no./Mar. 665–675./Apr. vol. 703–707. Sollenberger. “Filtered Decision Feedback Channel Estimation for OFDM-Based DTV Terrestrial Broadcasting Systems. Cimini. 1991.” IEEE J. M. no. pp. no. N. vol.” IEEE Trans. Areas Commun. Feb. Chuang. 44...” IEEE Commun. “A Discrete Multitone Transceiver System for HDSL Applications. vol. and F. [98] J.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans. El-Tanany.” IEEE Trans. pp. July 1985. 44. Aug. [103] L. Nov. 1. Cimini. 2/3/4. vol. 1991. Li. Y. 8. 1998. [93] ——. Aug. Broadcast. London. Feb.155 [91] E. pp. 2. J.. Cioﬃ. [95] J. S. Chung and S. Chiavaccini and G. Jr.-D. Chow. 1999. C. 2004. Y. Commun. Chuang and N. 33. Vitetta. 12–21. [92] A. Mahmoud. C. Chow. H. M. “Beyond 3G: Wideband Wireless Data Access Based on OFDM and Dynamic Packet Assignment. 52. M.” IEEE Commun. Select. Choi. APCC/OECC. M. “The Eﬀects of Time Delay Spread on Portable Radio Communications Channels with Digital Modulation. Cimini. “A Practical Discrete Multitone Transceiver Loading Algorithm for Data Transmission over Spectrally Shaped Channels.. and J. S. “Hardware Nonlinearities in Digital TV Broadcasting Using OFDM Modulation. 1995. “Constant-Envelope Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing Modulation. Nov. “Performance Evaluation of a Multichannel Transceiver system for ADSL and VHDSL Services.. Chini.” IEEE J.. Cioﬃ.

12. Areas Commun. [111] E. vol.” in Proc. Areas Commun. no. Clanton. Mar. B. 50. June 2003. [117] ——. IEEE VTC. “Frequency-Modulation Distortion Caused by Multipath Transmission. G. May 2004.” IEEE Trans.. pp. “Maximum Likelihood Synchronization for OFDM Using a Pilot Symbol: Algorithms. 12. Dec. Select. Sollenberger. 1999. 2002. [114] S.” IEEE Trans. [113] ——. V. “Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction of an OFDM Signal Using Partial Transmit Sequences. no. and N. Dec.” IEEE Trans. 42. Cioﬃ and J. Lett.. Dec. “Low Overhead Pilot-Aided Synchronization for Single Carrier Modulation With Frequency Domain Equalization. 865–869. 4. . vol. Corrington. 3. V. 755–764.. 1994. Boston: [115] M. 1385–1395. Select.” IEEE Commun. 2068–2073.” in Proc. 8. 2853–2869.” Linux Journal. 2000. Advanced Techniques in RF Power Ampliﬁer Design. C. pp.” IEEE J. no. pp. Clark.. [109] M. C. 86–88. [108] I. vol. pp. 5.” IEEE J. and S. Commun. no.156 [104] L. “Speeding Up the Scientiﬁc Process. Feb. IRE. vol. 2001. Mar. Lett. Artech House. no.. 52. vol. [106] S. 2002. “A Low-Complexity Lattice-Based Low-PAR Transmission Scheme for DSL Channels. J. pp. pp. 878–891. IEEE Globecom. Czylwik. pp. 19.” IEEE J. [105] J. 1998.. Collings and I. “Impact of Ampliﬁer Nonlinearities on OFDM Transmission System Performance. 1936. pp. Areas Commun. Phoenix.” IEEE Commun. pp. 4.. 2486–2494. [107] M. 56–60. Sydney. vol. 10. Oct. 110. Nov. 16. 462–472. “Frequency Modulation Propagation Characteristics. Oct. 1998. vol. 2. M. Cimini. Pupolin. Midrio. J. IRE. [110] E. Cripps. 37–39. no. pp. May 1997. no. 1945. S. Commun. Select. vol. Clarkson. “M -QAM-OFDM System Performance in the Presence of Nonlinear Ampliﬁer and Phase Noise. vol. vol.” Proc. [116] A. Costa and S. Crosby. 2001. M. 19. 5. pp. A. “Maximum Likelihood Synchronization for OFDM Using a Pilot Symbol: Analysis. [112] A. 2. “A Data-Driven Multitone Echo Canceller. 2495–2503. no. Coulson. L. Commun. Costa. no. “Adaptive Frequency-Domain Equalization and Diversity Combining for Broadband Wireless Communications. Pupolin..” Proc. “Comparison Between Adaptive OFDM and Single Carrier Modulation with Frequency Domain Equalization. Jr. R. Bingham. pp. 3.

Select. Commun. Jedwab. May 2003. V. Davis and J. Tralli. pp. Nov. vol. Tralli. De Rose and D. Lett. vol. vol. 1997. pp. 7.” IEEE Trans. vol. “Peak-to-mean Power Control in OFDM. no. “Tamed Frequency Modulation. Lottici. vol. V.” IEEE Trans. 40. pp. “RF Power Ampliﬁer Linearization Through Amplitude and Phase Distortion. N. no. 1396–1408. de Jager and C. 33. 11. no. and Syst. “High-Speed Indoor Wireless Communications at 60 GHz with Coded OFDM. Debbah. Padua.. Prog.. Commun. pp. no. “Neural Net-Based Continuous Phase Modulation Receivers. Theory. Commun. June 2002. 2. [126] ——. D’Andrea.” IEEE Trans. Dabora.” IEEE Trans. 837–843. Ginesi. vol.. Commun. and H. Commun. Inform. no. Commun. “Nonlinear Predistortion of OFDM Signals over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels. 49. pp. and M. 2000.. vol. Aug. vol. 48. .” IEEE Trans. Messer./Mar. D’Andrea. 1999. Dekker./Apr. Dai and H. Signal Processing. [127] F. Nov. 1470–1482. [128] L. May 1978. 2397–2417.. 1477–1484. pp. Loubaton. Dardari. 1709–1721. Oct. pp. no. Sept. no. 9. May 2001. [120] A. Nov. Commun. 8. vol. 1995. [129] G. A Novel Method to Achieve Spectrum Economy in Digital Transmission. Lang. 5. pp.” IEE Electr. 1444–1448.” IEEE Trans. 534–542. 26. [119] H. 43. no. 6. A. [121] A. Feb. Zokhor. 11. vol. pp. 21. and U. [124] D. N. no. 286–323.. “Advanced Signal Processing for Power Line Communications. and A. 52.157 [118] R. “Inherent Limitations in Data-Aided Time Synchronization of Continuous Phase-Modulation Signals Over Time-Selective Fading Channels. pp. 41. 5. and R. [125] J.” IEEE Trans. 2004. Reggiannini. 45. 2/3/4. 1999.” ACM Trans. and Reed-Muller Codes. “A Theoretical Characterization of Nonlinear Distortion Eﬀects in OFDM Systems. de Courville. 267–268. 1996. Goldberg. J. 1992. 47.. vol. Poor. “Frequency Detectors for CPM Signals. no. 44. [130] M. A. Vaccari. Feb. vol. P. 100–107. [122] ——. “Asymptotic Performance of Successive Interference Cancellation in the Context of Linear Precoded OFDM Systems. [123] D.” IEEE Trans. 4.. “Techniques for the Translation of MATLAB Programs into Fortran 90. 1755–1764. no..” IEEE J. 5. 10. Mengali. B..” IEEE Commun. vol. no. Areas Commun. pp. 50. 1999. V. de Veciana and A. Mag. Mar. pp. pp. “Peak-to-mean power control and error correction for OFDM transmission using Golay sequences and Reed-Muller codes. 1828–1837. Golay Complementary Sequences.. Dardari and V. no.” IEEE Trans.

” IEEE Trans. Croft. E. o “OFDM Channel Estimation by Singular Value Decomposition. 2. 3. and P. [133] P. no. J. Nov. Jan. Deneire. S. pp. vol. Z. Dinur and D.-J. “Signal Space Representation of Binary Continuous Phase Modulated Signals. 2009–2018. Gusm˜o. Dural and J. Commun. Divsalar and M. 5. pp. [136] ——. Dinis and A. Leeds.. pp. Engels. Sandell. 52. no. “Multiple-Symbol Diﬀerential Detection of MPSK. J. J. NJ. “Carrier synchronization with CEPB-OFDM. Oct. vol. Edfors. 2. July 1998. [138] ——. [140] D. Commun. Sept. Lett. Commun. June 1993.” IEE Electr. van de. O. pp. vol. Ding. [135] R.” IEEE Trans. Wilson. [Online]. July 2001. 14–19. 3. vol. pp. 2004. vol.. Sept. 7. K. [143] O. 49. 29. Ma.” in High Frequency Postgraduate Student Colloquium. vol. vol. 534–537. pp.” in Proc. Kim. 2001. “A Robust Digital Baseband Predistorter Constructed Using Memory Polynomials. Dent. 300–308. 52. 1998. pp. 6.” IEEE Commun. “On the Performance Evaluation of OFDM Transmission Using Clipping Techniques. “Training Sequence versus Cyclic Preﬁx—A New Look on Single Carrier Communication. 1370–1374. Simon. Bottomley. Morgan.. “A discussion of the eﬀects of ampliﬁer back-oﬀ on OFDM. Dmochowski and P. 1. 2923–2928. D. Lett. J. IEEE VTC. Iezekiel. 791–796. 13. no. 1663–1667. [137] ——. Available: http://www. K. G. J. . 46. B. Atlantic City. IEEE VTC. [139] N. Giardina.” in Proc. and M. pp. 2001. Beek. and S. G. vol. [134] L. 7. Mar. Amsterdam. M. no. 1990. S. Pollard. 5. [141] B. no. and C. pp. R. Dixon.org/ [132] L.” IEEE Trans. “A Class of Nonlinear Signal-Processing Schemes for Bandwidth-Eﬃcient OFDM Transmission With Low Envelope Fluctuation. pp. A. BC. 38. T. G. 1999. [144] O.debian. R. no. [142] P.” Proc. 292–294. “Jakes Fading Model Revisited. pp. IEEE PACRIM. pp. June 2001. vol. Commun. 159–165. no.” in Proc.158 [131] Debian—The Universal Operating System.” IEEE Trans. “Performance evaluation of a multicarrier modulation technique allowing strongly nonlinear ampliﬁcation... 1999. IEEE ICC.. Commun. Proakis. 11. “Frequency Domain Equalization for High Data Rate Multipath Channels. 931–939. 3. “Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in High-Order OFDM. a IEEE VTC. vol. R.. 1063–1072. 2004. and T. May 1997. McLane. Victoria. D. Zhou. B¨rjesson. 1162–1163.” in Proc. Wulich. Gyselinckx. pp. vol. vol.” IEEE Trans. Kenny. Aug.

pp. vol. S. vol.. S.” IEEE Trans. M. Commun. Commun. “Peak to average power reduction for OFDM schemes by selective scrambling. 47. [153] D. L. 3.” in GPCE ’03: Proceedings of the second international conference on Generative programming and component engineering. Ding. Laurenti. ¨ c [149] E. II–200—II–203.. 3–19. “OFDM Uplink for Interactive Broadband Wireless: Analysis and Simulation in the Presence of Carrier. .. “Predetection Filtering Eﬀect on the Probability of Error of GMSK with Discriminator Detection in Mobile Radio Channels. pp.. Mar. Eetvelt. Apr. 5. Mag.. Falconer. no.” in The 2002 45th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems. 21. 104–107. pp. V. and V. M. [156] C. 2001. Veh. no.” IEEE Trans. and B. 49. vol. pp.” in Proc. May 1988. 2001. Lett. Oct. 20–31. no. Oct.. 1963–1964. pp. Multi. no. Aug. pp. [155] B. Mar. Springer-Verlag New York. [154] D.159 [145] P. Apr. Inc. vol. Tomlinson. Elphick. pp. K. [152] T. G. N.” IEEE Trans. [148] ——.. 2002. “A Multicarrier Architecture Based Upon the Aﬃne Fourier Transform. Technol. 2. Ol¸er. 37. [147] M. Mag. vol. Elnoubi. 2641–2645. 53. 1996. pp. 1. D. vol. Ariyavisitakul. 3. Y. “Design Methods for Time-Domain Equalizers in DMT Transceivers.” IEEE Commun. Erseghe.” in Proc.” IEE Electr. Farhang-Boroujeny and M.” IEEE Trans. “Partial evaluation of matlab. Leuschel.” IEEE Trans. 32. pp. Cellini. 1. 2002.. Commun. IEEE Wireless Pers. Farrow. 58–66. 88–94. Benyamin-Seeyar. 2. and H. L. Wu. Broadcast.. 2002. Broadcast. 554–562. 853–862. and M. Eissa.” IEEE Commun.. “Analytical Modeling and Simulation of a Phase Noise Interference in OFDM-Based Digital Television Terrestrial Broadcasting Systems.. 2003. W. H´zy. Espoo. 27–36. and L. El-Tanany. Falconer and S. 2001. vol. pp. Eleftheriou. “A Continuously Variable Digital Delay Element. no. “ARCTAN Diﬀerentiated Digital Demodulator for FM/FSK Digital Receivers. [146] H. vol. Ariyavisitakul. “Broadband Wireless Using Single Carrier and Frequency Domain Equalization. M. 344–363. “Frequency Domain Equalization for Single-Carrier Broadband Wireless Systems. Ragaie. Clock and Timing Errors. Eidson. [151] D. Sadjadpour. 1. Syst. 47. May 2005. 2004. Mar. and H. Finland. vol. no. and S. Sharaf. Wade. pp. S. Cox. pp. June 1988. Circuits. [150] S. “Application of Capacity-Approaching Coding techniques to Digital Subscriber Lines. A. IEEE Symp.

910–919. 1998. Fortier. pp. 35. Available: http://www. vol. Sept. 10. S. pp. 713–714. 8. “OFDM Signals with Low Crest-Factor. E. IEEE. [168] P.” in Proc. “Shaped BPSK and the 5 kHz UHF Satcom Channels. vol. 500–512.. M. 83. Floch. [169] M. Mar.” in Proc. pp. A. “Multitone Signals with Low Crest Factor. June 1995. pp. Marcellin. 5. “Parallel Combinatory OFDM Signaling. Circuits. and D. S. July 2001. 1989. Commun. 1. vol. Commun.com/ [161] B.” IEEE Trans. Ruiz.. no. 40. [158] J.. Freidhof and P. Fox and M. pp. 3. C.” IEE Electr. 6. vol. IEEE Milcom. 1338–1344. R. vol.” Proc. Ca˜ as. “A Method to Suppress High Peaks in BPSK-Modulated OFDM Signal. no. M¨ ller-Weinfurtner. Australia. 4. [171] ——. 4. M. pp. pp.” in Proc. vol. O’Reilly. 9. 34. “A Numerical Method for Spectral Shaping of CPM Signals. H. 558–567. L. M. F.. pp. Matrakidis. [165] S. “Multidimensional Signal Sets Through the Shell Construction for Parallel Channels. Frenger and N. 4. L. May 1998. Nov. and A. [170] ——. 2859–2863. no. “Digital Sound Broadcasting to Mobile Receivers.” Flarion Technologies. May 2000. a n “MPI Toolbox for Octave. Fischer. J. and F. Cioﬃ. Anguita. vol. 32. “Nonlinear Dynamics of First-order DPLL with FM Input.-J.” IEE Electr. “Coded u Modulation for Noncoherent Reception with Application to OFDM. Oct. “Multicarrier transmission peak-to-average power reduction using simple block code. 290–294. Sydney.. and J. vol. no. 982–996. A. Aug. Feely. vol. June 2004. and J. Lett. [160] “OFDM for Mobile Data Communications. pp. Floch. 45.. 1997. no. Litsyn. 3. Phoenix. 493–503. K. Commun. Alard. no.” IEEE Trans. A. Consumer Electron. 10. IEEE Globecom. [Online]. 47. vol. 2001. 477–480.ﬂarion. Havezov. Freiman. Castelain. 2004. Fern´ndex. E.” IEEE Trans. Geneva. Berrou. 1440–1443. pp. Apr. VECPAR. Rojas. Lampe. Nov. [163] P. pp. Svensson.” IEEE Trans. “Multicarrier modulation with low peak-to-average power ratio. and S. pp.” in Proc.. Velencia. [167] G. Technol.” in Proc. H. pp. Syst. and C.” IEEE Trans. Yudin. 953–954. [164] M. Lett.. 1992. J. Nov. Commun. no. no.160 [157] O.. Halbert-Lassalie. Mota. L. 1991. Ortigosa. vol. [162] B. Apr.” IEEE Trans. W. 1996. 326–332. Spain. Veh. no. 52. vol. 1997. Fragiacomo. 1999. Friese. “Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex. . IEEE Globecom. H. B. [159] R. IEEE Symp. [166] M.

Theory. Inform. 1996. Commun. 2. 1049–1050.. J.. Inform. vol. Gardner and J. no. Giﬀord. vol. Oct. A. 1. “On “The Optimal Linear Receiving Filter for Digital Transmission Over Nonlinear Channels”.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc. Apr. Nov.” IEEE Trans. Ghogho and A. no.” IEEE Trans. “Phaselock Loop Cycle Slipping Caused by Excessive Angle Modulation. 8. Lett. New York: [184] S. Aug. 219. J. Circuits Syst. pp. [177] F. Principles of Digital and Analog Communications.” IEEE Commun. vol. [179] W. 12. “Blind Frequency-Oﬀset Estimator for OFDM Systems Transmitting Constant-Modulus Symbols. II. New York: IEEE. 1307–1309.” IEEE Trans. vol. 2. 1989. Oct. IEEE Milcom. [183] J. “Analysis of the Eﬀect of Impulse Noise on Multicarrier and Single Carrier QAM Systems. 1216–1222. no. 1995.. 2002. pp. June 2000. Jan. Ed. 8. Kleider. 3. “OFDM Transmitter Power Ampliﬁer and PAR Reduction Performance: Measurement and Simulation. 1978. Cyclostationarity in Communications and Signal Processing. and J. P´ez-Barrello. vol. 13. pp. vol. no. Feb. Macmillan.” IEE Electr. 44. pp. J. A. Swami. Gardner. Sydney. [175] I. Theory. vol.. 1. Chuprun.” IEEE J. 2. M. [182] M. and S. vol. S. “Bit Error Rate Performance and Power Spectral Density of a Noncoherent Hybrid Frequency-Phase Modulation System. 2000. pp. Frigo. pp.” IEEE Trans.-G. Garcia. 42. Ghosh. Aug. pp.” IEEE Trans. 621–630. F. p. 591–595. pp. com-26. 42. 10. Commun. [180] I. no. Galton. M. 1991. no. no. Zazo. 46. “Pilot patters for channel a estimation in OFDM. 6.. Areas Commun. Heck. vol. vol. “On the degradation of OFDM-signals due to peak-clipping in optimally predistorted power ampliﬁers. [181] M.. 36. “Analog-Input Digital Phase-Locked Loops for Precise Frequency and Phase Demodulation. “A Model of Intermodulation Distortion in Non-Linear Multicarrier Systems. 145–147. 2002.. 2579–2587. 939–944. 1995. Gibson. Select. [176] M. no. 37. F. pp. D. [173] ——. 1994. . 1998. Ghareeb. Nov. Feb. 7. [178] W. Commun. 343–345. “On the Achievable Information Rate with Peak-Power-Limited Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing. vol. no.161 [172] ——. pp. IEEE Globecom. 1994.” in Proc. Lett. 276–284. [174] N. Gardner.

[195] N. R. J. Chuprun. Commun. New Orleans. 1994. Commun. [188] GNU Octave. pp. no. no. May 1994. Giﬀord. Feb.org/ [189] Gnuplot. 1034–1038. Dinis. June 1999. [191] L. vol. pp. no. [Online]. Gusm˜o. vol. Available: http://www. 2. New Orleans. Gimlin and C. pp. 843–847. [186] D. and D. vol.” IEEE Trans. Haas and S. Lett. BC Canada. J. and N. Y. Patisaul. vol. IEEE ICC. Esteves. 1.” in Proc..” IEEE Trans. J. P. Available: http://www. Gusm˜o. [194] R. [Online].gnuplot. Goldfeld. Apr. B. “On Minimizing the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of the Sum of N Sinusoids.” IEEE Trans. IEEE Milcom. Commun. “On Frequency Domain Equalization and a Diversity Combining for Broadband Wireless Communications. Dinis.” in Proc. pp. Lyandres. Grant and R. 1919–1928./Apr. V.” IEEE Commun. Kaiser. IEEE ICC. R. R. Boston: [193] A. vol. 5. vol. and A. 4. 41. [196] A. “Two-Dimensional Diﬀerential Demodulation for OFDM. vol. “SNR and Spectral Properties for a Clipped DMT ADSL Signal. vol. [187] A.octave. May 1998. “Comparison of Two a c˜ Modulation Choices for Broadband Wireless Communications. pp. 50. Glavieux. 11. IEEE VTC. [197] A. D.. 1729–1733. R. “Broadband OFDM Using 16-bit Precision on a SDR Platform. Esteves. pp.. 134–136.162 [185] S./Mar. and N. “Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing with BFSK Modulation in Frequency Selective Rayleigh and Rician Fading Channels. Mittelbach. 2003. Commun. Picart. pp. Kleider. Guo and L. July 2003.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc. “Coded Modulation with Non-Standard Signal Sets for Wireless OFDM Systems.” IEEE Trans. pp. The L TEXCompanion. 7.” in Proc. Gross and D. and A. 2. Addison-Wesley. 42. 180–184. 1300–1305. 51. Milstein. vol. 2.. pp. no. [198] E. A [192] M. Goossens. May 2000. Veeneman. 1994. Cochet. Goeckel. Vancouver.. van Nee. pp. “Minimum BER Power Loading for OFDM in Fading Channel. June 2000. 2. 2/3/4. 2.” in Proc. Oct.info/ [190] D. pp. no. Commun. E. 580–586. vol. and S. 631–635. L. Tokyo. vol. 2001. 791–795. Nov. 1993. 1029–1033. . 2002. no. 51. F. Concei¸ao. Apr. IEEE ICC. Wulich.. “The Impact of Nonlinear Ampliﬁcation of Multi-Code CDMA Systems. Samarin. 2. “Eﬃcient Maximum-Likelihood Decoding of Q-ary Modulated Reed–Muller Codes.

. 1844–1845. [207] B. [201] L. Yang.” IEEE Trans. Jan.. 268–272. 52. Technol. K. [206] W. W. vol. Giannakis. 11. vol. Jr. no. Wagner.newty. Mar. E. [212] J. no. Haddad. “Maximizing the Channel Capacity of Multicarrier Transmission by Suitable Adaptation of the Time-Domain Equalizer. Harmuth. Heath. “On the Transmission of Information by Orthogonal Time Functions. 4. vol. Commun.” in Proc. pp. vol. “An Orthogonally Multiplexed QAM System using the Discrete Fourier Transform. 3..” AIEE. IEEE VTC.” IEEE Trans. 1.. 79. vol. pp. “An Analysis of Automatic Equalizers for Orthogonally Multiplexed QAM Systems.” IEEE Trans.de/zip/e− fpt.” IEEE Trans. Jan. Hanzo. vol. 1992. 587–592. Nov. Commun. pp. 248–255.” 2003. no. pp. H¨eher. Nov.. [211] J. 1980. 73–83. “Power Optimization of OFDM Systems with dc Bias Controlled Nonlinear Ampliﬁers. 4. Commun. 6. July 1960. [208] ——. com-34. and G. Henkel and T. no. “The Function Pointer Tutorials. Henkel and B. 2000. and G. [203] P. E. vol.” IEEE Trans. 29. 2004.” IEEE Trans. 12. Stark. 2000. 2001. Sept. Commun.pdf [200] J. [202] H. Dec. 2000–2004. no. F. pp. com-28. pp.” IEEE Trans. vol. no. Stark. and T. and A. 48.and Multi-carrier Quadrature Amplitude Modulation. Sept. 982–989. Hirosaki. [210] P. hong Jong. vol. Commun. 48.. Haendel. pp. vol. “PLL FM Demodulator Performance Under Gaussian Modulation. W. [209] B. [205] W. 46. B. W. I.. Trans. 1471–1476. 1999. “Accurate Computation of the Performance of M -ary Orthogonal Signaling on a Discrete Memoryless Channel. Available: http://www. Hamkins. Single. Webb. 1999. Speech. 47.” IEEE Trans. 168–179. pp. vol.” IEEE Trans. Kessler. S.. “Exploiting Input Cyclostationarity for Blind Channel Identiﬁcation in OFDM Systems. no. Commun. Commun. Hasan. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 1. 1. Apr. 848–856. July 1981. 1998.. 437–440. no. vol. 9. no. “A Statistical Discrete-Time Model for the WSSUS Multipath o Channel. Signal Processing. Hasegawa. pp. Keller. 7. hong Jong and W. pp. 461–468..” IEEE Trans.. June 1986. Veh. pp. . “Another Application for Trellis Shaping: PAR Reduction for DMT (OFDM). [Online]. Commun. Hirosaki. pp. Sabato. 2001. 41. “Advanced Groupband Data Modem Using Orthogonally Multiplexed QAM Technique.163 [199] L. [204] R. “Performance Analysis of Coded Multicarrier Spread-Spectrum Systems in the Presence of Multipath Fading and Nonlinearities. 49. Acoust. Amsterdam. no.

1. no.. pp. 1075–1077. Hughes. Huang and Y. no. “Peak power reduction method for multicarrier transmission. [216] X. [217] L. Apr. Apr. R. Lu. Available: http://ieeexplore. 1992. Zheng. [Online]. 2001. [226] S. 433–436. Lett. “Channel Estimation for OFDM Systems Based on Comb-Type Pilot Arrangement in Frequency Selective Fading Channels. Nov.. vol. vol. “Complementary Sequences of Length 26.com/ [222] IEEE Xplore.” IEE Electr. 37. D. Chuang. 1151–1156. “On the PAR Reduction of OFDM Signals Using Multiple Signal Representation.” IEEE Trans. “Iterative Cyclic Preﬁx Reconstruction for Coded Single-Carrier Systems with Frequency-Domain Equalization (SC-FDE). Irshid and I. vol. Available: http://www. S. 154–157. Apr. 2003. Hwang. pp. 40. Wei. no. “A Simple Upper Bound on the Error Probability for Orthogonal Signals in White Noise. 8. S. C. 17.. [227] A. vol. [Online]. vol. vol. .-H. Commun.ibiquity. 323. vol. I. [221] Ibiquity—Digital Radio. Jayalath and C. [224] Y. 11. Lett. 34. pp.. pp.org/ [223] M. 39. pp.” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications. [214] X. Jain.” IEEE Trans. “Bit Error Probability for Coherent M -ary PSK Systems. [225] P. Commun. vol.-S.ieee. Li.-H. no. 670. “A Numerical Method for Evaluating the Distortion of Angle-Modulated Signals in a Time Domain. “The PAM Decomposition of CPM Signals with Integer Modulation Index. 4. 543–546. 1. Zheng. [219] T. “Reduction of peak-to-average power ratio of OFDM signals with companding transform.. July 1962. Mar. 1998. 4. and J. p. pp. [218] C. 1974. J. J. Inform. Huang. Symp. “Tradeoﬀs Between BER Performance and PAPR Reduction for Broadband OFDM Transmission with Signal Processing. 1991.” IEE Electr. 1. J. 2001. 8. 506–507. Aug. vol. IEEE VTC. 1841–1845.. no. 217–225. Ikeda. it-20. Jaugegui. Gu. Huang. vol. pp. Iwanami and T. [215] X.” in Proc. pp. Lu. no. no. vol. 7. “Error Probabilities in Binary Angle Modulation. and J. N. 44. 51. July 2004. Li. no. IEEE Circuits Syst. Commun. June 2004.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans. 2002. [220] ——. 2003. Feb. 1986. pp. Solous. 36–42.” IEEE Trans. Athaudage. 425–427. 37. J. Inform.” IEEE Commun. 3. “A Bandwidth Eﬃcient Block Transmission with Frequency-Domain Equalization. 4. no. 3. vol. it-8. Apr. Jan.164 [213] H. p.” in Proc. 349–352.. pp. no.” IEEE Trans.. Hsieh and C. Commun. G. W.. Lett. Hwang and Y. Theory. Theory. 2. vol. Consumer Electron. pp. Oct.

” IEEE Trans. 3. Banerjee. 2001. no. S. Mag. Chang. no.” IEEE Trans. Joisha. [237] A. 276–284. E. and S. 1293–1294. Jayalath and C. Lee. GA. 1161–1163. 47. com-29. [240] D. G. 1997. vol. 949–952. Lett. Commun. T. A.. 31. pp. pp. Sept. vol. E. “An Adaptive Data Predistorter for Compensation of Nonlinear Distortion in OFDM Systems. vol. July 1997. pp. no. [235] D. Aug. 49. no. Jones and T. 27–40. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Jeong. pp. 3. S. Methodology. [236] P. pp. K. “An Equalization Technique for Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing Systems in Time-Variant Multipath Channels.” IEE Electr. [238] ——. vol. 1167–1171. Jones. “Comment: M-sequences for OFDM peak-to-average power ratio reduction and error correction.165 [228] A. vol.” IEE Electr. 45.. pp. vol. C. Jan. and Y.” IEEE Trans. Choudhary. Commun. 1981. D.. Jeon. Barton. Commun. U. 47. 904–908. 2005.. and K. Tellambura. 2.. Wilkinson. and Techniques. vol. Park. H. “Peak Power Reduction in OFDM and DMT via Active Channel Modiﬁcation. Shenoy. “Performance of Reed–Muller Codes and a Maximum-Likelihood Decoding Algorithm for OFDM. 27–32. Atlanta. Mar. pp. 1. N. Oct. [233] M.. H. 2. 15. 13. pp. Lett. Dec. IEEE VTC. A. “Performance Improvement Techniques for CCK-OFDM WLAN Modem. S17–S22. pp. [232] W. no. Hwang. “Reducing the peak-to-average power ratio of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing signal through bit or symbol interleaving. and S. . 2098–2099. Jedwab. pp. “Block coding scheme for reduction of peak to mean envelope power ratio of multicarrier transmission schemes. Johnston and S. “Complement Block Coding for Reduction of Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of OFDM Signals. 2003. Balaban. Lett. Wilkinson. Jones. P. Jones. 1999... pp.” in Conference Record of the Asilomar Conference on Signals. “Handling Context-Sensitive Syntactic Issues in the Design of a Front-end for a MATLAB Compiler. “Spectrally Eﬃcient Communication via Fading Channels Using Coded Multilevel DPSK. 1994. Simulation of Communication Systems—Modeling. “Combined Coding for Error Control and Increased Robustness to System Nonlinearities in OFDM. H. Jeruchim. Consumer Electron. [234] T. 25. 1996. K. [239] A. vol. 3. [231] ——.” in Proc.” IEEE Trans. 1076–1079. P. Zhu. 602–605.. Apr. S. Jiang and G. Commun. Paciﬁc Grove. K. A. 33. Systems and Computers. Cho. 2nd ed. A. 36. 30. no. no. [230] W. July 1999. vol. [229] J. Kanhere. 7. G. no. Shanmugan. June 2000. 1999. 10. vol. Mar. pp. and A.” IEEE Trans. L. Oct.” APL Quote Quad. vol. no.” IEE Electr. 2000.” IEEE Commun.

Select. Commun. 1991. [253] G. pp. Kalet. IEEE VTC. no. pp.. Trachtman. “Simple Coherent Receiver for Partial Response Continuous Phase Modulation. Kabal and S. G. pp. June 1998.” IEE Electr. “Laurent’s Representation of Binary Digital Continuous Phase Modulated Signals with Modulation Index 1/2 Revisited. Kalet. and ISI Cancellation Techniques in Digital Radio Systems with Nonlinear Transmit Ampliﬁers. no. 1999. vol. “On Compensating Nonlinear Distortions of an OFDM System Using an Eﬃcient Adaptive Predistorter. Aug. Sari. “The Multitone Channel. Z. 11. Shitz. Equalization. pp. no. Kaleh. vol.. Kang and E. no. 34. pp. 1975. 1989. [245] G. and Y. vol. Commun. Feb.. W. com-23. Dec. Kang and W. 39. 2.. 10. [246] R. 1986. 7. 1966.” IEEE Commun. no. Ju and S. 1129–1133. Haddad./Mar. [249] I. 1245–1253. Technol. 37. Baruch. 2. Thomas. [247] G. 1992. vol. Feb. Oct.” IEEE Trans. . 34.. Nov. pp. Commun. S. vol.-J. S. Youn. “Partial-Response Signaling.. 921–934. Kahn and J.” IEEE Trans. Commun. 1989. 1989. 2. 336–344. Jung and P. Song. W. Jung. Y. “A Robust Channel Equalizer for OFDM TV Receivers. 13.. Feb. “Examples of Continuous Phase Modulation Using Discriminator Detection. 894–898. pp.” IEEE Trans. [251] M. vol. Commun. 47. 37. Karam and H. 1292–1293. Dec. “On the Representation of CPM Signals by Linear Superposition of Impulses in the Bandpass Domain. B. and D. vol. 8. Feb. pp. pp. 4. no. Areas Commun.” in Proc.” IEEE Trans. pp. 1427–1436. [242] P. M. 14. Select. vol. 2. vol. pp. Apr. Kang. 1148–1150. no. Cho. H. Consumer Electron. 12. May 1997. Sept.” IEEE Trans. “Diversity and Equalization in Frequency Domain—A Robust and Flexible Receiver Technology for Broadband Mobile Communication Systems. Kadel. 1998.” IEEE Trans. E. vol. Lett. vol. K. [248] I. vol.166 [241] S. [254] ——. Joo. [250] H. no. “Clipping on COFDM With Phase On Demand. “Bandwidth Properties and Optimum Demodulation of Single-Sideband FM. Commun... 49–51. pp. Commun. 9. no. [252] S. H. Leung. 2. Apr. pp.. [243] P. “OFDM system with linear-phase transmultiplexer. Phoenix. 3. no. [244] P..” IEEE Trans. 7.” IEEE Trans. Commun. 42. “Analysis of Predistortion.. “A Data Predistortion Technique with Memory for QAM Radio Systems. 2/3/4. no. 9. K. 1236–1242.” IEEE J.” IEEE J. 522–526. Baier. 2003. no. 44. Lett./Apr. A. 119–124. 1994. Areas Commun.-S. pp. 113–117.. no.” IEEE Trans. 221–224. vol. vol. Pasupathy.

A. no. pp. T. Feb. and H. Kozek and A. “Broadband Wireless Access Solutions Based on OFDM Access in IEEE 802. G. and M. 20. J. 495–509. pp.16.” IEEE Trans. pp. Hanzo. L. pp. Signal Processing... D. Jan. 3. 2. J. Hanzo. L. vol. Chang. 5. no. Areas Commun. Fukuhara. St¨ ber. 2. no. “Analysis and Compensation of Bandpass Nonlinearities for Communications. vol. 23. . “Adaptive Multicarrier Modulation: A Convenient Framework for Time-Frequency Processing in Wireless Communications. 611–640. Kobayashi. H. Kleider. July 2001. no. Kaye. Kim.” IEEE Commun.” IEEE Trans. IEEE ICASSP. Select.. Commun.. and L. vol. Areas Commun. 1998. and S.167 [255] A. [262] J. Apr. Commun. 16. 16.” IEEE Commun. Kang. 19. 1998.” IEEE J. Select. 1999. “Performance of Multicarrier DS CDMA Systems. P. Oct. Sept... Daly. Maalouli. 48. I. 2002. Keller. Areas Commun.. A [266] H. 2004. A Guide to L TEX. IEEE VTC. [263] H. Koﬀman and V. [258] D. 88. “Proposal of Single Carrier OFDM Technique with Adaptive Modulation Method. vol. Mag. pp. W. Jones. no.” Proc. Kim and G. “A Bandwidth Eﬃcient OFDM Transmission Scheme. B. 6. Technol. 4–6. Powers. no. “Residual ISI Cancellation for OFDM with u Applications to HDTV Broadcasting. 3. “Preamble and Embedded Synchronization for RF Carrier Frequency-Hopped OFDM. pp. no.” in Proc. pp. no. pp. [268] B. 5. “Clipping Noise Mitigation for OFDM by Decision-Aided Reconstruction. Keller and L. pp. Mandarini. vol. May 2000. [264] I. vol. Veh. E. Kim. vol. J. May 2002. H. Lett. 3. 1999. Song. no. Chuprun. Technol. Piazzo. H. Yuan. “Nonorthogonal Pulseshapes for Multicarrier Communications in Doubly Dispersive Channels. 1972.” IEEE J. Giﬀord. 96–103. 1999. Molisch. G. 1. Select. pp.” in Proc. 238–246. 965–972. L. 2003. no. [259] ——.” IEEE J. 1590–1599. vol. T. “An Active-Set Approach for OFDM PAR Reduction via Tone Reservation. 1610–1615. [260] J. vol. vol.” IEEE Trans. R. M. Oct. Kim. S. [256] T. Kim. Eric. pp. 1996. Apr. IEEE. Milstein. [257] T. George. Roman. 52. F. vol. 5. Select. vol. and Y. 5. and E.” IEEE J. S. 8. London: Addison-Wesley. pp.. [265] S. Kopka and P. Areas Commun. pp. Feb. 999–1008. “Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex Synchronization Techniques for Frequency-Selective Fading Channels. Krongold and D. “Performance Analysis of a Coded OFDM System in Time-Varying Multipath Rayleigh Fading Channel. 8. Oct. iii–2329–iii–2332. 44. 1579–1589. 1915–1919. May 2005..” IEEE Trans. 920–931. Kondo and L. Takeuchi. [261] Y. [267] W.

vol. 2000. Commun. 2003. Broadcast.. K. T. Sept. 3. Lassing. Meyr. July 1996. 2005. vol.” in Proc. [279] P. 11. pp. N. Nov. vol. 395–399. Sept. 2255–2259. 1996. pp.” IEEE Commun. Berlin.” IEEE Trans. pp. 2. Speth. vol. pp. 1998..” Physics Letters A. Lee. vol. Learning the vi Editor. and C. Dec. Lashkarian. Lambrette. Broadcast./Mar. 6th ed. vol. 2. “Reducing Out-of-Band Emissions Due to Nonlinearities in OFDM Systems.” in Proc. S. no. 165–171.-Commun. Tokyo. Prasad. [278] V. no. Str¨m. com-30. Commun. 1982. 1986. C. Pupolin. Lazzarin. A. vol. Feb. and T. 1994. “The physical nature of information. 1.” IEEE Trans. pp. IEEE VTC. Lett. and A. 44. 11. Lamb and A. [281] M. 2. vol. no. E. “Peak-to-average ratio (PAR) reduction by Walsh-code selection for IS-95 and CDMA2000 systems. E. Dick. Oct. 1. Sarti. pp.” IEEE Trans. Tarn. no. [276] N... 49. pp. “Pre-Distorted Ampliﬁers for OFDM In Wireless Indoor Multimedia Communications. vol. Robbins. Agrell. pp. Mar.” IEEE Trans. no. 6. vol.” IEE Proc. pp. June 1998. vol. Commun. [275] R. [271] H. 361–364. 10. Commun. Rohling. Le and L. “OFDM Burst Frequency Synchronization by Single Carrier Training Data. “A Novel Digital FM Receiver for Mobile and Personal Communications. [272] L. [273] U. 1758–1760.” IEEE Trans. 150–160. M. 1466–1476. 34. Nov. May 1999. [270] M. Feb. Kwon and K. Kuipers and R. “PAR Reduction in OFDM via Active Constellation Extension. Laurent. K. in press. [277] J. no. Commun. B. “Performance Analysis of Digital Tanlock Loop. 258–268. IEEE VTC.. “Computation of the Exact o Bit-Error Rate of Coherent M -ary PSK With Gray Code Bit Mapping. 2/3/4. and H. . [274] M. [282] J. 188–193. no. pp. “Crest Factor Reduction in Multi-carrier WCDMA Transmitters. 147. Lee and C. [280] G. 46–48. 988–999. pp. 51. “Performance Evaluation of CEOFDM for Digital Audio Broadcasting Part II: Eﬀects of HPA Nonlinearities. “Nonlinearity Compensation in Digital Radio Systems. Landauer. Lampe and H. H. E.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc... M.” IEEE Trans. 42. IEEE PIMRC. vol. Ottoson.168 [269] ——. Beijing: O’Reilly./Apr. 44. “Exact and Approximate Construction of Digital Phase Modulations by Superposition of Amplitude Modulated Pulses (AMP). 2003. Houston. Un. Thibault. 2398–2411. Lau. 217. May 2000.. 3. no. no. pp. G. 1997.

554–555.” IEEE Signal Processing Lett.. Lett. 49. Dec. [284] R. 12. pp. “Bounds on the Interchannel Interference of OFDM in Time-Varying Impairments. 67–75. S. vol. Commun. G. “Eﬀects of Time Selective Multipath Fading on OFDM Systems for Broadband Mobile Applications. vol. no. Lee and D. vol. [295] Y. Liu.” IEEE Trans. Sollenberger. 33. no. Feb. 1999. no. 4. 2/3/4. “Communication Theory Vs Communications. 3. Kavehrad. pp. Li and M. G. vol.” IEEE Trans. 17. 6. 857–858. 49. Li and L. Li and L. 2001. [285] S. Jr. no. pp. Areas Commun. no... vol. “Time-Limited Orthogonal Multicarrier Modulation Schemes. Jr. 41. [287] J. [288] R. “Simpliﬁed Channel Estimation for OFDM Systems with Multiple Transmit Antennas. H. “Transmitter Diversity for OFDM Systems and Its Impact on High-Rate Data Wireless Networks. no. 80–82. R. McLaughlin. com-20. no. B. 1233–1243. pp.. no. “Eﬀects of Clipping and Filtering on the Performance of OFDM. July 1962. 2002. no. Commun.” IEE Electr. 2001. pp. pp. Cruickshank. . July 2005. Leung. pp. IEEE VTC. pp. Giannakis. Lett.” IEE Electr. 1. Wireless Commun..” IEEE Commun. vol. Lett. Bi. no. J. 401–404. G.. it-8. 131–133. 1269–1272.. pp. G. 1726–1727. pp. [289] X. Select./Mar. [293] Y. Li and J..” IEEE J.169 [283] J. vol. “Pilot-Symbol-Aided Channel Estimation for OFDM in Wireless Systems. M. S. Dec. vol. “Eﬀects of Clipping and Filtering on the Performance of OFDM. Dec.. Ju. Li and G. July 1999. Lett.” IEE Electr. 25.” IEEE Trans. Li. 38. vol. [291] X. no. Lett. 15. 1063–1073. and D.” IEEE Trans. pp. [296] Y. Mar. 7.. “Algorithm for repeated clipping and ﬁltering in peak-to-average power reduction for OFDM. Li. C. Commun. Li. Cimini. Stette. Chuang. Veh. G. pp. [292] Y. S. pp. 2002. Lerner. M. Technol. “Carrier Frequency Oﬀset Estimation for OFDM-Based WLANs. 7. G. and N. vol. no. 2.” IEEE Commun. Woodring. May 1997. 43. 1634–1638. G. Mar. 1972. 332–334. Li. Cimini. 3. J. “M-sequences for OFDM peak-to-average power ratio reduction and error correction. 1. A. 5.. Theory.. J. 1997. “Considerations of Nonlinear Eﬀects in Phase-Modulation Systems. 1995. 4. Mar.” IEEE Trans. 323–325.. no. 8. vol. July 2000. May 1998. 3. “Bandwidth eﬃcient single carrier systems with frequency domain equalisation. vol. 1207–1215.” in Proc.. 3. Inform.” IEEE Trans. vol. M. and G. and G. [294] ——. vol. [286] J. Ritcey. pp./Apr. [290] ——.

and N. no. “A High-Eﬃciency Carrier Estimator for OFDM Communications. and R. Apr. East. Sollenberger. [303] Y. pp. pp. J. Lin and A. “Adaptive Antenna Arrays for OFDM Systems with Cochannel Interference. [308] H.. 1329–1336. R. Aug. Ariyavisitakul. Li and N. “Considerations on Applying OFDM in a Highly Eﬃcient Power Ampliﬁer. 46. Shark. no. Apr. G.. 1999. [306] L. 983–995.” IEEE Trans. 2. and J. vol. R.” IEEE Trans.-M. 443–447.” IEEE Trans. Jong. 5. 1999. vol. pp. II. pp. 1989. vol. 1972. 461–471. D. no. Phoong. IEEE ICASSP. Aug. 1461–1466. M. 3. “Robust Channel Estimation for OFDM Systems with Rapid Dispersive Fading Channels. Oct. “Towards High Performance Modeling of the 802. Liu. pp. Cimini. 217–229.-H.” IEEE Trans. June 2000. P. “L-Orthogonal Signal Transmission and Detection. vol. Aug. Sollenberger. J. no..” IEEE Potentials. no. no. vol. G. 1702–1711.-P. 6. 6. 48. 902–915. and S.. pp. Mar. Cheng. L. [301] D. Liu.” IEEE J. N. S. no. July 1998. Lau. 11. 3. [302] R.. Lin and S. G. “Perfect Discrete Multitone Modulation with Optimal Transceivers. 17. Commun. Lin.. vol. “An introduction to multicarrier modulation. “The Eﬀect of Nonlinearity on a QPSK-OFDM-QAM Signal.. Perrone. 1997. 20. 43. “Wide-Band Digital Subscriber Access with Multidimensional Block Modulation and Decision-Feedback Equalization.. 8. no. Areas Commun. Circuits Syst. 47. Seshadri.” IEEE Commun. 4.” IEEE Trans. pp. [307] C. Consumer Electron. iv–229–iv–232. . no. 7. pp. Lilgenstarn. Liu. 2003. 104–106. pp. Commun. “Channel Estimation for OFDM Systems with Transmitter Diversity in Mobile Wireless Channels. 47. vol. 7. pp. [309] J. Apr. Microwave Theory Tech. 953–960. 1998. 2. and M. [305] W. W. May 2005. L. Li. Li. 36–38. vol.-L. Liu and U. Lindsey and M. C. 2. Select.” IEEE Trans. Select. “Nonlinear Ampliﬁer Eﬀects in Communications Systems. IEEE Winter Simulation Conf. VA./May 2000. Nicol. vol. vol. Feb. pp.11 Wireless Protocol.” in Proc. pp. 54. Tureli. “MMSE OFDM and Preﬁxed Single Carrier Systems: BER Analysis. Liang. 996–1005. R. [299] Y. 46. Veh.-P. K.” IEEE Trans. 1315–1320. W. vol. [300] C.. Commun. pp.” in Proc. Arlington. [310] W.170 [297] Y. J. vol. Signal Processing. no. no. [298] Y. Dec.. Petropulu. 2001. 1999. “Linear Precoding Assisted Blind Channel Estimation for OFDM Systems. Simon. 3. Jr. pp. Litwin. 4.. Areas Commun. E.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE J. [304] ——. 1999. Lett. Technol. vol. G.

vol.” IEEE Trans. [317] X. Ma. Marsaglia. Makrakis and K. vol. Theory. “Maximum-Likelihood Sequence Estimation for Digital Signaling in the Presence of Intersymbol Interference. Apr. Liu. [315] J. Adachi.” IEEE Trans. 26. 2005. L. Kobayashi. Luise and R. 4.” IEEE Trans. pp. 1590–1598.” IEEE Trans.. Ludman. Oct. 1–7. June 2004. 7. Veh. W. Nov. and Y. vol. “Seeds for Random Number Generators. 9. pp. pp. 2003. Commun. Huang. no.” in Proc. 1. T. Theory. pp. May 2003. [316] M. 6. “Maximum Diversity in Single-Carrier Frequency-Domain Equalization.171 [311] Z. [324] G. Apr. “Optimal Noncoherent Detection of PSK Signals.. com-29. 180–182. pp. no. 1519–1522. Tsang. Magee and J. Commun. 44. Lu. 2937–2940. no. 213–225. G. [319] D. vol. [318] F. L. “Gray Code Generation for MPSK Signals. vol. no. Anchorage.” IEEE Trans. pp. 11. [322] G. “Cyclic Preﬁxed Single Carrier and Multicarrier Transmission: Bit Rate Comparison. vol. [314] J. vol. [320] G. pp.. Feher. 1990. 49.” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun. pp. Marsaglia and W. no. and T. Tsang. “Subband Methods for OFDM Equalization. “Carrier Frequency Acquisition and Tracking for OFDM Systems.” IEE Electr. 8. 4. 172–184. Tjhung. no. “BER Performance of OFDM-MDPSK System in Frequency-Selective Rician Fading with Diversity Reception. 2002. Technol. July 2000. Louveaux. Reggiannini. Schwartz.” Commun. Sartenaer. 1973. . Zaman. “The Ziggurat Method for Generating Random Variables. E. 2239–2243. Lett. and C. pp. 35–39. R. 51. 2003. “Sinusoidal Transforms in OFDM Systems. 2. 2003. 1.. vol. Li. 50. Mandyam. “Iterative Receivers for Space–Time Block-Coded OFDM Systems in Dispersive Fading Channels. [323] G. pp. 1996. Lu. Mar. X. no.” Statistics & and Probability Letters. 3. 2. Fu. no. Broadcast. pp. Vandendorpe. H. Lett. [313] B. ACM... D. C. 5. Marelli and M. 90–93. Wang. Jan.” IEEE Commun. vol. no. and S.. G. vol. [312] J. Marsaglia. 19. 5. Inform. Inform. 8. Proakis. F. IEEE ICC. vol.” Journal of Statistic Software. no. pp. Sept. 1990. and W. Aug. IEEE PIMRC. “Eﬀect of Frequency Oﬀset on BER of OFDM and Single Carrier Systems. W.” in Proc. no. vol. 1216–1225. 1981.” IEEE Trans. pp. “Toward a Universal Random Number Generator. 46. 2350–2354. 2000. [321] D. A. 398–400. pp. 120–124.

41. 44. Lett. 9.172 [325] M.” in Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Domain-Speciﬁc Languages. and C. 12. pp.” in Proc. Sept. 1998.. E. Masry. Nonlinearity. pp. “Eﬀect of Amplitude Clipping in DMT-ADSL Transceivers. 182–190. Garc´ “OFDM Performance in Ampliﬁer a ıa. Available: http://www. R. 52–62. vol. pp. “Decomposition of M -ary CPM Signals into PAM Waveforms. “Reducing the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in OFDM Radio Transmission Systems. T. Younce. W. [328] Mathematica. “Distortionless Demodulation of Narrow-Band Single-Sideband Angle Modulated Signals. vol. . 1662–1672. pp. Mar.” IEEE Trans.. vol.” IEEE Trans. Menon and K. 1999. Rohrs. July 1993. 5.. 1968.. IEEE PIMRC. pp. [331] T. 1011–1020. Spruyt. “Comments on: “Reduction of peak-to-average power ratio of OFDM system using a companding technique”. Maseng.” in Proc. “A Case for Source-Level Transformations in MATLAB. E.” IEEE Trans. “Digitally Phase Modulated (DPM) Signal. vol. 16. and T. 1265–1275. vol. Technol. Commun. Engels. 33.” IEEE Trans. 911–918.” IEEE Trans. Mendenhall. “Spectral Properties of Single-Sideband Angle Modulation. vol. vol. 5. Wilkinson. Rohling.wolfram. no. 1977. pp. vol. E. G. no. Feb. M. [336] V.” IEEE Trans. [334] P. “A Multicarrier System Based on the Fractional Fourier Transform for Time–Frequency-Selective Channels. 49.. no. 53–65. 1354–1355. Oct. [333] J. 582–591. 29. 3. Theory. 1996. Sept. June 2001.. no. McDonnell and T. 2774–2478. Mazo and J. 3. [338] D. M. Austin. [327] E. Mattsson. May.. P. [332] J. 15. [337] S. Inform. vol. A. 106–114. Armada. [335] U. Merch´n. Mestdagh. pp. 1. Salz. Broadcast. no. Mengali and M. no. 2. and B. 6. and J. Morelli.” IEEE Trans. and V. pp. L. no.. 45. [330] T. 4. vol. pp. Feb. Pingali. H. 1. G. 1995. [Online]. Melsa. 418–419. 1088–1091. Theory. C. [326] T. vol. Sept. 1985. Commun. Commun. no.” IEEE Trans. Commun. pp. 44. pp. Dittmer.com/ [329] A. Rohling. Inform. Martone. Broadcast. Biran. 46. “Impulse Response Shortening for Discrete Multitone Transceivers. “Comparison of Computational Complexity of Adaptive Equalization and OFDM for Indoor Wireless Networks. J. 1996. no.” IEEE Trans. 23. G. Commun. 1999. Dec. IEEE VTC. 1998. P. pp. pp. A. vol.” IEE Electr. J. “Performance Analysis of Viterbi Decoding for 64-DAPSK and 64-QAM Modulated OFDM Signals. May and H. Ottawa. Dec. May 1998. no.

vol. Miller and R. vol. 1300–1306. pp. Spruyt. N. vol. vol. Lett. Geile. Tellambura. [352] M. An Introduction to Statistical Communication Theory. North. no. 139–144. “A Technique for Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing Frequency Oﬀset Correction. L. Minn. vol. H. 2004. Moose. 3. 4. “On Timing Oﬀset Estimation for OFDM Systems. Mestdagh and P. “A COFDM-based Radio for HDR LOS Networked Communications.” IEEE Trans. 4.” IEEE Commun. 1144–1151. Bhargava. Mignone and A. R. “An Improved Frequency Oﬀset Estimator for OFDM Applications. no. no. 3. 256–265. 1960. G. 1998. Commun. Lett. pp. June 1999.” IEEE Commun... 134–136.. K. 1. [341] D. J. Meyers. “The Role of AM-to-PM Conversion in Memoryless Nonlinear Systems. 1975. 1996. 46. pp. 2000. and U. 44.. [340] S. and V. Austin. Oct. 2. 2nd ed. Mittelbach and M. Dec. Nov.. “Frequency Ambiguity Resolution in OFDM Systems. 12. [347] H. pp. pp. 1994. 242–244. Boston: [349] P. Bhargava. May 1946. H. Commun. Mengali.. [344] L. no. Zeng. Sept. 9. pp.” IEEE Trans. C. C. K. vol. 75–77. vol.” IEEE Trans. Apr. 33. 4. Middleton. and V. pp. Goossens. B. no. “On the Peak Factors of Sampled and Continuous Signals. “Peak Power and Bandwidth Eﬃcient Linear Modulation. “CD3-OFDM: A Novel Demodulation Scheme for Fixed and Mobile Receivers. Commun. Morelli. 5. Milstein and M. [346] H. T. 10.” IEEE Trans. vol. Commun. 187–192. O’Dea. Roderick. pp. Minn. Commun.” IEEE Trans. Addison-Wesley. July 2000. [345] J. 2001. pp. 1999. Lett. no. and Waves and Electrons. 1985.. Morelli and U.. 7.. McGraw-Hill Book Company. . “A Method to Reduce the Probability of Clipping in DMT-Based Transceivers. D. IEEE ICC. Apr. pp. [350] P. The L TEXCompanion.R.E. Mar. Morello. 1234–1238. 4. “Nonlinearity in Frequency-Modulation Radio Systems Due to Multipath Propagation. M. D’Andrea. Moose.” IEEE Trans. A [348] F. no. pp. 1639–1648. pp.” IEEE Commun. Feb.. vol. 2908–2914. [342] V. [351] M. 10. Mengali. Minkoﬀ. Lett. 44. J. A. 42.” in Proc. “Performance of Noncoherent FSK and AM-FSK Systems with Postdetection Filtering. no. 1996. [343] S.173 [339] D. 129–131. Oct. Commun. no. M.” IEEE Commun. and M. P. vol.” Proceedings of the I.

. M. “Kineplex. Y. “Optimum Nyquist Windowing in OFDM Receivers. no. vol. vol. 42. [363] Y. and S.” IEEE Trans. 5. Wang. de Courville. Aug. pp. [358] B. pp. Areas Commun. Duhamel. 49. no. [364] A. “Inﬂuence of RF Oscillators on an OFDM Signal. 30. Magniez. 7.. sac-5. 49. and S. Muquet. Consumer Electron. and P. Z. 2001. Wilson. J. pp. 1995. Signal Processing. Spooner. Commun. June 1996. K. pp. Commun. 76. Huber. 50. [362] ——. pp. “Cyclic Preﬁxing or Zero Padding for Wireless Multicarrier Transmissions?” IEEE Trans. L. vol. no.” AIEE Trans. 3. 17. 2002. Jan. P. M. Muschallik. pp. 1996. pp. no. pp.. vol. [357] B. pp. Aug. no. 50. Select. 30–44.” IEEE Trans. Nov. Nojima. G. Lett.” IEE Electr. pp.. vol. 3. Hirade. B. [354] R. no. pp. . [356] S. Aikawa.174 [353] R. Mosier and R. 723–728.. 417–420.. pp. “256 QAM Modem for Multicarrier 400 Mbit/s Digital Radio. [365] S. Jan. “Improving an OFDM Reception Using an Adaptive Nyquist Windowing. Murota and K. Consumer Electron. 592–603. 1997. no. 664–668. 368–369. “On the Use of a Cyclic Extension in OFDM. vol. “OFDM with reduced peak-to-average power ratio u by optimum combination of partial transmit sequences. July 1981. Apr. 1044–1050. 1382–1383. Duhamel. [361] ——. vol.. Oct. 1994. Giannakis.. G. M¨ ller and J. no. 259–269. [359] K. vol. 329–335. no. Feb. [355] S. de Courville. B. 3. no. [360] C. “Cyclic Spectral Analysis of Continuous-Phase Modulated Signals. IEEE VTC. Atlantic City. Clabaugh. Morrison. 12. Cimini. “GMSK Modulation for Digital Mobile Radio Telephony. Saito. and P. 6–7. Muquet. 33.” in Proc.. Giannakis. 2. 2136–2148.” IEEE J. B. M¨ ller-Weinfurtner. “Turbo Demodulation of Zero-Padded OFDM Transmissions. Nakamura.” IEEE Trans. 41. a Bandwidth-Eﬃcient Binary Transmission System. 1987. M. 2001. G. Narahashi and T. vol. Commun. pp. 1725–1728. Napolitano and C. com-29. Jr. “Improving an OFDM Reception using an Adaptive Nyquist Windowing.. 1958. 1. vol. Dec. Commun. H. 2002. Mar. R. 11.” u IEEE Trans.. 3.” IEEE Trans. 2001. Aug.” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Consumer Electronics.” IEE Electr. H. “New phasing scheme of N -multiple carriers for reducing peak-to-average power ratio.” IEEE Trans. Lett. vol. vol.

Ng and V. [377] ——. Ochiai. 1055–1065. Imai. C. 2003. 2000. May 2005. 2003.175 [366] R. 2. no. 2. P.. Dec.” IRE Trans. vol. T. pp. no. 2004. no. H. Noga and T. vol. and H. Systems and Computers. 3. no. K. “Analysis of PCC-OFDM Systems for General Time-Varying Channel. Nikopour and S. [378] H. 1122–1128. Nov. 2. pp. J. 3. 1998. 1999. 1916–1926.” IEEE Trans. 2. 7. [371] H. “On the Performance of OFDM Systems Over a Cartesian Clipping Channel: A Theoretical Approach.. no. 2083–2096. [367] S. vol.” IEEE Trans. 226–228. [372] A. 2047–2048. pp. Paciﬁc Grove. Oct.. Wireless Commun. pp. July 2000. and M. H. 47. Theory. Ford. pp. Commun.. vol.. June 2002. “Carrier tracking technique for OFDM signal transmission. H.. pp. vol.” IEEE Trans. [373] A. Sept. “Random Phase Updating Algorithm for OFDM Transmission With Low PAPR. Nikookar and K. “A Novel Trellis-Shaping Design With Both Peak and Average Power Reduction for OFDM Systems. Commun. “Pilot Tone Selection for Channel Estimation in a Mobile OFDM System. [375] ——. vol. no. 32. pp. 8. Lidsheim. Aug.” IEEE Trans. IEEE Globecom. 5. pp. no. Nov. G. Lett. vol. Nuttall.. Cioﬃ. [370] H. [376] ——. Sarkar. July 1962.. 11. 2002. Negi and J. [374] H. A.” IEEE Trans. “A Discrete-Time Method of Demodulating Large Deviation FM Signals. vol. 44.” in Conference Record of the Asilomar Conference on Signals. 4. 819–822. 305–314. “On Decoding of Block Codes with Peak-Power Reduction in OFDM Systems. [369] Y. Jamali. 48. Broadcast. Stirling-Gallacher.” IEEE Trans. Aug.” IEE Electr. pp. Sept. Lett. no. Grant. 899–903. Ready. Ochiai. Inform. M. pp. “Power Eﬃciency Comparison of OFDM and Single-Carrier Signals. IEEE VTC.” in Proc. 3. . pp. 123–128. “Characterization of Multipath-Distorted and Frequency-Discriminated CPM Signals. 9. [368] W. vol. 6. vol. Consumer Electron. and R. 1194–1200. 52. vol. Dubey. “Performance of Optimal and Suboptimal Detection for Uncoded OFDM System with Deliberate Clipping and Filtering. 1996. 2004. 394–396. 8. 22. P.” IEEE Commun. pp. Lett. Ng. pp. Neugebauer. vol. Wireless Commun. M.. no.” in Proc.” IEEE Commun. 1618–1622. 5. vol. CA. “Error Probabilities for Equicorrelated M -ary Signals Under Phase-Coherent and Phase-Incoherent Reception. S. Fossorier. K. “Performance Analysis of Peak Power and Band-Limited OFDM System With Linear Scaling.

Buck. Leib. R. 1233–1242. Jan. Areas Commun. “On the Distribution of the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in OFDM Signals. [382] ——. 668–671. vol. “Performance of the Deliberate Clipping with Adaptive Symbol Selection for Strictly Band-Limited OFDM Systems. 3. Commun.” in Proc. Papantoni-Kazakos and I. June 1992. 2270–2277. H. R. [387] A. Oppenheim and A. Inform. Nov. 3rd ed. vol. 40. W. vol. Lopes. “Simultaneous Broadcasting of Analog FM and Digital Audio Signals by Means of Adaptive Precanceling Techniques. Sundberg. 2295–2300.. Feb. M..” IEEE Trans. com-23. Sept. “Signal Modeling Classes for Linearized OFDM SSPA Behavioral Analysis. O’Droma and N. 127–129. [392] H. vol. 1997. 9. IEEE Intern. 1998. Victoria. June 1994. Papadopoulos and C. [384] R. no. [385] ——. pp. pp. V. pp. New Jersey: Prentice Hall..” IEEE Trans. 50. IEEE VTC. vol. 1975.” in Proc. 2002. vol. vol. pp. vol. Sept.” IEEE Trans. IEEE PIMRC. 6.” in Proc.” in Proceedings of the IEEE Paciﬁc Rim Conference on Communications.” IEEE Trans. vol.” IEEE J. [391] K. pp. Pasupathy. Sorrento.176 [379] H. 49. “Eﬀects of Clipping on the Error Performance of OFDM in Frequency Selective Fading Channels. O’Neill and L. 2004. pp. Paz. “The Performance of a Digital FM System with Discriminator: Intersymbol Interference Eﬀects. 2004. 1. 9. 1. .-E. IEEE WCNC. Commun. R. no. Mgebrishvili.. Canada. BC. 18. 71–75. V.” in Proc. June 1989. Theory. Panta and J. Oppenheim. no. 282–289. S. [381] ——. pp. no. Upper Saddle River. pp. Mar. Commun. [393] P. 11. Pancaldi and G. Wireless Commun. 2000. pp.. 219.” IEEE Trans. 867–877. Commun. C. “Performance Analysis of Deliberately Clipped OFDM Signals. 1998. 2001. “Block Equalization Techniques in the Frequency Domain. no. 2. 9. Vitetta. [388] F. S. 89–101. W. no. p. [380] ——. 320–323. 992–995. Select. Armstrong. vol. 46. “Noncoherently Orthogonal Digital Phase Modulation. [383] M. Imai. Computers and Signal Processing. 2. and J.. 2005. Commun. and S. “Performance of Amplitude Limited Multitone Signals. pp. 4. 1995. [386] A.. Pandey. Feb. Mar. M. “Envelope Variations and Spectral Splatter in Clipped Multicarrier Signals. “Orthogonal Phase Functions for Full Response Non-Coherent CPM Systems. 2. “Channel Capacity of Clipped OFDM Systems. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.. 1675–1679. pp. no. Discrete-Time Signal Processing. B. Willsky.” IEEE Commun. Schafer. no.” IEEE Trans. Ochiai and H. Signals and Systems. June 2000. Sympo. [389] R. Lett. [390] ——. pp.

3–11. Li. H. Papoulis. no. [396] J. 1981. H.” IEEE Trans. J. 2000. 2. 36. Boston. Oct.. “A Comparison for SNR Estimation Techniques for the AWGN Channel. com-29. 14–22. Feb. West Sussex. pp. 1974–1987. “A 5-MHz IF Digital FM Demodulator. vol. Probability. Laue. Commun. vol. Powers. IEEE PIMRC. vol. 1999. 93–101. S. Park. [406] ——. [404] D. 1. Park.” IEEE Trans. 345–349. Tarokh. no. Paterson. .. 1998. Veh. [398] S.. 2000. 48. Inform. no. “Compensation of Nonlinear Distortion in OFDM Systems Using a New Predistorter. Commun. no.177 [394] A. Commun. pp. Kuchenbecker.” IEEE Trans. and Stochastic Processes. 10. Killat. Beaulieu.” IEEE Trans. Pasupathy. and Y. vol.. Song. Random Variables. 1988. Solid-State Circuits. Theory. “Minimization of the Intermodulation Distortion of a Nonlinearly Ampliﬁed OFDM Signal. 254–269. 1. [401] M. vol. IEEE RAWCOM. Sept. “On the Theory of Error Rates for Narrow-Band Digital FM. and K. 2002. “Power Ampliﬁer Back-oﬀ Analysis with AM-to-PM for Millimeter-wave OFDM Wireless LAN. Boston. Paterson and V. [407] ——. pp. [397] J. pp. [395] I. R. pp.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans.-J. U. 509–513. MA: McGraw-Hill. no. “On the Statistical Properties of a Deterministic Simulation Models for Mobile Fading Channels. P¨tzold. 47. 2000. G. F. 46. Park. Jan. 4. 1996. P¨tzold.” IEEE J. “On the Existence and Construction of Good Codes with Low Peak-to-Average Power Ratios. no. 3rd ed. [399] K. 1681–1691.-P. “The Eﬀects of Quadratic AM-PM Conversion in Frequency-Division Multiplexed Multiple-Access Communication Satellite Systems. 1991. pp.-S. 189–192. “Reﬁnements to the Theory of Error Rates for Narrow-Band Digital FM.. 34. 3.. vol. Aug. E. 6. England: John Wiley & [402] M. Mag. S. vol. [400] K. Commun. Apr. Joe. vol. Mobile Fading Channels. Technol. pp. Pauluzzi and N. 1. 811–815. 46. Technol. no. Pawula. July 1979. 1998.” in Proc. 1634–1643. Koo. “Minimum Shift Keying: A Spectrally Eﬃcient Modulation. Sept. Jan. Jan. 4. pp.” IEEE Commun. [403] M. J. Choe. [405] R. vol. 11. F. G. “Generalized Reed-Muller Codes and Power Control in OFDM Modulation. Pauli and H.” IEEE Trans. Park and E. a Sons. pp. 2001. pp. R. June 1971. 1. pp. C. Theory. M.-S. pp.” in Proc. Nov. vol. 19. Inform. 104–120. no.” Wireless Personal Communications. Waltham. Roh. and B. no.

New York: McGraw-Hill. Peled and A.” IEEE Commun. Oct. . E. T. Commun. pp. [411] R. Pop and N. Popovi´. Moeneclaey. Pierobon. pp. W. Proakis. vol. 2001. Digital Communications. North.” IEEE Trans. Y. “BER Sensitivity of OFDM Systems to Carrier Frequency Oﬀset and Wiener Phase Noise. and R.” in Proc. Commun. P.. [418] B. 4th ed. and S. Commun. 1219–1223. “Frequency Domain Data Transmission Using Reduced Computational Complexity Algorithms. Veh. 2nd ed. no. vol. Mag. Johansson. vol. “Analysis of Phase Noise Eﬀects in OFDM Modems. 1696–1705. Commun.” IEEE Trans. and P. O. M. 1968. no. 1994. vol. Technol. [412] L. “Power Spectrum of Angle Modulated Correlated Digital Signals. O. Petrovic.. 1980. S. C.. IEEE Milcom. 22–26. Polley. Mag. B¨rjesson. “Synchronization with DMT Modulation. vol. 191–193. 699–708. vol.” IEEE Trans. 2001. [417] M. H.” in Proc. F. 80–86. pp. P. M. Wahlen. Apr. 1992. “Synthesis of Power Eﬃcient Multitone Signals with Flat c Amplitude Spectrum. 964–967. 2002. 43. Cambridge University Press. 1999. 43. “Multicarrier Modulation for Narrowband PCS. [420] J.. Beaulieu. 389–396./Apr. 50. 71–81. 2. Pollet and M. 4. G. no. Feb. A. pp. vol. 1995. 7.. 2/3/4. Oct.” IEEE Trans. P. Tronca. “Comments on “Transmission Techniques for Digital Terrestrial TV Broadcasting”.” IEEE Trans. W. vol. Apr. Vetterling. and D. C. W. IEEE ICC. 5. no. no. [415] T. Peeters. Nov. Mandarini.. Pupolin. 30. vol. 16. Feb. 3498–3502. 39.” in Proc. [414] T. pp. July 1991. pp. “Limitations of the Sum-of-Sinusoids Fading Channel Simulators. 1995. Feb./Mar. [416] M. F. B. Commun. [413] G. J. no.178 [408] A. pp. Roehr. Apr. Piazzo and P. L. “Probabilities of Error for Adaptive Reception of M -Phase Signals.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans. pp. S. pp. G. 856–862. Teukolsky. W. Flannery. 4. Nov. 49. [421] ——. 1982. 1031–1033. Schreiber. IEEE ICASSP. 10. Odling. vol. Pollet. “A Performance o Bound on PSD-constrained PAR Reduction.” IEEE Commun. H. Cameron. C. 2001. May 2003.. [419] W. 2.. 1. and G. pp. and M. and B. Commun. Numerical Recipes in C. no.. Van Bladel. Ruiz. Press. 5. pp. Petersson. Wee. Mai. Pettit. pp. A. ¨ [409] N. “A Maximum-Likelihood-Based Frequency Synchronizer for Dual-h Continuous Phase Modulation (CPM). [410] R.

5. Algorithms. 2002.. no.e-technik. 1987. 189–195. pp. pp. vol. 1994.” IEEE Trans. Salehi. vol. Nov. 4. 2003. June 1974. 922–926. J. pp. Kenington. O. “Spectral Shaping in Minimum Shift Keying (MSK)-Type Signals. Popovic. 20. Feb. Srinivasan. vol.” IEEE Trans. [434] J. Commun. pp. 34. May 1994. H. 414–423. Rice.. [425] M. O.179 [422] J. “Power Ampliﬁers and Transmitters for RF and Microwave. 814–826. Microwave Theory Tech. Upper Saddle River. “The Behavior of Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing Signals in an Amplitude Limiting Channel. Theory. 260–270. 136. Proakis and D. and Applications. Wilson. Svensson. R. E. 1978. “Eﬀects of HPA-Nonlinearity on a 4–DPSK/OFDM–Signal for a Digital Sound Broadcasting System.. no. “MSK-Type Reception of Continuous Phase Modulation: Cochannel and Adjacent Channel Interference. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Z. P. June 2002. Upper Saddle River. [430] G. G. Areas Commun. 2002. “A Complementary Clipping Transform Technique for the Reduction for Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of OFDM System. Proakis and M.” IEEE Trans. com-35. Sokal. B.de/fb/prof/rapp/bib − Rapp. 1991. Mar.” IEEE Trans. no. Rapp. [428] K. 1988. “A Decomposition Approach to CPM. N. and Y.fh-muenchen. Available: e http://www. 3rd ed. 1029–1036. 2. Pasupathy. 49. Commun. [Online]. pp. 3. and A. Rinne and M. pp. “Receiver Window Design for Multicarrier Communication Systems. Inform. 6. Rimoldi. [423] J. Li´ge. B. New Jersey: [424] F. pp. com-26. no. NJ: Prentice Hall. Sevic. [426] C. Asbeck.. Renfors. 2. Consumer Electron.” in Proc. Rappaport. 1996. vol. F. Digital Signal Processing: Principles. Raveendra and R.” IEEE J. pp. Rhodes.” IEE Proceedings.html [427] T. S. Belgium. pp. Jr. Wireless Communications: Principles and Practice. Select. Raab. B.. no. “Distributions for Noise Plus Several Sine Waves—The Problem of Computation. Redfern. vol. G.” in Second European Conference on Satellite Communications. and N. Ren. Oct. H. no. G. [431] R. 179–184. Mar. 185–193. Chang.. Rabzel and S.” IEEE Trans. “Threshold detection of continuous phase-modulated signals. 381–385. [429] A. Commun. vol. S. vol. IEEE ICC. New Orleans. [432] S. [433] B. 2nd ed. 851–853. Cripps. 1989. P. 50. B. Pothecary. 1.” IEEE Trans. G. Prentice Hall. Jan. J. Zhang. pp. Manolakis. . S. no. Dec.. Communication Systems Engineering.

R. “Improvement of Power Eﬃciency of HPA by the PAPR Reduction and Predistortion. Tarokh. pp. Nov. B. Signals and Noise in Communication Systems. IEEE Globecom. pp. L. 4. pp. 1999. Nguyen. pp. Lee. M. Consumer Electron. 1994. H. 1570–1582. 1. T. 119–124. no. [437] J. Ruiz. Ryu.180 [435] ——.. 42. pp.” IEE Electr.” in Proc. 2003. Russell and G. Angle Modulation. J. and S.. Rowe. pp. pp. I. 5. 2. Inc. [441] C. Lett. 687–691. Consumer Electron. May 1997. July–Aug. Rizos. IEEE VTC. 47. D. IEEE VTC.. “Comparison of DFT and Cosine Modulated Filter Banks in Multicarrier Modulation.” in Proc. Commun. 294–298. and J. Princeton. Q. pp. 1620–1622. S. [448] H.” in Proc. Phoenix. 1095–1125.: D. “Pilot Spacing in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing Systems on Practical Channels. “Interchannel Interference Analysis of OFDM in a u Mobile Environment. and J. M. R¨ßing and V. 820–824. “Error probability of nonlinearly distorted OFDM signals. Roberts. E. [445] ——. Commun. K. J. “Power Spectrum of a Digital. “A Construction of OFDM 16-QAM Sequences Having o Low Peak Powers.” IEEE Trans. J. 1. July 1995. Theory. Darwazeh. . 47. vol. Frequency-Modulation Signal.” IEEE Trans. [443] H. vol. 959–962. Cioﬃ. Inform. K. Proakis.” in Proc. E. N.-S. 870–874. pp. P. June 1992. 2. vol. N. 1729–1736. Van Nostrand Company. vol. Commun. vol. “Comparison of PSK and DPSK Modulation in a Coded OFDM System. J. vol. 47. Oct. July 2001. Rohling and T. 11. Milstein. Tech.” IEEE Trans. 1012–1029. Feb. [444] D. Kim. 1975. 39. Wassell. 2004. vol.. vol. Oct. 22. vol.. no. Rowitch and L. St¨ ber. London: Peter Peregrinus Ltd. pp. no. R. [439] M. no.. 1965. J. [438] M. G. Prabhu. no. 50. 40.” Bell Syst. 1996. Chicago. Hoa. and T.-W. “Convolutionally Coded Multicarrier DS-CDMA Systems in a Multipath Fading Channel—Part II: Narrow-Band Interference Suppression. vol. 54..-G. D. O’Reilly. [446] A. 2. [442] H. 10. Park.. “Discrete Multiple Tone Modulation with Coset Coding for the Spectrally Shaped Channel. “A Novel Coding Strategy to Improve the Error Probability Performance of Non-linearly Distorted OFDM Signals. pp. vol. no.” IEEE Trans. 2003. 6. Rodrigues.” IEEE Trans. [447] M. no. Rodrigues and I. [436] A. [440] H. 1977. J. D. 1999. 2091–2094. Rowe and V.. Nov. May. Nov. vol.” IEEE Trans. pp. “Convolutionally Coded Multicarrier DS-CDMA Systems in a Multipath Fading Channel—Part I: Performance Analysis. Oct. Kasturia. IEEE VTC.

1995. Aldana. 102–121. pp.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Commun. 48.” IEEE Trans. B. 6.-G. Saeedi. vol. [461] ——. [450] H.. vol. 47.-J. vol. Jan. 1. R. Lee. 2002.. no. and F. 805–811. pp. J. 89–94. 13.” IEEE Trans. 2002. pp.. [454] A. “Clipping Noise Cancellation in OFDM Systems Using Oversampled Signal Reconstruction. 29. and I. 73–75. C. Ryu.181 [449] H. pp. “Transmission of All-Digital Advanced Television: State of the Art and Future Directions. Commun.” IEEE Trans. Sharif. Nov. “Overlapped Discrete Multitone Modulation for High Speed Copper Wire Communications. vol. 2000. “Dummy Sequence Insertion (DSI) for PAPR Reduction in the OFDM communication System. Sablatash. pp. Select. Youn. pp. pp. vol. 50. 1.” IEEE Trans. no. no. 2. and J. Consumer Electron. 81–89. Helsinki. [459] G. 9.” IEEE Trans.. 3. Santella. vol. and I. “An Analysis of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing for Mobile Radio Applications. pp. Dec. 254–275. Jin. pp.-S. 40. Technol. M. Ryu. Dec. A.” in Proc. vol. Saleh. [451] H. 49. 1994. Sari. Karam. “PAPR Reduction Using Soft Clipping and ACI Rejection in OFDM System. 1–5. Areas Commun. Marvasti. Veh. [455] B. “A Frequency and Symbol Synchronization System for OFDM Signals: Architecture and Simulation Results. vol.. 1715–1720.-B. Tzannes.-G.. [456] A. D. June 1994. no. “A Hybrid Analytical-Simulation Procedure for Performance Evaluation in M-QAM-OFDM Schemes in Presence of Nonlinear Distortions. IEEE ICC... IEEE VTC. Sandberg and M. . com-15. 1. 1635–1639. June 1994. 142–151. vol. Feb. M. and J..” IEEE Trans. Broadcast. “Frequency-Independent and Frequency-Dependent Nonlinear Models of TWT Ampliﬁers. no. G. 2. Feb. 1998. “Frequency-Domain Equalization of Mobile Radio and Terrestrial Broadcast Channels. 6. Kim. 17–22. Feb. “Performance of an Eﬃcient Parallel Data Transmission System. Technol. no. [460] H. 175–178. Tellado. Veh. Park. 1571–1585. Commun. Saltzberg. Jeanclaude. 1. 1. pp. 48. “Peak-to-average power ratio reduction for block transmission systems in the presence of transmit ﬁltering. IEEE Globecom. June 2001. Consumer Electron. Consumer Electron. Santella and F. 11. pp.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc.-G. [452] M. J. vol.. Lett. no. no. Feb. “A New PAPR Reduction Scheme: SPW (Subblock Phase Weighting).” IEEE J. Cioﬃ. 2002. A. vol. A. [453] H. [458] G. San Francisco. Technol. 1967. pp.-E. no. 1. Mazzenga. no. Nov. Ryu and K.-I. [457] S.” in Proc. 1981. vol. pp. Feb. Stockholm. Salvekar. 2004.

” IEEE Commun. Aug. 328–339. 2002. 8. no. and B. 316–318. pp. R. Florens. 2003. 31. Jan. Inform. Tranter. Nov. vol. pp. Nov. [466] ——. no. Lett. Italy. Sharif. Aug. 313–315. 1997. 6. 2005... no. and S.” in Proc. 6. 1. Khalaj. “Synthesis of Low-Peak-Factor Signals and Binary Sequences With Low Autocorrelation. . 4. Cox. 1993. vol. Tirrenia. Aug. no. Sathananthan and C. 50. Inform. Stein. [463] ——. Schmidl and D. pp. vol. vol. pp.. May 2004. 11.” IEEE Trans. pp. [464] K. W. 85–89. “On the Peak-to-Average Power of OFDM Signals Based on Oversampling. 3. Shell. Fazel. 895–903. pp. vol.” IEEE Commun.” in Proc. “How to Use the IEEEtran L TEXClass. [467] ——. 1613–1621. pp. pp. Feb. “On Multicarrier Signals Where the PMEPR of a Random Codeword is Asymptotically log n. “Probability of Error Calculation of OFDM Systems With Frequency Oﬀset. [469] ——. and B. “Amplitude and Sign Adjustment for Peak-to-Average-Power Reduction. 191–202. May 2001.. Schroeder. Commun. vol. Commun.. 53. “Channel equalization and carrier synchronization in OFDM systems. 2001.. Dec. “Blind synchronisation for OFDM. Commun. 11. Hassibi. no. “Eﬃcient Simulation of Multicarrier Digital Communication Systems in Nonlinear Channel Environments. Lett. 72–78. 8. pp. no. Tirrenia Int’l Workshop on Dig. [471] M. W. 100–109.” IEEE Trans. “Robust Frequency and Timing Synchronization for OFDM. Schneider and W. Select. C. “Partial Transmit Sequence and Selected Mapping Schemes to Reduce ICI in OFDM Systems. pp. Sydney. vol. 1970. 1–22.. 2002. [465] ——. Theory.” IEEE Commun. [470] K. 1243–1247. 1993. Schwartz. 1966.” IEEE Trans. C. Gharavi-Alkhansari. Jan. M. 12. Tellambura. M. no. “Forward Error Correction Codes to Reduce Intercarrier Interference in OFDM. H. 1884–1888. vol. 49. 2. pp. no.” IEEE Trans. Sharif.” IEEE J. [475] M. iv–566–iv–569. 11. 5.182 [462] ——.” IEEE Trans. 8. 1997. Sept. [472] M. M. Commun. 33. R. H.” IEE Electr. vol. Theory.” IEEE Trans. “Coding to Reduce Both PAR and PICR of an OFDM Signal. Areas Commun. no. no. IEEE ICASSP.. “Transmission Techniques for Digital Terrestrial TV Broadcasting. [474] M. Commun. vol. Sharif and B. pp.. Communication Systems and Techniques. 1. Bennett. Apr. [473] M. [468] T. 45. 113–114. pp. Mag. Jan. pp. Lett. A A [476] M. vol. McGraw-Hill. 1995.. Hassibi. 2002.” Journal of L TEXFiles.

Atlantic City. Shepherd. Yates. Bar-David. 1848–1851. May 2002. no.” in Proc. and T. Barton. pp. vol. [485] R.. Inform. J. 41. “A Novel OFDM Receiver with Second Order Polynomial Nyquist Window Function. vol. pp. 90–100. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Commun. IEEE CAS Symp. [484] M. vol.” IEE Electr.-S. Lett. Mag. You. Jan.. J. Eevelt.” IEEE Trans. Lett. no. 90–98. [478] S.. [488] ——. vol. “Eﬃcient Data Detection Algorithms in o Signal. Shanghai. pp. IEEE VTC. “Performance of Multicarrier MFSK in Fading Channels. 95–97. Sklar. pp. and S. [487] B. 127–136. (Shitz) and I.” IEEE Commun. P. May 2005. 2000.” IEEE Electron. [486] C. Commun. S. K.. 102–109.-H. 623–627. Eng.-H. Lett. 36. Leung. Aug.” IEEE Trans. V. “The COFDM modulation system: the heart of digital audio broadcasting. vol. 391–393. Commun. “Frequency-Oﬀset Synchronization and Channel Estimation for OFDM-Based Transmission. 253–258.” IEEE Commun. Barton.-S. K. Song. 2001. 3. [480] Q. and S.. Divalar. [482] S. and Y. pp. vol. no. 14.. Part II: Mitigation. June 1995. Wyatt-Millington. Shepherd. G¨tze. “On the Capacity Penalty Due to Input-Bandwidth Restrictions with an Application to Rate-Limited Binary Signaling. Jan. J. D. . no. V. 429–432.and Multi-Carrier Systems without the Necessity of a Guard Period. 3.183 [477] P.” IEEE Trans. May 1990. J. 31.” IEEE Commun. July 1997. pp. June 2004. S. Y. Mag. 2. 4. Orriss. [481] T. Alouini. Consumer Electron. “Rayleigh Fading Channels in Mobile Digital Communication System. 5–10. Sinha and R.” IEEE Commun. “Capacity of Single Carrier Systems With Frequency-Domain Equalization.” IEEE Trans. Simon and M. Part I: Characterization. W. pp. pp. vol. Paik. IEEE ICASSP. iii–2737–iii–2740. 3. 46.-H. no.. 1998. 1993. 9. 2000. “OFDM in Bandpass Nonlinearity. [483] M. “Asymptotic Limits in Peak Envelope Power Reduction by Redundant Coding in Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplex Modulation. Shi. Sinn. J. 1131–1132. Shi. 5.-K.” in Proc. July 1997. Zhou. 42. 3. Shelswell. Inc. Haardi. “Maximum-Likelihood Block Detection of Noncoherent Continuous Phase Modulation. pp. Digital Communication over Fading Channels. Mar. pp. Song and S.. K.. 1996. 1. 1. Simon and D. July 1995. Oct.. W. vol. no. pp. [490] R. Theory. “Simple coding scheme to reduce peak factor in QPSK multicarrier modulation. “Rayleigh Fading Channels in Mobile Digital Communication System.. and M. vol.” in Proc. [479] S. 3. C. [489] H. J. pp. pp. vol. Cho. no. Tao.

vol. Takhar and S. 2000. no.. pp. pp. no. 9. and N. Technol. “Performance of Orthogonal Multicarrier CDMA in a Multipath Fading Channel.” IEEE Trans. “Bandwidth-Eﬃcient Wireless OFDM.” IEEE Commun. no. Stark. 3.” IEEE Commun. Commun. vol. Svensson and A. Communication Systems Engineering Theory. Lett. Commun. 5. Nonaeker. A. M. Moeneclaey. [497] ——. 47. “Optimum Receiver Design for Wireless Broad-Band Systems Using OFDM–Part I. E. “Constrained Envelope Continuous Phase Modulation.. and H. 312–314. 981–985. N. Commun. vol.. Commun. Gupta. vol. Areas Commun. [494] B. no. vol... [504] G. “Sensitivity of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexed systems to carrier and clock synchronization errors. 50. 12. “Guest Editorial: Advances in Military Wireless Communications. no.” in Proc. Fechtel.. 1999. Sari. [500] C. no. Steendam. pp. Dec. [503] ——. Sept. G. 365–374. Signal Processing. no. 4. Stamoulis. Apr. pp.. Sourour and M. Steendam and M. L. Nakagawa. Select. Mar. Moeneclaey. “The Eﬀect of Carrier Phase Jitter on the Performance of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple-Access Systems. IEEE VTC.” IEEE J. Apr. “Multi-Pulse Continuous Phase Modulation.” IEEE Trans. “Discrete Estimation of Continuous Angle-Modulated Signals Over Multipath Channels for Aeronautical Communication. [493] A. 881–883. “Continuous Phase Modulation. 24. 80. 1217–1229. Sundberg. 7. 47. vol. .” IEEE Trans. 2451–2464. pp. Nov.. 2003. Sadler. Felstead. pp. [492] M. pp. 4. 1969. 1986. 1998. Fock. 1976. no.” IEEE Trans. 2267–2278. 44. [499] Y. 2002.-E. “Intercarrier Interference in MIMO OFDM. 24. Sunde. pp. S. and B. Wiley & Sons. 4.. S. vol. Nov. Oct. E. [495] W. 2003. Mar. B. 19.” Signal Processing. pp. Svensson. vol.” IEEE Trans. 25–37. Meyr. vol. no. 46. 356–367.” in Proceedings of The 5th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications. 23. May 2005. [498] H.” IEEE J.” IEEE Trans. vol. Commun. no. Diggavi. [501] E. 1996. 2623–2627. 10. Mag. M. 1668–1677. [496] H. 2001. “Analysis and Optimization of the Performance of OFDM on Frequency-Selective Time-Selective Fading Channels. Al-Dhahir.. Fettweis. pp. New York: John [502] T. vol. D. Areas Commun.184 [491] E. Select. no. pp. pp. vol. Oct. July 2000. 1999. 1811–1819. S. pp. 11. 4. 11. 3. A. Apr. Sun. Speth. Inc. vol. 3. Stantchev and G. 456–459. “Time-Variant Distortions in OFDM. C. D. and H.

vol. “Constant Envelope Multi-Carrier Modulation. vol. 13. 2002. 1990. Jan. 2000. vol. L. 33. 1646. Y. pp. Some.. July 1997. R. R. Jan.. “On the Computation and Reduction of the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in Multicarrier Communications. 1651–1655. vol.” IEE Electr. no. pp. 1997. [512] J. “OFDM-CPM Signals... [506] J. 2003. vol. 3. “Eﬃcient Algorithms for Reducing PAR in Multicarrier Systems. vol. 1999.. 1608–1609. 16. “Upper bound on peak factor of n-multiple carriers. J. “Use of m-sequences for OFDM peak-to-average power ratio reduction.” IEEE Commun. 51. and J. [511] ——. vol. pp. Aug.” in Proc. Tellado. vol. Oct. [518] ——.” IEE Electr. IEEE ICC. “Construction of OFDM M -QAM Sequences with Low Peak-to-Average Power Ratio. Tellambura. 1. L.. 2.” IEE Electr. vol. 2002. 915–917. . May 2001. p. 607–611. Cioﬃ. 169–170. vol. Jafarkhani. [509] I. [515] ——. “Maximum-Likelihood Detection of Nonlinearly Distorted Multicarrier Symbols by Iterative Decoding. p. Tan and Y.” IEE Electr. Inform. [507] B. Commun.” IEE Electr. Aug. Lett. K.” IEE Electr. Lett.. IEEE Milcom. “PAPR Reduction of OFDM Signals using Multiamplitude CPM.” in Proc. 26. Johnson.” IEEE Trans. 1. “Detection of OFDM-CPM Signals over Multipath Channels. Tarokh and H. “Comment: Multicarrier transmission peak-to-average power reduction using simple block code. 185–187. Tarokh and H. [510] ——. Cambridge. no. Jan. 2003. A. “Phase optimisation criterion for reducing peak-to-average power ratio in OFDM.. 8. [514] C. Lett. St¨ ber. no. 34. 33. 218–228.” IEEE Trans. Anaheim.... C. Guo. pp. Aug. M. no. Hoo. “Computation of the Continuous-Time PAR of an OFDM Signal with BPSK Subcarriers. M. 25–28. 1998. pp.” in u Proc.” IEEE Trans. pp. I. 48. no. 38. [508] V. K. T. Barton. no. Tellado and J. 51. Commun. Commun. Lett.185 [505] B. K. no. Feb. May 2002. Lett. vol. pp. Sept. no. Lett. Tasadduq and R. [519] C. 34. 2002. 1998. 38.” IEEE Trans. 19. 47. “Crest Factor Minimisation in FDM PSK Systems. Rao. 15. 37–44. pp. Lett. 80–81. Cioﬃ. pp. vol. 17. pp. 2. Tan and G.. pp. [513] J. pp. Sympo. no. Lett. 1137–1139. “Frequency-Oﬀset Estimation for HIPERLAN. Theory. 1300–1301. 2. vol. no. M. 5. [516] ——. Commun. 191. 859–861. pp. Aug. no. 1.” IEE Electr. IEEE Intern. Jan. Tellambura. [517] ——. Sadjadpour. vol. and S. 1998.

” IEEE Trans.. 1997.” IEEE Trans. 621–626. IEEE Milcom. 1. “Noncoherent Reception of Constant Envelope OFDM in Flat Fading Channels. T. Guo. “Spectral Estimation of Digital Signaling Using The Welch Method. in press. “Overlap and Save Frequency Domain DFE for Throughput Eﬃcient Single Carrier Transmission. 1999. T. [530] ——. pp. p. 6. Sept. Commun. Ahmed.” IEE Electr. Zeidler. Berlin.ucsd. K. C. G. 230–238.” IEEE Trans. Tjhung. no. Tellambura. “Improved Phase Factor Computation for the PAR Reduction of an OFDM Signal Using PTS. Broadcast. Aug. 5.. [523] The VIM Text Editor. vol. Le. vol. Switzerland.org/ [524] L. 245.” [Online]. Wittke.” in Proc. Parker. Nov. Apr. and P. 2. Lett.186 [520] C. Teo. pp. 1986. R. G. 2005.” in Proc. 43. St. [522] C. G. 2005. Lett. Thibault and M. 64–75. no. C. Lausanne. Available: http://zeidler. 2003. vol. 11. Tjhung. IEEE Milcom. vol. Thompson.” IEEE Commun. Signals with Premodulation Shaping. 2001. 176–178. pp. 1. A. Thompson. Parker. J. . “Baseband Equivalent Simulation of the Optimum Receiver. June 2002.” in Proc. Sympo. Available: http://www. Tomasin. 1965. no. “The Eﬀectiveness of Signal Clipping for PAPR and Total Degradation Reduction in OFDM Systems... Inform. and S.” [Online]. Tellambura and M. Tellambura. Available: http://zeidler. Oct. K.ucsd. “Constant Envelope OFDM Phase Modulation: Spectral Containment. R. Mar. Part I: Parametric Study. [525] S.” in Proc. [521] C. IEEE PIMRC.” in Proc. [Online]. [529] ——. K. 135–137. [531] T. IEEE Intern. M.M. Y. Thompson. Oct. IEEE PIMRC. no. pp. G. Monterey. U. Shepherd.” in Proc. pp. vol. Boston. “Performance Evaluation of COFDM for Digital Audio Broadcasting. Theory. 1116–1122. [532] T. J. Proakis. Sept. and J.. C. 4. 1. H. [528] S. T. no. Dec. J. S. Signal Space Properties and Performance. Proakis. IEEE Globecom. 34. J. vol. “Relationship between Hamming weight and Peak-to-mean envelope power ratio of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. “Eﬀects of Pulse Shaping and Soft Decisions on the Performance of Digital FM with Discriminator Detection. 2. pp.vim. Zeidler. vol.edu/∼sct/holdings/baseband − model/ [526] ——. Commun. Feb.edu/∼sct/holdings/welch/ [527] S. Berlin. pp. 2005. 2004. Barton. [533] S. “Optimal Sequences for Channel Estimation Using Discrete Fourier Transform Techniques. “Constant Envelope Binary OFDM Phase Modulation. Louis. 47. “Power Spectra and Power Distributions of Random Binary F. and J. 1129–1135.

no. no. vol. no. 2000. no. K. 2001. and P. Nov. D. 987–996. 2. TX. 46. Tureli. Vadde and S. 1. [542] U. 20. Signal Processing.. 5. 580–583. pp. Tubbax. B¨rjesson. B.” IEEE Trans. 7. assp-31.. Select. Deneire./Mar. “Partial Response Signaling for Enhanced Spectral Eﬃciency and RF Performance in OFDM Systems.. Vahlin and N. “ML Estimation of Time and o Frequency Oﬀset in OFDM Systems. 2001. no. S. “Compensation of IQ Imbalance and Phase Noise in OFDM Systems. 1983. L. 45. “Limiter-Discriminator Detection of Continuous Phase Modulation (CPM) Tomlinson Filtering.. 872–877. 197–201.” IEEE Trans. Waltham. [538] J. Engels. 2. Apr. MA USA. vol. [547] J. 629–643. [546] ——. Jan. S. Commun. San Antonio. Mar. and H. Liu. “PAPR Reduction by Envelope Stabilization Using Partial Response Signaling in OFDM Systems. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. pp. H.” IEEE Trans.187 [534] L. [544] V. 50. 2004. der Perre. 3. Commun. vol. 2/3/4. 5. M. Feb. Kivanc. “A New Approach to Multipath Correction of Constant Modulus Signals. Commun.” IEEE Trans. Trautmann and N. Nov. Zoltowski. pp. L. pp. Fliege. pp. [540] J.” IEEE J. O.” IEEE Trans. Technol. Vadde. S. pp. 4.. 42. and K. 459–472. Shanmugan. vol. V. D. 48. [536] W. Treichler and B. [543] V. 1115–1119. “OFDM verses Single Carrier with Cyclic Preﬁx: A System-Based Comparison. [541] U. no. T. V. Signal Processing. Donnay. “Optimal Finite Duration Pulses for OFDM. and M. June 2002. CHECK. 1996. J. Tomba. Tubbax.-J. 44. and M. Liu. vol. G. van de Beek.” IEEE Trans. “OFDM Blind Carrier Oﬀset Estimation: ESPRIT. 1459–1461. Come. pp. Wireless Commun. Moonen. Trachtman.” IEEE Trans. Veh.. vol. Tureli. July 1997. H. and M. R. 30. Sandell. IEEE Globecom. L. Man. der Perre. [545] A.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc. Areas Commun. Gray. Sept.” in Proc. 1994. no. Agee. . 2015–2016. H.. S. 2001.” in Some Conference. 3120–3124. pp. pp. and S. May 2001. pp. pp. Speech. IEEE RAWCOM.” IEE Electr.. S. “On the Eﬀect of Wiener Phase Noise in OFDM Systems. no. Donnay. Communication Systems Simulation. Upper Saddle River. “Perfect Equalization for DMT Systems Without Guard Interval. 5. 819–825. Commun. vol. M. no. [535] A. May 1998. Engels. “Use of a guard interval in OFDM on multipath channels. (Shitz). 9. Tranter. Kalet./Apr. Rappaport. D. [537] S. Holte. “Experimental and Analytical Studies on a High-Resolution OFDM Carrier Frequency Oﬀset Estimator. B. vol. L. Kosbar. 24. [539] J. Lett. pp. pp. vol. no. Acoust. Aug. 1994. 1800–1805. I. May 2005. Come. vol. 10–14. vol..

Dec. “OFDM Codes for Peak-to-Average Power Reduction and Error Correction. 2002. vol. [554] R. “Peak Factor Minimization of Input and Output Signals of Linear Systems. Dec. Sept. Instrum. pp. “New High-Rate Wireless LAN Standards. and I. 80–85. Mar. vol. Rolain. May 2000. 1987. “Reducing the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of OFDM. OFDM for Wireless Multimedia Communications. [549] E. 2000. Y. Webster. H. Test Europe. pp. J. M. Rolain. IEEE IMTC. 145–147. 2072–2076. van Nee and R. [555] ——. Circuits Syst. vol. G. pp. 37.” IEEE Computer. 19–21. Vandersteen. pp. IEEE VTC. [560] A. 1125–1127. May 1995. Bolsens. “Comments on “Multitone Signals with Low Crest Factor”. “Sequence Detection in Nonlinear Channels: A Convenient Alternative to Analog Predistortion. [552] R.” IEEE Trans.. pp. 2000. [557] L. Sept. Verbeeck. Vaughan-Nichols. vol. 164–168. Auto.. S. van Nee. 50. “Peak Factor Minimization Using a Time-Frequency Domain Swapping Algorithm. [551] ——.” in Proc. Raheli. 49. Donnay. no. 207–212. 2001. . Meas. 1999. Van Der Ouderaa. 9. M. 740–744. Schoukens. and K. 1515–1524.” in Proc. [556] R. Mag. Commun. 1996. Halford. pp. pp.. 1988. J. 6. Serdijn.” IEEE Trans. London. and W. van Nee and A. Y. Boston: Artech House. 2. 9. “Eﬀect of Smooth Nonlinear Distortion on OFDM Symbol Error Rate. pp. Commun. [558] G. Veh. [553] R. “OFDM: Back to the Wireless Future. Mar. P. Munich. pp. 44. 1. J. M. pp. Kouwenhoven. Vandendorpe. Boston: Artech House. H. Prasad. Schoukens. 1. no. no. Awater.. 2. Engels. Morikura. May 1998. Wambacq. 37. D. L. [550] ——. June 1988.” IEEE Commun.” IEEE Trans. pp. 1510–1514. Instrum. Vannucci and R. M. “Multitone Spread Spectrum Multiple Access Communications System in a Multipath Rician Fading Channel. van den Bos.” IEEE Trans. Meas. Takanashi. no. IEEE Globecom.. no. [561] S. vol. Technol. Nov.. [559] G. cas-34. vol. 2001. “Eﬃcient Bit-Error-Rate Estimation of Multicarrier Transceivers. A. and J. Sept.188 [548] C. no..” IEEE Trans.” in Proc. ch. Renneboog. vol. 327–337. W. van Nee. Vandersteen. J. 2002. 9. Schoukens. 3. pp. and J. vol. “Accurate Bit-Error-Rate estimation for OFDM based telecommunication systems schemes in the presence of nonlinear distortions. Baltimore. 82–88.” IEEE Trans. OFDM for Wireless Multimedia Communications. de Wild.” in Proc.

[564] L.. no. Wang. Schwartz. 2305–2309. Veh. vol. 3.” IEEE Signal Processing Mag. 1. 2003.. Mar. T. 303–307. 2003. T. B. [565] N.” IEEE Trans. pp.” in Proc. “Replay to the Comments on: “Reduction of peak-to-average power ratio of OFDM system using a companding technique”. 2001. Areas Commun. pp. Inform. vol. 1995. 3. Dec. 45. Ma. D. 2398–2403. Wang and G. 4. Giannakis. no. 380–394. Fazel. 1999. T. “Power Loading for CP-OFDM over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels.. Theory. [569] X. vol. IEEE Globecom. “On the SER and Spectral Analyses of A-Law Companding Multicarrier Modulation. Nov. 2004. 2003.” in Proc. Ng. 5. 793–798. pp. no. pp. R. Select. 5. 52. “BER Performance of OFDM System Over Frequency Nonselective Fast Ricean Fading Channels.” IEEE Trans. Tjhung. Zeidler. no. May 2005. 29–47. Mar. Wang. “Reduction of Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of OFDM Systems using a Companding Technique. 1408–1412. “OFDM or Single-Carrier Block Transmissions?” IEEE Trans. 2003. 1999. Walzman and M. Lett. vol. Wu. Wang. Wang and S. “How to combat long echos in OFDM transmission schemes: Sub-channel equalization or more power channel coding.” IEEE Trans. 420–423. pp. Dec. Ho. and J. Giannakis. Sept. 2004. “Performance Analysis of High QAM OFDM System Over Frequency Selective Time-Varying Fading Channel. 707–720. Wang. Tjhung. no. B. pp. 3. 23. 4. IEEE Globecom. [573] ——. Sept. Commun. “Automatic Equalization Using the Discrete Frequency Domain.” IEEE Trans. pp. Wu. [567] T. IEEE Globecom. “Robust Channel Estimation and ISI Cancellation for OFDM Systems With Suppressed Features. Jan. X. K..” IEEE Trans. pp. pp. Ilow. 5. 49. and G. Wang and J. Broadcast. [574] Z. Viterbo and K. 2069–2074. 1973. and Y. 963–972. “Complex-Field Coding for OFDM Over Fading Wireless Channels.” IEEE Commun. and Y. 19–21. vol. May 2000. [563] T.. S. pp. vol.” in Proc. Beijing. Dubey. Technol. vol. Jan. Wang. pp. no. Inform. vol. 3. vol. G.” IEEE J.” in Proc. vol. [568] X. Wan and V. [572] Z. no. [571] X. “Wireless Multicarrier Communications: Where Fourier Meets Shannon. Broadcast. T. Dec. J. and C. “Compensation of Nonlinear Distortions with Memory Eﬀects in OFDM Transmitters. Theory. [566] T. IEEE PIMRC. Proakis. Blostein.. 4. 52. 1. Sept. vol. IT-19. . pp. [570] ——. no. 59–68.. 45. pp. P.189 [562] E.

H. “MRC Performance for M -ary Modulation in Arbitrarily Correlated Nakagami Fading Channels. [578] L.” IEEE Trans. no. pp. Commun. 535–537. “A Low-Complexity SpaceTime OFDM Multiuser System. Oßberger. W.. M. Y. 998–1007. 4. Aug. 825–829. 298–300. [584] M.. Dec.” IEEE Trans. no. 2. A. 1971. 5.” IEEE Trans. M. 2000. Wittke. Oct. pp. Technol. Wei and C.-T. vol. 2002. IEEE Intern. 2nd ed. 43. Wireless Commun.-Y. Chen.. 42. Winters. no. vol. Oct. FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. Koppler. [577] L.. May 1976. pp.” IEEE Trans. Leung. 2002. [586] ——. 1996. Boca [581] C. D. A. 1997.” in Proc. 1323–1327. 487–499. Commun. Bar-Ness. Win. vol. 2. [588] ——. no. [580] E. 1995. J. vol. G. 19. and J. pp. no. Oct. IEEE PIMRC. 3. Wang.190 [575] W. “OFDM/FM Frame Synchronization for Mobile Radio Data Communications. Mar. Inform.” IEEE Trans. Technol. 302–313.” IEEE Commun. no. 301–303. IEEE VTC. 2004. Nov. 3. [585] H. 2002. 426–440. vol. IL. vol. Raton./Apr. “OFDM Systems in the Presence of Phase Noise: Consequences and Solutions. “A Phase Noise Suppression Algorithm for OFDM-Based WLANs. pp. Chrisikos. Theory. E. 12. vol. Jones. Commun. no. Witschnig. “The Eﬀect of Blockwise Transmission on Higher-Order Modulation Schemes for SC/FDE. Huemer. com-24. Weinstein and P. July 1995.-K. Wei. Weber. “Optimization and Performance Evaluation of Multicarrier Transmission. no.” in Proc. 10. pp. [576] W. pp. [582] T. vol. no. vol. 1993. Z. no. “A Diﬀerent Look on Cyclic Preﬁx for SC/FDE.. Personal Wireless Multimedia Commun. Lett. Willink and P. A. 628–634. “Commonalities of Several Modulation Techniques. Springer. 3. Wilkinson and A. Weisstein.. III. Lett. pp. pp.. “Data Transmission by Frequency-Division Multiplexing Using the Discrete Fourier Transform. G. vol. [579] S. 2/3/4. Ebert. Sympo. 44. J. Veh. 824–828. Commun..” IEEE Commun. H.. Chicago. pp. 11. Schlegel. . Wu and Y. pp.” in Proc. Warner and C. Feb.” IEEE Trans. 5. [583] T. 43. Commun. Wen. Mar. pp. Maurer. pp. “Minimisation of the Peak to Mean Envelope Power Ratio of Multicarrier Transmission Schemes by Block Coding.” IEEE Trans. 2. 6. L. CRC Concise Encyclopedia of Mathematics. vol..” IEEE Trans. vol. 2003. and R. and J. [587] S. 1988–1996. Weigel. May 2005. B. “Performance of Phase-Locked Loops in the Presence of Fading Communication Channels. 4. Sept. “Synchronization Requirements for Multi–user OFDM on Satellite Mobile and Two–path Rayleigh Fading Channels. 52. 887–895./Mar.

[592] ——. pp. . 1638–1642. Areas Commun. 2000.” in Proc.” IEEE J. 392–399. pp. Zou. vol. IEEE ICC.” IEE Electr.” IEEE Commun. 48.org/ [598] P. 130–141.” IEEE Trans. no. vol. Xia. [603] B. no. July 2000. no. and Z. K.. Feb.” IEEE Trans. “On the Use of Interference Suppression to Reduce Intermodulation Distortion in Multicarrier CDMA Systems. 888–891.. Goldfeld. Cheng. Sept. [599] C.. no. Lett. 1996. 20.. Consumer Electron. “Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing: A Multi-Carrier Modulation Scheme. Nov. Cao. 1995. Xiong. and A. vol. pp. 9. no. vol.. 18–21.” IEEE Trans. Glinowiecki. Wulich. Select. 6. Xiao. B.” IEEE Trans. “Second-Order Statistical Properties of the WSS Jakes’ Fading Channel Simulator. pp. Nov. “Statistical Simulation Models for Rayleigh and Rician Fading.” IEE Electr. “Timing Recovery for OFDM Transmission. R. 51.. 3524–3529. Jan. no.” IEEE Trans. 1. [601] F. 1. “Reduction of peak to mean ratio of multicarrier modulation using cyclic coding. no. Wunder and H. “M -ary Amplitude Shift Keying OFDM System. 41. Wulich. June 2000. Feb. 10. Theory.xﬁg. Milstein. Dinur. Inform. vol. pp. vol. pp. 1999. Commun. Available: http://www. 5. Zhou. 11.. pp. 32. 7. pp. 2.. [Online]. vol. B. pp. May 2003. Boche. 9. S. [593] D. 1859–1861.. 51. Lett. 18. [600] ——. “Deﬁnition of Eﬃcient PAPR in OFDM. vol. “Comments on the Peak Factor of Sampled and Continuous Signals. 432–433. Commun. “Peak factor in orthogonal multicarrier modulation with variable levels. 1828–1837.” IEEE Trans. no. Zheng. “Bandwidth. pp. pp. [590] D. 2001. 213–214. 49. 832–834. and N. S.and Power-Eﬃcient Multicarrier Multiple Access. Commun. Wu and W. Lett. Jan.. [595] D. Beaulieu. “Upper Bounds on the Statistical Distribution of the Crest-Factor in OFDM Transmission. 5. 1996. June 2002. “Reduction of Peak Factor in Orthogonal Multicarrier Modulation by Amplitude Limiting and Coding. [602] W. Wulich and L. 11. no. C. [591] ——.191 [589] Y. pp.. no. Sept. Yang. vol. 50. Xu and L. Letaief. 2003. Commun. Oct. no. 32. 3. 49. [594] D. vol. Y. no. pp. vol.” IEEE Commun. Wulich.” IEEE Trans.. Commun. [597] Xﬁg. vol. 2005. Y. vol. pp. Lett. Aug. 4. Giannakis. no. 2278–2291. 6. [596] G. 2003. 47. R. N.” IEEE Trans. “Level Clipped High-Order OFDM. and G. vol. 488–494. 928–930. 2003. Commun. B.

pp. [607] ——. [616] Y. Morakis. 5. vol. IEEE. pp. 11. P. W. 43. [610] K. 4. Roy. P. “The Representation of Narrow-Band Processes.-S. pp.. vol. H. Areas Commun. 1564–1568. Yang. July 1990. Lewis. Mag. vol. pp. A. 3. Divsalar.. Zhang and M. M.” IEEE Trans. IEEE ICC. pp. no.-W..” IEEE Trans. 42.-G. 21. 2134–2144.” in Proc. June 2003. Select. IEEE ICC. 1250–1266. 4. “Optimized Decision Feedback Equalization Versus Optimized Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing for High-Speed Transmission Over the Local Cable Network. “Analysis and Simulation of Multipath Interference of FM Subcarrier Digital Signals. [613] L. Apr. 15. June 1989.” IEEE Commun. 4. 53–60. . pp. no. no. pp. H. Commun. “Karhunen–Lo´ve Expansion of the WSSUS Channel and Its Application e to Eﬃcient Simulation. pp. 12. Yuen. no. no. Athens. Kobayashi.” in Proc. July 1998.. [606] K. 1997–2008. May 1994. 2.” in Proc. C. pp. Apr. Theory. Kalet. Nov. 35–41. Commun. 1995. vol. H¨ggman. vol. J. 2005. Zakai.” IEEE J. 1080–1085. no. [615] X. [612] M. “Sensitivity to Doppler Shift and Carrier Frequency a Errors in OFDM Systems—The Consequences and Solutions. Miller. Zeger. Simon. Yu and Y. Yu and A. IEEE VTC. Select. 2004. [611] J. 323–325.” in Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications. it-8.” Proc. 640–646. Goldsmith. pp. R. and J. Dec.” IEEE J. Areas Commun.” IEEE Trans. H.. Commun.192 [604] H. F. and N. Yip and T. Jan. Commun. “Eﬃcient Simulation of Digital Transmission over WSSUS Channels. K. 46. Ng. 1998.” IEEE Trans. no. C. 722–726.. vol. May 1997. [609] J. 7. Zhao and S. July 1962. no. and H. 441–445. 2907–2913. Inform. pp. Chen. S. 52. [614] N. T. 783–792. “Space–Time Code Design with Continuous Phase Modulation. vol. pp. Yang. vol. Fitz. “Modulation and Coding for Satellite and Space Communications. Zervos and I. “Pilot-Assisted Maximum-Likelihood Frequency-Oﬀset Estimation for OFDM Systems. vol. May 2002. pp. 78. Pollara. “Matched Filter Bound for Multipath Rician-Fading Channels. [608] ——. “Linear Models and Capacity Bounds for Continuous Phase Modulation. 5.” IEEE Trans. D. “A Road to Future Broadband Wireless Access: MIMO-OFDM-Based Air Interface. Ryan. “Data-Driven Echo Cancellation For a Multitone Modulation System. vol.. 1996. [605] J. Su.

Commun. Technol. Commun.” IEEE Trans. 41.” in Proc. Broadcast. S. [624] R. Apr. 1–8. vol. vol. N. “The Eﬀect of Timing Jitter on the Performance of a Discrete Multitone System. Principles of Communications—Systems. pp. no. June 2002. no. [625] M. Tjhung. “A General SER Formula for an OFDM System With MDPSK in Frequency Domain over Rayleigh Fading Channels. and W. [621] Y. no. “Improved Models for the Generation of Multiple Uncorrelated Rayleigh Fading Waveforms. 197–204.. vol. 2..193 [617] ——. “Intercarrier Interference a Compression of OFDM Communication Systems by Using Correlative Coding. and S. 7. pp.” IEEE Trans. 4. no. 214–216. H. H.” IEEE Trans. Adachi. Wu. Zhou and J. Wesel. July 2001. T. 6. 718–722. Zhao and A. 50.. Kim. S. Zimmerman and A. Zhao. 2. Commun. 256–258. and Noise. [619] Y. R. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 1995. B. Kim. Aug. 1967. May 2002. Modulation.” IEEE Commun. no. “The AN/GSC-10 (KATHRYN) Variable Rate Data Modem for HF Radio. 3. Commun. .. [623] G. vol. Y. “Intercarrier Interference Self-Cancellation Scheme for OFDM Mobile Communication Systems. T. Cioﬃ. E.. 5. [618] ——. Jean-Damien. pp. pp.” IEEE Trans. pp. vol. Zou. [620] Y. Zogakis and J. IEEE VTC. com-15. and F. 2. IEEE VTC. pp. Oct. 52. [626] T. “Predicting Spectral Regrowth of Nonlinear Power Ampliﬁers. Ziemer and W. Tranter. 7. no. Huang. 1998. Houston. J. 2004. Zou and Y.. 49. 6. 2. Lett. “BER Analysis of OFDM Communication Systems with Intercarrier Interference. 44.” IEEE Commun. T. vol. pp.” in Proc.. Commun. Kirsch. vol. S. May 1999.” in Proc. R. Mar. 1185–1191.” IEEE Trans. pp. Lett. Equalized QPSK and OFDM. [627] H. H¨ggman. [622] K. 4th ed. Zhong. July 1996. no. 799–808. 1995. vol. pp. M.. 1998. [628] W. “COFDM: An Overview. 1106–1110.” IEEE Trans. S38–02–1 – S38–02–5. Apr. pp. vol. vol. 2089–2093. 8. 584–594. IEEE ICC. no. Phoenix. “Equalized GMSK. Xiao. Zheng and C. Kenney. vol. Magione-Smith. pp. L.-G. Daneshrad. “A Novel Channel Estimation Method for OFDM Mobile Communication Systems Based on Pilot Signals and Transform-Domain Processing. a Comparative Study for High-speed Wireless Indoor Data Communications. May 1997. 1.

The size of the PDF output is 1. The L TEX output was converted to PostScript using dvips. The block diagrams were drawn using Xﬁg [597] and all of the other ﬁgures were generated with Gnuplot [189] (using the pslatex driver). the PostScript was converted to PDF (portable document format) using Ghostscript. 194 . In terms of compilation time. The source ﬁles were backed up and synchronized A among multiple computers using rsync. All numerical work. The work was also done at various locations throughout the San Diego area on a Dell Inspiron 4000 laptop computer running the same software. the window manager used was IceWM. was done with GNU Octave [188]. The bibliography was managed using BibTeX (with help from bibtool). this thesis takes roughly 10 s to compile on the workstation which has a 3 gigahertz microprocessor and 1 gigabyte of memory.Production Notes A This thesis was typeset using the L TEX document preparation system [348]. The work was done at UCSD on a Dell Precision 370 workstation running the Debian GNU/Linux operating system [131]. The X11 window system provided the graphical user interface. including the computer simulations. This thesis were printed on a Hewlett Packard LaserJet 1300n printer.9 megabytes. All work was done using the Vim (Vi improved) text editor [523]. PDF output was viewed using xpdf. Typically the work was conducted across several rxvt terminal emulators—arranged across multiple workspaces—running bash.

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

thesis

thesis_sthompson

10.1.1.91

thesis

thesis

thesis

OFDM Thesis Lawrey

plugin-OFDM_thesis_lawrey

thesis

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd