- IEEE 802 Standards for exams just in brief
- Imp
- final ppt on 4G
- Wireless Transmission System for the Improved Reliability in the Flying Ad-hoc Network
- Hartley Transform
- Lte
- Omnitik u 5hnd Rv
- Thesis Final Charles Scrib
- 34-H-KIRAN GOWDA-A Comprehensive Study on 4g
- chưa biết
- NMP-8602-Datasheet 11162006 Module Industrial
- GK_FYP2016.pdf
- fannynb mlinanr sky mobile broadband91106.pptx
- EAP900H rev2
- The Meaning of Pa、Pb and RS power
- TransWC
- Introduction to Optical Ofdm
- Factors Affecting LTE Throughput and Calculation Methodology Hawei
- IdentiFi-376X-DS.pdf
- 09Dec Barber
- LTE Physical Layer
- 04 WLAN
- 10-VN-WLAN
- Hikvision Ds 2cd2142fwd i(s) Data Sheet
- OFDMA.docx
- Comparison of BER Performances ForConventional and Non Conventional MappingSchemes Used in OFDM
- Fourth Generation
- A Novel Timing Estimation Method for OFDM Systems
- PDCCH Tuning_Throughput Improvement
- 5ghz vs 2.4ghz Wireless Lan
- Yes Please
- The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America
- Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind
- The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution
- Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future
- Dispatches from Pluto: Lost and Found in the Mississippi Delta
- Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America
- John Adams
- The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power
- The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer
- This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate
- Grand Pursuit: The Story of Economic Genius
- A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story
- The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
- Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
- The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers
- Smart People Should Build Things: How to Restore Our Culture of Achievement, Build a Path for Entrepreneurs, and Create New Jobs in America
- Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore
- The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century
- Bad Feminist: Essays
- Steve Jobs
- Angela's Ashes: A Memoir
- How To Win Friends and Influence People
- The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)
- Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close: A Novel
- Leaving Berlin: A Novel
- The Silver Linings Playbook: A Novel
- The Light Between Oceans: A Novel
- The Incarnations: A Novel
- You Too Can Have a Body Like Mine: A Novel
- The Love Affairs of Nathaniel P.: A Novel
- Life of Pi
- The Flamethrowers: A Novel
- Brooklyn: A Novel
- The First Bad Man: A Novel
- We Are Not Ourselves: A Novel
- The Blazing World: A Novel
- The Rosie Project: A Novel
- The Master
- Bel Canto
- A Man Called Ove: A Novel
- The Kitchen House: A Novel
- Beautiful Ruins: A Novel
- Interpreter of Maladies
- The Wallcreeper
- Wolf Hall: A Novel
- The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel
- The Cider House Rules
- A Prayer for Owen Meany: A Novel
- Lovers at the Chameleon Club, Paris 1932: A Novel
- The Bonfire of the Vanities: A Novel
- The Perks of Being a Wallflower
- The Constant Gardener: A Novel

4, JULY 2007

Iterative Methods for Cancellation of Intercarrier

Interference in OFDM Systems

Andreas F. Molisch, Fellow, IEEE, Martin Toeltsch, Member, IEEE, and Sameer Vermani

Abstract—We consider orthogonal frequency-division multi-

plexing systems with intercarrier interference (ICI) due to in-

sufﬁcient cyclic preﬁx and/or temporal variations. Intersymbol

interference (ISI) and ICI lead to an error ﬂoor in conventional

receivers. We suggest two techniques for the equalization of ICI.

The ﬁrst, called “operator-perturbation technique” is an iterative

technique for the inversion of a linear system of equations. Alter-

natively, we show that serial or parallel interference cancellation

can be used to drastically reduce the error ﬂoor. Simulations show

that, depending on the SNR and the origin of the ICI, one of the

schemes performs best. In all cases, our schemes lead to a drastic

reduction of the bit error rate.

Index Terms—Cyclic preﬁx (CP), intercarrier interference

(ICI), interference cancellation, intersymbol interference (ISI),

iterative algorithms, orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing

(OFDM).

I. INTRODUCTION

O

RTHOGONAL frequency-division multiplexing

(OFDM) transmits data simultaneously on a number of

subcarriers, which, together, form OFDM symbols [1]–[4].

The frequencies of the subcarriers are chosen in such a way

that the signals on different subcarriers are orthogonal to each

other, even though their spectra overlap. This principle causes

an OFDM symbol to be much longer than a data symbol in a

single-carrier system (for equal data rates) and, thus, makes the

system more robust to the delay dispersion of the channel. An

efﬁcient implementation of OFDM [with or without a “cyclic

preﬁx” (CP)] can be obtained by a blockwise inverse fast

Fourier transform (IFFT) of the input signal. For these reasons,

OFDM is particularly suitable for high-data-rate transmission

and has received great attention for wireless LANs (IEEE

802.11a and g standard [5]), as well as wireless personal

area networks (multiband-OFDM standard ECMA-368 [6])

and ﬁxed wireless access (IEEE 802.16, WiMax [7]). In

Manuscript received November 28, 2004; revised March 18, 2006 and

May 24, 2006. Parts of this work were presented at IEEE PIMRC2000, London,

U.K., and IEEE ICC 2001, Helsinki, Finland. The works of A. F. Molisch and

M. Toeltsch were supported, while at the Technical University of Vienna, by

the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) under Contract FWF525/P12984-PHY. The

review of this paper was coordinated by Prof. Z. Wang.

A. F. Molisch is with the Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories,

Cambridge, MA 02139 USA, and also with the Department of Elec-

troscience, Lund University, SE-22100 Lund, Sweden (e-mail: Andreas.

Molisch@ieee.org).

M. Toeltsch is with the SYMENA Software and Consulting Ltd., A-1040

Vienna, Austria (e-mail: Martin.Toeltsch@symena.com).

S. Vermani is with Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA 92121-1714 USA

(e-mail: svermani@qualcomm.com).

Color versions of one or more of the ﬁgures in this paper are available online

at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.

Digital Object Identiﬁer 10.1109/TVT.2007.897628

order to avoid intersymbol interference (ISI) and intercarrier

interference (ICI), the CP, i.e., a copy of the last part of the

OFDM symbol, must be prepended to the transmitted symbol;

alternatively, a zero-sufﬁx can be used [8], [9]. The duration

of this preﬁx has to be at least as large as the maximum

excess delay of the channel in order to retain orthogonality

between the subcarriers; furthermore, it is required that the

channel does not change during the transmission of one OFDM

symbol. If those conditions are fulﬁlled, then the receiver can

compensate for the channel distortions by a one-tap equalizer

in the frequency domain.

In many practical systems, the orthogonality between the

subcarriers is destroyed by two effects.

1) Temporal variations of the channel: Those variations lead

to ICI (loss of orthogonality between the subcarriers) due

to the Doppler shift associated with the temporal varia-

tions. Temporal variations of the channel are unavoidable

in wireless systems—even if both the transmitter and the

receiver are stationary, moving scatterers lead to Doppler

shifts of the incoming waves. An important issue in that

context is the correct estimation of the channel at any

given time; this issue is discussed, e.g., in [10]–[12] and

is considered to be perfectly solved for the remainder

of this paper. Similarly, oscillator frequency offset and

frequency drift can lead to ICI; also, this problem is

assumed to be solved for the purpose of this paper (see,

e.g., [13] and [14]).

2) Insufﬁcient length of the CP: If the CP is shorter than

the maximum excess delay of the channel, ISI occurs,

i.e., each OFDM symbol affects the subsequent symbol;

this effect can be eliminated by decision feedback [15],

[16] and will be disregarded henceforth. Furthermore, the

insufﬁcient CP also leads to ICI, as the original symbols

cannot be reconstructed by means of a one-tap equalizer

alone. An insufﬁcient duration of the CP can arise for

various reasons. A system might consciously shorten or

omit the CP in order to improve the spectral efﬁciency. In

other cases, a system was originally designed to operate

in a certain class of environments (and, thus, a certain

range of excess delays) and is later on deployed also

in other environments that show a larger excess delay.

Finally, for many systems, the length of the CP is a com-

promise between the desire to eliminate ISI and to retain

spectral efﬁciency—in other words, a CP should not be

chosen to cope with the worst-case channel situation, as

this would decrease the spectral efﬁciency in the typical-

case situation.

0018-9545/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE

MOLISCH et al.: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2159

Irrespective of the reasons, ICI (and ISI) can lead to a con-

siderable performance degradation in many systems and must

be combated. A large range of techniques has been developed

in recent years and can be classiﬁed as follows.

1) Optimum choice of the carrier spacing and OFDM sym-

bol length: By trading off ICI caused by temporal varia-

tions and by delay dispersion, the bit error rate (BER) can

be minimized without requiring any structural changes

in either the transmitter or receiver [17]. In a related

approach, the basic pulseshape for the signaling of the

subcarriers can also be modiﬁed [18], [19].

2) Self-interference-cancellation techniques: In this ap-

proach, the information is modulated not just onto a

single subcarrier but onto a group of them, which leads to

a strong reduction in the self-interference. The technique

was suggested in [20] and later extended in [21]–[23].

This technique is very effective for the mitigation of ICI

but leads to a reduction of the spectral efﬁciency of the

system.

3) Temporal equalizers: In these techniques, the equaliza-

tion is done in the time domain, before the FFT at the

receiver (with a possible feedback that undergoes back-

and-forth transformations) [24], [25]. Reference [26]

found the coefﬁcients for a temporal ﬁlter that max-

imizes the SINR for both conventional OFDM and

multiple-input–multiple-output (MIMO)-OFDM. An ef-

ﬁcient scheme called RISIC, based on tail cancellation

and cyclic reconstruction, was ﬁrst suggested in the study

in [15] and improved in the study in [27]. In a similar

approach, channel shortening can be used to make the

effective impulse response shorter than the CP [28].

4) Techniques that depend on the presence of unused sub-

carriers (null carriers): In this approach, redundancy is

placed in the frequency domain by having more carriers

than is strictly necessary. Similarly to the principle of the

CP, which allows elimination of the ISI by redundancy in

the time domain, the redundancy in the frequency domain

allows elimination of the ICI [29]–[31].

5) Forward-error correction [32]: The capability of any

forward-error-correcting code can be used to eliminate

the errors caused by the ICI, and correlative coding [33]

can improve the ICI as well.

An area of particular interest has been linear equalization in

the frequency domain. The impact of the channel can be de-

scribed by a transfer-function matrix, which is inverted explic-

itly or implicitly. Equalization of ICI due to temporal variations

of the channels has been studied in [11], [12], and [34]–[39];

most of the equalization strategies suggested in these papers

rely on the special structure of the transfer-function matrix in

the case of pure Doppler-induced ICI (i.e., with sufﬁcient guard

interval). Reference [38] also provides a matched-ﬁlter bound

for time-varying frequency-selective channels for the case that

the CP is sufﬁciently long. Reference [40] showed that the

elimination of ISI due to time variations is dual to the temporal

equalization in single-carrier systems. Equalization of ICI due

to insufﬁcient guard intervals, possibly in combination with

decision-feedback equalization (DFE), was studied in [16];

moreover, various algorithms have been considered for the

matrix inversion. Direct inversion of the channel matrix [either

according to a zero-forcing or an minimum mean-squared error

(MMSE) criterion] is computationally too expensive. For wire-

line communications, Bogucka and Wesolowski [41] advocated

the use of the LMS algorithm to ﬁnd the coefﬁcients in the

frequency domain; however, this approach is not feasible in

time-variant wireless channels.

In this paper, we therefore suggest an iterative inver-

sion technique for the general case of time-varying delay-

dispersive channels with insufﬁcient CP. We also present a

serial-interference-cancellation (SIC), as well as a parallel-

interference-cancellation (PIC) scheme that shows rapid con-

vergence and lower error ﬂoor for some ranges of delay spread.

Since 2000, when we ﬁrst suggested these algorithms in our

conference papers [42], [43], interest in this approach has

greatly increased and various related schemes have been pub-

lished. Reference [44] uses a Gauss–Seidel iteration for the

inversion of the channel matrix; [45] and [46] suggested SIC

schemes and analyzed their performance.

The remainder of this paper is organized the following way:

in Section II, we describe the system model as well as the chan-

nel characteristics determining the system behavior. Section III

is dedicated to the “operator-perturbation technique” (OPT)

for the efﬁcient inversion of matrices. Next, we investigate

interference-cancellation techniques, covering both PIC and

SIC. Section V gives numerical results for both the OPT and

the interference cancellation. A summary and the conclusions

wrap up this paper.

II. SYSTEM MODEL

This section brieﬂy summarizes the model we use for OFDM

transceiver and channel (further details can be found in [2]–[4]).

OFDM divides the data stream into blocks of length N. The

subcarrier modulation is done by means of an inverse discrete

Fourier transform (IDFT) of the data blocks (typical length

N = 64 . . . 1024 carriers, but up to 8000 carriers are possible

for digital video broadcasting (DVB). Let the block X

(i)

k

be the

ith block of the transmission, with k indexing the N complex

modulation symbols. The transmit signal in the time-domain

x

(i)

[n] can then be written as

x

(i)

[n] =

1

N

N−1

k=0

X

(i)

k

e

j

2π

N

nk

, −G ≤ n < N (1)

where G is the length of the CP; for the case of the CP

being absent, we simply set G = 0. The channel performs the

convolution with the impulse response of the channel h[n, l],

which consists of L multipath components 0 ≤ l < L and is

time-variant, as reﬂected by the double indexing. The received

signal y

(i)

[n] (without noise added by the channel) is then

y

(i)

[n] =

_

h ∗ x

(i)

_

[n]. (2)

As the CP is discarded by the receiver, we henceforth consider

only 0 ≤ n < N. The ﬁrst L −G−1 samples of y

(i)

[n] are

2160 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 4, JULY 2007

distorted by ISI from the previous symbol x

(i−1)

; thus, y

(i)

consists of two parts:

y

(i)

[n] =

L−1

l=0

h[n, l]x

(i)

[n −l]σ[n −l + G]

+

L−1

l=G+1

h[n, l]x

(i−1)

[n−l+ G+N](1−σ[n−l+ G])

=y

(i,i)

[n] + y

(i,i−1)

[n] (3)

where σ is the Heaviside function, and y

(i,i)

[n] and y

(i,i−1)

[n]

are the contributions to y

(i)

[n] stemming from the ith and

i −1th block, respectively. To reconstruct the sent symbols,

the receiver performs a DFT on y

(i)

[n], Y

(i)

k

= DFT¦y

(i)

[n]¦

k

,

where k again is the subcarrier index. Throughout this paper,

we assume perfect synchronization of carriers and blocks, and

further, if not otherwise stated, absence of noise.

We now write the DFT of (3) in the receiver [15] as (4),

shown at the bottom of the page, where

˜

N = N + G.

Y

(i,i)

k

and Y

(i,i−1)

k

are, again, the parts of Y

(i)

k

that originate

from the own symbol i and the previous symbol i −1, respec-

tively. If we use (1), these parts can then be written as

Y

(i,i)

k

=

N−1

m=0

X

(i)

m

H

(i,i)

k,m

(5)

Y

(i,i−1)

k

=

N−1

m=0

X

(i−1)

m

H

(i,i−1)

k,m

(6)

where

H

(i,i)

k,m

=

1

N

N−1

n=0

L−1

l=0

h[n+i

˜

N, l]e

j

2π

N

(nm−lm−nk)

σ[n−l+G]

(7)

and

H

(i,i−1)

k,m

=

1

N

N−1

n=0

L−1

l=G+1

h[n + i

˜

N, l]e

j

2π

N

(nm−lm−nk)

¦1 −σ[n −l + G]¦ . (8)

This can be written in a compact form as a vector–matrix-

product

Y

(i)

=Y

(i,i)

+Y

(i,i−1)

=H

(i,i)

X

(i)

+H

(i,i−1)

X

(i−1)

(9)

where Y

(i,i−1)

is the ISI term, and Y

(i,i)

contains the desired

data disturbed by ICI. Note that if X

(i−1)

was detected suc-

cessfully (and the channel is completely known, as we always

assume in this paper), then Y

(i,i−1)

can be computed and

subtracted from Y

(i)

. This procedure can either be done in the

frequency domain, as we showed here, or in the time domain,

as in [15]. Due to this reason, ISI is not considered in the

remainder of this paper. For simplicity, we henceforth drop the

index of the block number superscript

(i)

.

The above formulation is general in the sense that it includes

the ICI due to the time variations and the insufﬁcient guard

interval.

III. OPERATOR-PERTURBATION TECHNIQUE (OPT)

After ISI cancellation, the data vector still contains interfer-

ence fromits own symbol, the ICI. To equalize this interference,

we have to compute the data vector from (in the absence

of noise)

Y = HX. (10)

A straightforward solution is the inversion of this equation,

namely

⇒X

i

= H

−1

Y

i

. (11)

A matrix inversion require O(n

3

) operations, where n is the

size of the square matrix. In the next section, we will introduce a

technique (OPT) that only needs O(n

2

) operations per iteration.

A. Standard OPT

The OPT is an iterative method to efﬁciently approximate

and invert linear or nonlinear operators. It was originally intro-

duced by Cannon in [47] and is well known in the astrophysics

community. For matrices, it is also known as Jacobi-Iteration

Y

(i)

k

=

N−1

n=0

_

y

(i,i)

[n] + y

(i,i−1)

i

[n]

_

e

−j

2π

N

nk

=

N−1

n=0

L−1

l=0

h[n + i

˜

N, l]x

(i)

[n −l]σ[n −l + G]e

−j

2π

N

nk

. ¸¸ .

Y

(i,i)

k

+

N−1

n=0

L−1

l=G+1

h[n + i

˜

N, l]x

(i−1)

[n −l + G + N] (1 −σ[n −l + G]) e

−j

2π

N

nk

. ¸¸ .

Y

(i,i−1)

k

(4)

MOLISCH et al.: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2161

(see [48, ch. 10.1]), which has also been used in the context

of interference cancellation in code-division multiple access

(CDMA) [49]–[51]. We write (10) as

Y =

´

HX− (12)

where

´

H is the approximate operator whose inverse is easy to

compute, and is the deviation from the exact solution. For

example,

´

H could consist of the diagonal elements of H and

zero off-diagonal elements and would thus be trivial to invert.

Alternatively,

´

Hcan be taken as a banded matrix, i.e., a matrix

that contains only the main diagonal and a few off-diagonals of

the matrix H. The solution of (11) is found by the following

iteration:

X

(0)

=

´

H

−1

Y (13)

(0)

=(

´

H−H)X

(0)

(14)

X

(i+1)

=

´

H

−1

_

(i)

+Y

_

(15)

(i+1)

=(

´

H−H)X

(i+1)

(16)

where subscript (i) indexes the ith iteration. After initialization

[steps (13) and (14)], steps (15) and (16) are repeated until a

criterion is reached. Substituting step (15) in step (16) gives

X

(i+1)

= X

(i)

+

´

H

−1

_

Y−HX

(i)

_

. ¸¸ .

e

(

X

(i))

(17)

where e

(X

(i)

)

is the error of the old solution X

(i)

. If X

(i)

converges to X

(∞)

, then

X

(∞)

=

´

H

−1

_

(∞)

+Y

_

(∞)

=(

´

H−H)X

(∞)

X

(∞)

=

´

H

−1

_

(

´

H−H)X

(∞)

+Y

_

=X

(∞)

+

´

H

−1

_

Y−HX

(∞)

_

⇒ 0 =

´

H

−1

_

Y−HX

(∞)

_

. (18)

This means that if det¦

´

H

−1

¦ ,= 0, then we get the solution

Y−HX

(∞)

= 0 (19)

and therefore, X

(∞)

= X.

Step (16) of the iteration procedure requires a vector–matrix-

product that needs O(n

2

) operations. This step determines the

overall performance. The question of how many iteration loops

are necessary for a sufﬁcient accuracy will be treated in the next

section.

B. Acceleration of Convergence

Auer [52] and Ng [53] developed methods to improve the

convergence speed of linear iterative schemes. These tech-

niques have been invented in astrophysics and chemical physics

but, astonishingly, do not seem to be widely known in mobile

radio. Clearly, linear iterative schemes are only linearly con-

vergent. An improvement of convergent speed can be achieved,

when we use more information than the last solution X

i−1

to

calculate the new X

i

:

X

(i)

= α

0

X

(i−1)

+

M

m=1

α

m

X

(i−1−m)

. (20)

α

0

= 1 −

α

m

is a normalization factor. The coefﬁcients α

m

are determined as the solutions of the following set of linear

equations [53]:

M

acc

α = b

acc

(21)

where

M

acc

i,j

=

l

1

[X

N−1,l

[

[∆X

n,l

−∆X

n−i,l

]

[∆X

n,l

−∆X

n−j,l

] (22)

b

acc

i

=

l

1

[X

N−1,l

[

∆X

n,l

[∆X

n,l

−∆X

n−i,l

] (23)

where ∆X

n,l

is the lth component of the vector X

(n)

−

X

(n−1)

. For a Mth order acceleration, we must supply M + 2

successive estimates of the solution. Auer [52] gives a pseudo-

code for a second-order acceleration. Unfortunately, there is

no clear optimal choice of M; the results of the study in [52]

indicate that the utilization of higher orders than M = 2 usually

do not signiﬁcantly improve the acceleration. This was also

validated by our own investigations; therefore, we implemented

the second-order acceleration only (M = 2).

According to the study in [52], the choice for M = 2 requires

the last four successive samples of the sequence of approxi-

mations of the solution. Following this algorithm, after every

fourth iteration in the approximation of Y =

´

HX, one acceler-

ation step is inserted. Then, the next four standard iterations

are done followed by another acceleration, etc. In principle,

this acceleration scheme is a very general method that can be

applied to every linear iterative approximation algorithm.

C. Further Modiﬁcations

We can further exploit the ﬁnite-alphabet properties of the

modulation: As we know that the solution of X = H

−1

Y must

lie in the set ¦−1, +1¦ for BPSK, we can include a BPSK slicer

after step (15) of the OPT algorithm. This slicer decides on the

components of X

i+1

and forces them to +1 or −1. Such an

“OPT with decision” technique can also be interpreted as a PIC

technique, which we will discuss in the next section.

IV. ICI CANCELLATION

In the last 15 years, efﬁcient techniques have been developed

for the suppression of cochannel interferers in CDMA systems

[54]. Closer inspection of (5) and (7) reveals that the ICI

2162 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 4, JULY 2007

is mathematically equivalent to cochannel interference (even

though it is stemming from other subcarriers). Thus, the tech-

niques developed for CDMA can be reused for our application.

The basic idea behind OFDMinterference cancellation is that

the decisions of the symbols on the subcarriers are improved

iteratively. These improvements are due to the determination

and subtraction of the interference of all the other subcarriers,

based on the decisions of the previous iteration. A proper

initialization has to be done before entering the iteration loop.

We distinguish between PIC and SIC, depending on the order

in which the decisions of the subcarrier symbols are done.

A. Parallel Interference Cancellation (PIC)

For initialization, we again calculate a ﬁrst estimate X

(0)

=

(diagH)

−1

Y, similar to the OPT technique. Here, diagH is

the diagonal of Honly and can be inverted with computational

effort O(n). The interference I

i

in step i is

I

(i)

= HX

(i−1)

−diagHX

(i−1)

. (24)

The updated interference-canceled received symbol vector Y

(i)

is simpliﬁed to

Y

(i)

= Y−I

(i)

. (25)

Hence, the updated estimate of the transmitted symbol on

subcarrier k is

(X

k

)

(i)

= (Y

k

)

(i)

/H

kk

(26)

where we equalize the interference-canceled received symbol

by the channel response on the frequency of subcarrier k. This

algorithm is called “parallel,” because (25) and (26) can be

applied to all channels k = 0 . . . n −1 simultaneously by a

vector–matrix calculus. Due to the vector–matrix multiplica-

tion, the computational complexity of the algorithm is O(n

2

).

These steps are identical to those of the OPT technique, with

the special assumption of

´

H = diagH.

Before entering the next round of iterations, the estimated

symbols can be processed in a nonlinear fashion. In the most

simple case, they could be forced to the nearest symbol of the

used alphabet. More generally

(

ˆ

X

k

)

(i)

= f

_

(X

k

)

(i)

_

(27)

where f() is the nonlinear decision function. A good choice

for BPSK is the hyperbolic tangent function [55] (

ˆ

X

k

)

(i)

=

tanh(c (X

k

)

(i)

) because far-off estimates are forced to ±1

and thus reduced in their impact on the next cancellation

stage, while estimates with small amplitudes are more or less

unchanged. The factor c in the hyperbolic tangent function

controls the slope near zero. Small c (e.g., c < 1) are appro-

priate if the estimates are not yet reliable. Large c (c > 10)

are appropriate for accurate estimates, e.g., if the signal-to-

interference ratio (SIR), which is deﬁned in Section IV-B, is

large. That is the case for good channels with small delay

spread.

Performance can be further improved if c is increased from

one iteration step to the next. In the beginning, decisions are

still unreliable so that small c is appropriate. At the end of

the iteration, the decision function approximates the signum

function, and all decisions are in the set ¦±1¦. This technique

stems from an optimization technique called “simulated an-

nealing” and avoids the convergence of the MSE to a local

minimum [55].

The error vector and the MSE in the receiver are deﬁned as

=Y−H

ˆ

X

i

MSE =||. (28)

The iteration stops after the MSE falls below a predeﬁned

threshold or the number of iterations reaches a predeﬁned

maximum number.

The most computationally expensive part of the algorithm is

the calculation of the interference (24)—it is a matrix–vector

product and is the reason for the O(n

2

)-complexity of this

method. For each subcarrier, the interference of all other subcar-

riers is computed. Due to the fact that the inﬂuence of two sub-

carriers decreases with increasing frequency distance, we can

restrict the interference calculation to the neighboring carriers.

It is also noteworthy that the optimum PIC scheme makes use

of the log-likelihood ratio from the MAP decoder [56].

B. Serial Interference Cancellation (SIC)

The main difference between SIC and PIC is that the update

steps (25) and (26) are not done in parallel for all subcarriers

but sequentially one channel after the other. In contrast to

PIC, an initialization is not required. After each estimate and

decision, the new interference is determined. This technique,

suggested by us in [43], was also used in [45], which proposed

simultaneous cancellation of several symbols in order to reduce

processing delays.

Let us ﬁrst deﬁne a SIR for the subchannel k as

SIR

k

=

[H

kk

[

2

N−1

l=0

l=k

[H

kl

[

2

. (29)

We then order the subchannels by their SIR. This ensures that

high reliable channels (i.e., with high SIR) are processed before

the weak channels. In each iteration step (outer loop), the

subchannels are processed in the order of their corresponding

SIR (inner loop) that was calculated beforehand for the actual

channel situation. For each subchannel k of iteration step i, the

interference

(I

k

)

(i)

=

l∈X

l

decided in

previous iteration

and l=k

H

kl

(

ˆ

X

l

)

(i−1)

+

l∈X

l

decided in

current iteration

H

kl

(

ˆ

X

l

)

(i)

(30)

is computed and subtracted. The computational effort is again

O(n

2

) due to the necessity to sum up the off-diagonal elements

of the channel matrix and the computation of the interference

MOLISCH et al.: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2163

terms. Note that the interference is calculated from the actual

estimate

ˆ

X

(i)

compared to Section IV-A, where it is calculated

from the previous estimate X

(i−1)

.

ˆ

X

(i)

contains all the deci-

sions of subchannels that were previously made because they

have higher SIR. The other channels were decided during the

last iteration step. The rest of the algorithm is similar to PIC.

The major advantage of SIC compared to PIC is that, within a

single iteration step, the impact of estimated symbols on low-

SIR carriers is considered immediately.

V. SIMULATION RESULTS

In the following, we present numerical results to demonstrate

the effectiveness of our proposed techniques. We investigate

1) the OPT, without any nonlinear processing (decisions) and

using Auer’s acceleration of convergence; 2) the PIC technique

with progressively increasing values of the parameter c, and

3) SIC. These cases will be simply called OPT, PIC, and SIC,

henceforth. For the OPT and the SIC (outer loop), we use a

predetermined number of iterations, namely ten. For the PIC,

we iterate until the MSE between subsequent iteration rounds

falls below a threshold of 10

−3

, or the number of iterations

becomes 30.

1

For the SIC and the PIC, we use the tanh mapping

function; we set c = 0.5 in the ﬁrst iteration. For the PIC, c

increases by 1.0 in each iteration step, while for the SIC, it

increases by 2.45. Furthermore, we use a depth of ﬁve, i.e., four

off-diagonals, for the OPT.

We show the BER of an uncoded OFDM system for vari-

ous propagation channels. The channels are characterized by

their scattering functions P

s

(ν, τ), which is deﬁned via the

relationship

∞

_

−∞

∞

_

−∞

E ¦h

∗

(t, τ)h(t

/

, τ

/

)¦ exp [2πj(νt −ν

/

t

/

)] dtdt

/

= P

s

(ν, τ)δ(ν −ν

/

)δ(τ −τ

/

) (31)

assuming that the wide-sense stationary uncorrelated-scattering

assumption [57] is fulﬁlled. Here, ν is the Doppler frequency.

We furthermore assume that the statistics of the amplitudes are

zero-mean complex Gaussian, resulting in the familiar Rayleigh

fading. For most of the examples, we analyze a static channel

so that the channel is characterized by its power-delay proﬁle

(PDP) only

PDP(τ) = E

_

[h(τ)[

2

_

. (32)

We ﬁrst analyze the impact of the shape of the PDP on

the effect of the bit-error probability (BER) for the different

equalization techniques. It is well known that, for unequalized

single-carrier systems, the BER is proportional to the squared

magnitude of the rms delay spread [58], [59]. For OFDM

systems with CP, however, we need to consider only the part of

the PDP that exceeds the length of the CP. We can thus expect

1

In the simulations that follows, the MSE threshold was not reached, so that

the number of iterations was always 30.

Fig. 1. BER as a function of the rms delay spread for a two-spike proﬁle.

OFDM system with 64 tones and CP with 12 samples length.

Fig. 2. BER as a function of the rms delay spread for a two-spike proﬁle.

OFDM system with 64 tones and no CP.

a different dependence of the BER for different PDPs. Figs. 1

and 2 show the BER for a two-spike proﬁle

PDP(τ) = δ(τ) + δ(τ −2τ

rms

) (33)

where τ

rms

is the rms delay spread normalized to the OFDM

symbol duration; the simulations use 100 channel realizations,

in each of which 100 OFDM symbols are transmitted (sam-

ple simulations with 500 channel realizations gave the same

results). We ﬁnd that the BER is lower in an equalized system

without CP than in a conventional system with CP, even if the

CP is large enough to eliminate all ICI. This fact, which is

astonishing at ﬁrst glance, can be explained by the frequency

2164 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 4, JULY 2007

Fig. 3. BER as a function of the rms delay spread for a rectangular PDP.

OFDM system with 64 tones and no CP.

diversity inherent in delay dispersion. A conventional system

with CP discards all information “hidden” in the ﬁrst G re-

ceived samples. For an OFDM system without equalizer, this

information is detrimental, since it leads to ICI and, thus,

interference on the different tones. However, a system with

one of our equalizers can actually make good use of this

information—essentially, it carries information about each bit

on several tones simultaneously and is, thus, less sensitive to

fading. We also observe that, for very large delay spreads, all of

the equalization techniques start to break down. Finally, we note

that the SIC and PIC perform slightly better than the OPT. The

“choppiness” (nonmonotonicity) of the curves stems from the

idiosyncrasies for the channel models, i.e., for a given channel

model, some delay spreads can be equalized more easily than

others (this was conﬁrmed by runs with more channel realiza-

tions). Finally, we ﬁnd that, if there is a CP and no equalizer, the

impact of ICI is noticeable for all rms delay spreads larger than

0.094 (0.5∗12/64) for the choice of parameters in Fig. 1. Figs. 3

and 4 show the BER for rectangular and exponential PDPs,

respectively. Note that, for those proﬁles, the maximum rms

delay spread considered here is smaller: We investigate only

cases where the maximum excess delay is smaller or equal to

one symbol duration (as the exponential PDP extends to inﬁnity,

we require that the “signiﬁcant” part of the PDP lasts only one

symbol duration).

We also investigate the impact of using different approximate

operators

´

H in the OPT. Fig. 5 shows the BER as a function

of the delay spread of a rectangular PDP when

´

H contains

two, eight, 32, and 64 off-diagonals of H. We see that there

is hardly any difference in the resulting BER, which shows

that good results can be achieved with a

´

H that requires little

numerical effort for its inversion. We also investigate the impact

of the acceleration procedure for the OPT. Fig. 6 shows how the

acceleration steps improve of the MSE.

We analyze next the performance in a scenario that does not

show delay dispersion (single-tap channel) but rather only time

Fig. 4. BER as a function of the rms delay spread for an exponential PDP.

OFDM system with 64 tones and no CP.

Fig. 5. BER as a function of delay spread for OPT with different numbers of

diagonals accounted for in

´

H.

variance of the channel, following a “classical” Jakes Doppler

spectrum. We plot the BER versus the rms Doppler spread

(normalized to the inverse of the OFDM symbol duration) for

the case of a classical Jakes Doppler spectrum

S

D

(ν) ∝

1

_

ν

2

max

−ν

2

(34)

at an SNR of 30 dB; see Fig. 7. Once again, the OFDM symbol

length being considered here is 64 samples. It is noteworthy

that the OPT performs better than the interference-cancellation

technique in this case. Fig. 8 shows the impact of using different

numbers of off-diagonal elements in the iterations. We also note

that, in the Doppler case, the simple but effective approach of

[60] can be used.

MOLISCH et al.: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2165

Fig. 6. Impact of the acceleration of convergence onto the MSE. Red stars:

Acceleration steps. Blue line: With acceleration. Black line: Without acceler-

ation. Simulation parameters: OFDM block size: 16 samples; two-spike PDP,

maximum excess delay: One sample; mean spike powers: [1,0.1]; no CP.

Fig. 7. BER as a function of the normalized Doppler spread for Jakes Doppler

spectrum. Single-tap PDP, 64 carriers.

In order to analyze the usefulness of our algorithms in

comparison to an OFDM system without any equalizer, we

performed simulations of a system similar to the IEEE 802.11

standard. The system bandwidth was taken to be 20 MHz, and

the carrier frequency was taken to be 5 GHz; we used the IEEE

802.11n channel models [61] which deﬁne both the delay and

angular dispersion; from this, the scattering function can be

derived. We approximate the standardized system by taking a

64-carrier OFDM system (the actual 802.11a system has 48

data carriers as well as pilots and null carriers); the velocity was

taken to be 100 m/s (which is much higher than can usually

be anticipated for 802.11a systems), making this case suffer

from ICI due to Doppler, as well as delay spread. If the CP

is 16 samples long, as deﬁned in the 802.11a standard, then

ICI is negligible (simulation results not shown here for space

Fig. 8. BER as a function of Doppler spread for OPT with different numbers

of diagonals accounted for in

´

H.

Fig. 9. BER as a function of SNR for an 802.11-like OFDM system with 64

carriers and eight samples CP. Performance is analyzed in a channel model F of

the 802.11n channel models with 100-m/s velocity.

reasons). However, if the CP is only eight samples long, which

was recently suggested as an option for the 802.11n standard,

ICI becomes noticeable. Fig. 9 plots the BER for various

interference-cancellation techniques versus SNR in comparison

with a case where no equalizer is present in the OFDM receiver.

We ﬁnd that, while the unequalized receiver shows an error

ﬂoor of 10

−3

, the OPT, as well as the PIC and SIC, does not

exhibit a ﬂoor at SNRs up to 30 dB.

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

In this paper, we have presented several algorithms for

the equalization of OFDM systems that suffer from ICI. We

2166 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 56, NO. 4, JULY 2007

considered all sources of ICI, namely, an insufﬁcient du-

ration of the guard interval, as well as temporal variations

of the channel. ISI can be eliminated by decision-feedback

algorithms. We ﬁrst established a general system model to

represent all ICI contributions as off-diagonal elements of a

channel matrix that multiplies the transmit symbols. We then

investigated various schemes for the efﬁcient inversion of this

process.

We ﬁrst considered a linear-equalization approach, where the

inversion of the channel matrix is done iteratively by means of

OPT. This approach can be improved by adding an “acceler-

ation of convergence scheme.” Furthermore, introducing deci-

sions between the iteration steps leads to a PIC scheme, where

the interference from neighboring tones (based on preliminary

decisions) is subtracted in several stages. Alternatively, a SIC

scheme ﬁrst decides about the tone with the strongest SINR,

subtracts its interference from the neighboring tones, decides

for the next-best tone, and so on.

Simulations demonstrated that all three schemes lead to a

drastic reduction of the error ﬂoor created by ICI and can even

lead to performance that is better than with long CP, while,

at the same time improving spectral efﬁciency. Our simulation

results show that the low-complexity equalization techniques

can be effectively used in practical OFDM systems and give

guidelines for their implementation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank Prof. O. Edfors for critical

reading of the manuscript. They would also like to thank the

anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments.

REFERENCES

[1] L. J. Cimini, “Analysis and simulation of a digital mobile channel us-

ing orthogonal frequency division multiplexing,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,

vol. COM-33, no. 7, pp. 665–675, Jul. 1985.

[2] T. May and H. Rohling, “OFDM,” in Wideband Wireless Digital

Communications, A. F. Molisch, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-

Hall, 2000.

[3] L. Hanzo, M. Muenster, B. Choi, and T. Keller, OFDM and MC-CDMA

for Broadband Multi-User Communications; WLANs and Broadcasting.

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2003.

[4] A. F. Molisch, Wireless Communications. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press,

2005.

[5] B. O’Hara and A. Petrick, The IEEE 802.11 Handbook: A Designer’s

Companion, 2nd ed. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Std. Pubs., 2005.

[6] A. Batra et al., Multi-Band OFDM Physical Layer Proposal, 2003.

Document IEEE 802.15-03/267r2.

[7] F. Ohrtmann, WiMax Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005.

[8] S. Weinstein and P. Ebert, “Data transmission by frequency-division mul-

tiplexing using the discrete Fourier transform,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,

vol. COM-19, no. 5, pp. 628–634, Oct. 1971.

[9] B. Muquet, Z. Wang, G. B. Giannakis, M. de Courville, and P. Duhamel,

“Cyclic preﬁxing or zero padding for wireless multicarrier transmis-

sions?” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 2136–2148,

Dec. 2002.

[10] T. Muenster and L. Hanzo, “Second-order channel parameter estimation

assisted cancellation of channel variation-induced inter-subcarrier inter-

ference in OFDM systems,” in Proc. PIMRC, 2001, pp. 1–5.

[11] Y. Mostoﬁ, D. C. Cox, and A. Bahai, “ICI mitigation for mobile OFDM

receivers,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., 2003, pp. 3351–3355.

[12] A. Gorokhov and J. P. Linnartz, “Robust OFDM receivers for disper-

sive time-varying channels: Equalization and channel acquisition,” IEEE

Trans. Commun., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 572–583, Apr. 2004.

[13] P. H. Moose, “A technique for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing

frequency offset correction,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 42, no. 10,

pp. 2908–2914, Oct. 1994.

[14] M. J. Fernandez-Getino-Garcia, O. Edfors, and J. M. Paez-Borollo, “Fre-

quency offset correction for coherent OFDM in wireless systems,” IEEE

Trans. Consum. Electron., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 187–193, Feb. 2001.

[15] D. Kim and G. L. Stuber, “Residual ISI cancellation for OFDM with ap-

plications to HDTV broadcasting,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 16,

no. 8, pp. 1590–1599, Oct. 1998.

[16] Y. Sun and L. Tong, “Channel equalization using one-tap DFE for wireless

OFDM systems with ICI and ISI,” in Proc. 2nd IEEE Workshop Signal

Process. Adv. Wireless Commun., 1999, pp. 146–149.

[17] H. Steendam and M. Moeneclaey, “Analysis and optimization of the

performance of OFDM on frequency-selective time-selective fading chan-

nels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 1811–1819, Dec. 1999.

[18] W. Kozek and A. F. Molisch, “Nonorthogonal pulseshapes for multicar-

rier communications in doubly dispersive channels,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas

Commun., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1579–1589, Oct. 1998.

[19] S. Beaver and T. Stromer, “Optimal OFDM pulse and lattice design for

doubly dispersive channels,” in Proc. 35th Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst.,

Comput., 2001, pp. 1763–1767.

[20] J. Armstrong, “Analysis of new and existing methods of reducing intercar-

rier interference due to carrier frequency offset in OFDM,” IEEE Trans.

Commun., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 365–369, Mar. 1999.

[21] Y. Zhao and S. G. Haggman, “Intercarrier interference self-cancellation

scheme for OFDM mobile communication systems,” IEEE Trans. Com-

mun., vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 1185–1191, Jul. 2001.

[22] K. Sathananthan, R. M. A. P. Rajatheva, and S. B. Slimane, “Cancellation

technique to reduce intercarrier interference in OFDM,” Electron. Lett.,

vol. 36, no. 25, pp. 2078–2079, Dec. 2000.

[23] A. Seyedi and G. J. Saulnier, “General self-cancellation scheme for mit-

igation of ICI in OFDM systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Comf. Commun.,

2004, pp. 2653–2657.

[24] R. Schur, J. Speidel, and R. Angerbauer, “Reduction of guard interval

by impulse compression for DMT modulation on twisted pair cables,” in

Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf., 2000, pp. 1632–1636.

[25] S. Chen and T. Yao, “Low complexity ICI cancellation for OFDM systems

in doubly-selective fading channels,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.,

2004, pp. 2535–2538.

[26] A. Stamoulis, S. N. Diggavi, and N. Al-Dhahir, “Intercarrier interfer-

ence in MIMO OFDM,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 50, no. 10,

pp. 2451–2464, Oct. 2002.

[27] J. Kim, J. Kang, and E. J. Powers, “Abandwidth efﬁcient OFDMtransmis-

sion scheme,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process.,

2002, pp. III-2329–III-2332.

[28] J. Zhang, W. Ser, and J. Zhu, “Effective optimisation method for channel

shortening in OFDMsystems,” Proc. Inst. Electr. Eng.—Communications,

vol. 150, no. 2, pp. 85–90, Apr. 2003.

[29] S. Trautmann, T. Karp, and N. J. Fliege, “Frequency domain equalization

of DMT/OFDM systems with insufﬁcient guard interval,” in Proc. IEEE

Int. Conf. Commun., 2002, pp. 1646–1650.

[30] S. Chen and T. Yao, “FEQ for OFDM systems with insufﬁcient CP,” in

Proc. IEEE Pers., Indoor, Mobile Radio Commun., 2003, pp. 550–553.

[31] C. J. Park and G. H. Im, “Efﬁcient DMT/OFDM transmission with in-

sufﬁcient cyclic preﬁx,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 576–578,

Sep. 2004.

[32] K. Sathananathan and C. Tellambura, “Forward error correction codes

to reduce intercarrier interference in OFDM,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp.

Circuits Syst., 2001, pp. 566–569.

[33] Y. Zhao, J. D. Leclercq, and S. G. Haggman, “Intercarrier interference

compression in OFDM communication systems by using correlative cod-

ing,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 2, no. 8, pp. 214–216, Aug. 1998.

[34] L. Vandendorpe, “Performance of fractionally spaced linear and decision-

feedback equalizers for multitone systems,” in Proc. IEEE Globecom,

1996, pp. 36–40.

[35] W. G. Jeon, K. H. Chang, and Y. S. Cho, “An equalization technique

for orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing systems in time-variant

multipath channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 27–32,

Jan. 1999.

[36] Y.-S. Choi, P. J. Voltz, and F. Cassara, “On channel estimation and de-

tection for multicarrier signals in fast and frequency selective Rayleigh

fading channel,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 1375–1387,

Aug. 2001.

[37] M. Nakamura, M. Fujii, M. Itami, K. Itoh, and A. H. Aghvami, “A study

on an MMSE ICI canceller for OFDM under Doppler-spread channel,”

in Proc. IEEE Symp. Pers., Indoor, Mobile Radio Commun., 2003,

pp. 236–240.

MOLISCH et al.: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2167

[38] X. Cai and G. B. Giannakis, “Bounding performance and suppressing in-

tercarrier interference in wireless mobile OFDM,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,

vol. 51, no. 12, pp. 2047–2056, Dec. 2003.

[39] P. Schniter, “Low-complexity equalization of OFDM in doubly selective

channels,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 1002–1011,

Apr. 2004.

[40] M. Guillaud and D. T. M. Slock, “Channel modeling and associated inter-

carrier interference equalization for OFDM systems with high Doppler

spread,” in Proc. IEEE ICASSP, 2003, pp. IV-237–IV-240.

[41] H. Bogucka and K. Wesolowski, “Frequency-domain echo cancellation in

digital multicarrier modulation systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48,

no. 2, pp. 333–342, Feb. 2000.

[42] M. Toeltsch and A. F. Molisch, “Efﬁcient OFDM transmission without

cyclic preﬁx over frequency-selective channels,” in Proc. PIMRC, 2000,

pp. 1363–1367.

[43] M. Toeltsch and A. F. Molisch, “Equalization of OFDM-systems by inter-

ference cancellation techniques,” in Proc. ICC, 2001, pp. 1950–1954.

[44] Q. Xuerong and Z. Lijun, “Interchannel interference cancellation in wire-

less OFDM systems via Gauss–Seidel method,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Com-

mun. Technol., 2003, pp. 1051–1055.

[45] J. Cai, J. W. Mark, and X. Shen, “ICI cancellation in OFDM wireless

communication systems,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecomm. Conf., 2002,

pp. 656–660.

[46] B. Xu, C. Yang, and S. Mao, “A multi-carrier detection algorithm for

OFDM systems without guard time,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun.,

2003, pp. 3377–3381.

[47] J. Cannon, “Non-local perturbation techniques,” in Methods in Radiative

Transfer, W. Kalkofen, Ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press,

1984.

[48] G. Golub and C. van Loan, Matrix Computations, 2nd ed. Baltimore,

MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989.

[49] H. Elders-Boll, H. D. Schotten, and A. Busboom, “Efﬁcient implemen-

tation of linear multiuser detectors for asynchronous CDMA systems by

linear interference cancellation,” Eur. Trans. Telecommun., vol. 9, no. 5,

pp. 427–438, 1998.

[50] L. K. Rasmussen, T. J. Lim, and A. L. Johansson, “A matrix-algebraic

approach to successive interference cancellation in CDMA,” IEEE Trans.

Commun., vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 145–151, Jan. 2000.

[51] D. Guo, L. K. Rasmussen, S. Sun, and T. J. Lim, “A matrix-algebraic

approach to linear parallel interference cancellation in CDMA,” IEEE

Trans. Commun., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 152–161, Jan. 2000.

[52] L. Auer, “Acceleration of convergence,” in Numerical Radiative Transfer,

W. Kalkofen, Ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1987.

[53] K. C. Ng, “Hypernetted chain solutions for the classical one-

component plasma up to gamma = 7000,” J. Chem. Phys, vol. 61, no. 7,

pp. 2680–2689, Oct. 1974.

[54] S. Verdu, Multiuser Detection. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ.

Press, 1998.

[55] D. Raphaeli, “Iterative cochannel interference cancellation in synchro-

nous CDMA on a frequency selective channel,” in Proc. 5th IEEE Conf.

Int. Univ. Pers. Commun., 1996, pp. 336–340.

[56] S. Suyama, H. Suzuki, and K. Fukawa, “An OFDM receiver employing

turbo equalization for multipath environments with delay spread greater

than the guard interval,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf.—Spring, 2003,

pp. 632–636.

[57] P. Bello, “Characterization of randomly time-variant linear channels,”

IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. COM-11, no. 4, pp. 360–393, Dec. 1963.

[58] J. Chuang, “The effects of time delay spread on portable radio communi-

cations channels with digital modulation,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,

vol. SAC-5, no. 5, pp. 879–888, Jun. 1987.

[59] A. F. Molisch, Ed., Wideband Wireless Digital Communications. New

York: Prentice-Hall, 2000.

[60] L. Rugini, P. Banelli, and G. Leus, “Simple equalization of time-varying

channels for OFDM,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 619–621,

Jul. 2005.

[61] V. Erceg, L. Schumacher, P. Kyritsi, D. S. Baum, A. F. Molisch, and

A. Y. Gorokhov, “Indoor MIMO WLAN channel models,” in Proc. Stan-

dardization Drafts IEEE 802 Meeting, Dallas, TX, Mar. 2003.

Andreas F. Molisch (S’89–M’95–SM’00–F’05)

received the Dipl.Ing., Dr.Techn., and Habilitation

degrees from the Technical University of Vienna,

Vienna, Austria, in 1990, 1994, and 1999,

respectively.

From 1991 to 2000, he was with the Technical

University of Vienna, most recently as an Associate

Professor. From 2000 to 2002, he was with the Wire-

less Systems Research Department, AT&T (Bell)

Laboratories Research, Middletown, NJ. Since then,

he has been with Mitsubishi Electric Research Lab-

oratories, Cambridge, MA, where he is now a Distinguished Member of

Technical Staff. He is also a Professor and Chairholder for radio systems

at Lund University, Lund, Sweden. He has done research in the areas of

surface-acoustic-wave ﬁlters, radiative transfer in atomic vapors, atomic line

ﬁlters, smart antennas, and wideband systems. His current research inter-

ests are multiple-input–multiple-output (MIMO) systems, measurement and

modeling of mobile-radio channels, cooperative communications, and ultra-

wideband (UWB) systems. He has authored, coauthored, or edited four books

(among them is the recent textbook Wireless Communications, Wiley–IEEE

Press), 11 book chapters, some 100 journal papers, and numerous conference

contributions.

Dr. Molisch is an Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS

COMMUNICATIONS, Guest Editor of a recent Special Issue on UWB (in the

IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS). He has been a

member of numerous Technical Program Committees (TPCs), Vice Chair of the

TPC of Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC) 2005 spring, General Chair of

ICUWB 2006, TPC Chair for Chinacom 2007, and Wireless Symposium Chair

for Globecom 2007. He has participated in the European research initiatives

“COST 231,” “COST 259,” and “COST 273,” where he was Chairman of

the MIMO channel working group. He was Chairman of the IEEE 802.15.4a

channel model standardization group and is also Chairman of Commission C

(signals and systems) of the International Union of Radio Scientists. He is an

IEEE Distinguished Lecturer and recipient of several awards.

Martin Toeltsch (M’00) received the Dipl. Ing.

(M.S.) degree in communications engineering and

the Dr.Tech. degree from the Technische Universität

Wien (TU-Wien), Vienna, Austria, in 1998 and 2002,

respectively. In his doctoral thesis, he investigated

high-resolution evaluations of directionally resolved

radio-channel measurements.

From 1992 to 1998, he worked in the ﬁeld of

signal and image processing for medical applica-

tions. From 1998 to 2002, he was a member of the

Mobile Communications Group at the Institut für

Nachrichten-und Hochfrequenztechnik, TU-Wien. His research focused on sig-

nal processing, orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing and smart-antenna

radio-channel measurements, as well as propagation and channel modeling. In

2002, he founded SYMENA Software and Consulting Ltd., Vienna, where he

develops smart-antenna radio network planning and optimization tools.

Sameer Vermani received the B.Tech. degree (with

the institute silver medal) in electrical engineering

from the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India,

and the M.S. degree in electrical engineering from

the University of California, Berkeley, in 2006.

He was the recipient of the Vodafone U.S. Founda-

tion Fellowship for graduate study at Berkeley. He is

currently with Qualcomm Inc., San Diego, CA. His

research interests span the physical layer of wireless-

communication systems. In particular, he has done

work in the areas of multiple-input–multiple-output

and orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing systems.

The subcarrier modulation is done by means of an inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) of the data blocks (typical length N = 64 . An area of particular interest has been linear equalization in the frequency domain. (2) As the CP is discarded by the receiver. The remainder of this paper is organized the following way: in Section II. Reference [38] also provides a matched-ﬁlter bound for time-varying frequency-selective channels for the case that the CP is sufﬁciently long.e.. various algorithms have been considered for the matrix inversion. Section III is dedicated to the “operator-perturbation technique” (OPT) for the efﬁcient inversion of matrices. 4) Techniques that depend on the presence of unused subcarriers (null carriers): In this approach. 3) Temporal equalizers: In these techniques. (i) 2π −G ≤ n < N (1) where G is the length of the CP. 2) Self-interference-cancellation techniques: In this approach. Equalization of ICI due to insufﬁcient guard intervals. OFDM divides the data stream into blocks of length N . [25]. the basic pulseshape for the signaling of the subcarriers can also be modiﬁed [18]. II. as well as a parallelinterference-cancellation (PIC) scheme that shows rapid convergence and lower error ﬂoor for some ranges of delay spread. Reference [26] found the coefﬁcients for a temporal ﬁlter that maximizes the SINR for both conventional OFDM and multiple-input–multiple-output (MIMO)-OFDM. we investigate interference-cancellation techniques. Similarly to the principle of the CP. redundancy is placed in the frequency domain by having more carriers than is strictly necessary. l]. for the case of the CP being absent. which consists of L multipath components 0 ≤ l < L and is time-variant. [19]. 5) Forward-error correction [32]: The capability of any forward-error-correcting code can be used to eliminate the errors caused by the ICI. which leads to a strong reduction in the self-interference.MOLISCH et al. 1) Optimum choice of the carrier spacing and OFDM symbol length: By trading off ICI caused by temporal variations and by delay dispersion. This technique is very effective for the mitigation of ICI but leads to a reduction of the spectral efﬁciency of the system. interest in this approach has greatly increased and various related schemes have been published. moreover. A summary and the conclusions wrap up this paper. based on tail cancellation and cyclic reconstruction. was studied in [16]. Equalization of ICI due to temporal variations of the channels has been studied in [11]. The transmit signal in the time-domain x(i) [n] can then be written as x(i) [n] = 1 N N −1 k=0 Xk ej N nk . Let the block Xk be the ith block of the transmission. however. We also present a serial-interference-cancellation (SIC). this approach is not feasible in time-variant wireless channels. Reference [44] uses a Gauss–Seidel iteration for the inversion of the channel matrix. [12]. with k indexing the N complex modulation symbols. the equalization is done in the time domain. covering both PIC and SIC. the information is modulated not just onto a single subcarrier but onto a group of them. Bogucka and Wesolowski [41] advocated the use of the LMS algorithm to ﬁnd the coefﬁcients in the frequency domain. which is inverted explicitly or implicitly. channel shortening can be used to make the effective impulse response shorter than the CP [28]. The channel performs the convolution with the impulse response of the channel h[n. In a similar approach. with sufﬁcient guard interval). . but up to 8000 carriers are possible (i) for digital video broadcasting (DVB). most of the equalization strategies suggested in these papers rely on the special structure of the transfer-function matrix in the case of pure Doppler-induced ICI (i. In a related approach. A large range of techniques has been developed in recent years and can be classiﬁed as follows. possibly in combination with decision-feedback equalization (DFE). Direct inversion of the channel matrix [either according to a zero-forcing or an minimum mean-squared error (MMSE) criterion] is computationally too expensive. [45] and [46] suggested SIC schemes and analyzed their performance. ICI (and ISI) can lead to a considerable performance degradation in many systems and must be combated. the redundancy in the frequency domain allows elimination of the ICI [29]–[31]. Since 2000. the bit error rate (BER) can be minimized without requiring any structural changes in either the transmitter or receiver [17]. we simply set G = 0. was ﬁrst suggested in the study in [15] and improved in the study in [27]. 1024 carriers. The received signal y (i) [n] (without noise added by the channel) is then y (i) [n] = h ∗ x(i) [n]. we describe the system model as well as the channel characteristics determining the system behavior.: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2159 Irrespective of the reasons. which allows elimination of the ISI by redundancy in the time domain. The impact of the channel can be described by a transfer-function matrix. and correlative coding [33] can improve the ICI as well. The ﬁrst L − G − 1 samples of y (i) [n] are . Reference [40] showed that the elimination of ISI due to time variations is dual to the temporal equalization in single-carrier systems. [43]. before the FFT at the receiver (with a possible feedback that undergoes backand-forth transformations) [24]. Next. S YSTEM M ODEL This section brieﬂy summarizes the model we use for OFDM transceiver and channel (further details can be found in [2]–[4]). when we ﬁrst suggested these algorithms in our conference papers [42]. as reﬂected by the double indexing. The technique was suggested in [20] and later extended in [21]–[23]. we henceforth consider only 0 ≤ n < N . Section V gives numerical results for both the OPT and the interference cancellation. An efﬁcient scheme called RISIC. and [34]–[39]. . we therefore suggest an iterative inversion technique for the general case of time-varying delaydispersive channels with insufﬁcient CP. In this paper. For wireline communications.

or in the time domain. and Y(i. again. the data vector still contains interference from its own symbol. (8) 2π The OPT is an iterative method to efﬁciently approximate and invert linear or nonlinear operators. O PERATOR -P ERTURBATION T ECHNIQUE (OPT) After ISI cancellation.i−1) [n] are the contributions to y (i) [n] stemming from the ith and i − 1th block. y (i) consists of two parts: L−1 This can be written in a compact form as a vector–matrixproduct Y(i) = Y(i. l]x(i) [n − l]σ[n − l + G]e−j N nk 2π Yk N −1 L−1 (i.m (i. thus. (11) 1 N N −1L−1 ˜ h[n+iN . JULY 2007 distorted by ISI from the previous symbol x(i−1) . Due to this reason. the parts of Yk that originate Yk from the own symbol i and the previous symbol i − 1. VOL. To reconstruct the sent symbols.i−1) [n] e−j N nk 2π = n=0 l=0 ˜ h[n + iN .i−1) is the ISI term.m (i. NO.i−1) = H(i. III.m = (i.2160 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY. l]ej n=0 l=0 2π N (nm−lm−nk) σ[n−l+G] (7) A matrix inversion require O(n3 ) operations. where n is the size of the square matrix. The above formulation is general in the sense that it includes the ICI due to the time variations and the insufﬁcient guard interval.i) [n] + yi N −1 L−1 (i. Throughout this paper. If we use (1). Note that if X(i−1) was detected successfully (and the channel is completely known. we henceforth drop the index of the block number superscript (i) . In the next section. Yk = DFT{y (i) [n]}k .i) contains the desired data disturbed by ICI. we have to compute the data vector from (in the absence of noise) Y = HX. To equalize this interference.i−1) can be computed and subtracted from Y(i) . (i. as in [15].i−1) (i) and Yk are.i) +Y(i. respectively.i) (5) Yk where (i. it is also known as Jacobi-Iteration Yk (i) N −1 = n=0 y (i. we will introduce a technique (OPT) that only needs O(n2 ) operations per iteration. Standard OPT and Hk. l]x(i−1) [n − l + G + N ] (1 − σ[n − l + G]) e−j N nk (4) Yk (i. the ICI. and further. ISI is not considered in the remainder of this paper. where k again is the subcarrier index. We now write the DFT of (3) in the receiver [15] as (4). It was originally introduced by Cannon in [47] and is well known in the astrophysics community.i) [n] and y (i.i) [n] + y (i. l]x(i−1)[n−l+ G+N ](1−σ[n−l+ G]) (3) = y (i.i) Yk N −1 = m=0 N −1 (i) Xm Hk. (i) the receiver performs a DFT on y (i) [n].i−1) = 1 N N −1 L−1 n=0 l=G+1 ˜ h[n + iN .i−1) . then Y(i.i−1) (6) A straightforward solution is the inversion of this equation.i) · X(i) + H(i. ˜ shown at the bottom of the page. 4.i−1) = m=0 (i−1) Xm Hk. and y (i.i) Hk.i−1) [n] where σ is the Heaviside function. if not otherwise stated. respectively.i) (i.m (i. This procedure can either be done in the frequency domain. 56. l]ej N (nm−lm−nk) × {1 − σ[n − l + G]} . we assume perfect synchronization of carriers and blocks.i) + n=0 l=G+1 2π ˜ h[n + iN . as we always assume in this paper). (10) y (i) [n] = l=0 h[n. l]x(i) [n − l]σ[n − l + G] L−1 + l=G+1 h[n. A. where N = N + G. namely ⇒ Xi = H−1 · Yi . For simplicity. as we showed here. absence of noise. For matrices. these parts can then be written as (i.i−1) · X(i−1) (9) where Y(i.

then we get the solution Y − HX(∞) = 0 (19) and therefore. there is no clear optimal choice of M . After initialization [steps (13) and (14)].l [∆Xn. +1} for BPSK. Such an “OPT with decision” technique can also be interpreted as a PIC technique. therefore. For a M th order acceleration. do not seem to be widely known in mobile radio. The question of how many iteration loops are necessary for a sufﬁcient accuracy will be treated in the next section. Step (16) of the iteration procedure requires a vector–matrixproduct that needs O(n2 ) operations. The solution of (11) is found by the following iteration: X(0) = H−1 Y (0) niques have been invented in astrophysics and chemical physics but. this acceleration scheme is a very general method that can be applied to every linear iterative approximation algorithm.MOLISCH et al. Further Modiﬁcations We can further exploit the ﬁnite-alphabet properties of the modulation: As we know that the solution of X = H−1 Y must lie in the set {−1.l | ∆Xn. IV. the choice for M = 2 requires the last four successive samples of the sequence of approximations of the solution.l ] (17) (X(i) ) where e(X(i) ) is the error of the old solution X(i) . For example. linear iterative schemes are only linearly convergent. According to the study in [52]. Unfortunately. These tech- In the last 15 years. a matrix that contains only the main diagonal and a few off-diagonals of the matrix H. when we use more information than the last solution Xi−1 to calculate the new Xi : M X(i) = α0 X(i−1) + m=1 αm X(i−1−m) . Following this algorithm. Then. (20) α0 = 1 − αm is a normalization factor.j = = (H − H)X(0) (i) X(i+1) = H−1 (i+1) +Y (15) (16) bacc = i l 1 [∆Xn..1]). Clearly.l | (22) (23) = (H − H)X(i+1) × [∆Xn. Substituting step (15) in step (16) gives X(i+1) = X(i) + H−1 Y − HX(i) e |XN −1. C. Closer inspection of (5) and (7) reveals that the ICI . etc.l ] 1 l where subscript (i) indexes the ith iteration. If X(i) converges to X(∞) . This step determines the overall performance. Auer [52] gives a pseudocode for a second-order acceleration. ICI C ANCELLATION This means that if det{H−1 } = 0.l ] |XN −1. This was also validated by our own investigations. 10. which has also been used in the context of interference cancellation in code-division multiple access (CDMA) [49]–[51]. the next four standard iterations are done followed by another acceleration. i.e. An improvement of convergent speed can be achieved. Alternatively. We write (10) as Y = HX − (12) where H is the approximate operator whose inverse is easy to compute.l − ∆Xn−i. B. one acceleration step is inserted. astonishingly. (18) where ∆Xn. we can include a BPSK slicer after step (15) of the OPT algorithm. then X(∞) = H−1 (∞) (∞) +Y = (H − H)X(∞) X(∞) = H−1 (H − H)X(∞) + Y = X(∞) + H−1 Y − HX(∞) ⇒ 0 = H−1 Y − HX(∞) .l − ∆Xn−j. the results of the study in [52] indicate that the utilization of higher orders than M = 2 usually do not signiﬁcantly improve the acceleration. and is the deviation from the exact solution. In principle. we must supply M + 2 successive estimates of the solution. steps (15) and (16) are repeated until a criterion is reached. which we will discuss in the next section. after every fourth iteration in the approximation of Y = HX.l − ∆Xn−i. H can be taken as a banded matrix. X(∞) = X. Acceleration of Convergence Auer [52] and Ng [53] developed methods to improve the convergence speed of linear iterative schemes. H could consist of the diagonal elements of H and zero off-diagonal elements and would thus be trivial to invert. efﬁcient techniques have been developed for the suppression of cochannel interferers in CDMA systems [54]. ch. This slicer decides on the components of Xi+1 and forces them to +1 or −1. The coefﬁcients αm are determined as the solutions of the following set of linear equations [53]: Macc α = bacc where (21) (13) (14) acc Mi.l is the lth component of the vector X(n) − X(n−1) .: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2161 (see [48. we implemented the second-order acceleration only (M = 2).

c < 1) are appropriate if the estimates are not yet reliable. if the signal-tointerference ratio (SIR). The most computationally expensive part of the algorithm is the calculation of the interference (24)—it is a matrix–vector product and is the reason for the O(n2 )-complexity of this method. which is deﬁned in Section IV-B. decisions are We then order the subchannels by their SIR. This technique stems from an optimization technique called “simulated annealing” and avoids the convergence of the MSE to a local minimum [55]. the subchannels are processed in the order of their corresponding SIR (inner loop) that was calculated beforehand for the actual channel situation. These improvements are due to the determination and subtraction of the interference of all the other subcarriers. We distinguish between PIC and SIC. 4. A good choice ˆ for BPSK is the hyperbolic tangent function [55] (Xk )(i) = tanh(c · (Xk )(i) ) because far-off estimates are forced to ±1 and thus reduced in their impact on the next cancellation stage.g. . NO. These steps are identical to those of the OPT technique. the decision function approximates the signum function. . an initialization is not required. and all decisions are in the set {±1}. Thus. Let us ﬁrst deﬁne a SIR for the subchannel k as SIRk = |Hkk |2 N −1 l=0 l=k where we equalize the interference-canceled received symbol by the channel response on the frequency of subcarrier k. (25) The iteration stops after the MSE falls below a predeﬁned threshold or the number of iterations reaches a predeﬁned maximum number. similar to the OPT technique. the techniques developed for CDMA can be reused for our application. Due to the fact that the inﬂuence of two subcarriers decreases with increasing frequency distance. In contrast to PIC. we can restrict the interference calculation to the neighboring carriers. Before entering the next round of iterations. which proposed simultaneous cancellation of several symbols in order to reduce processing delays. 56. For each subcarrier. This ensures that high reliable channels (i.. the new interference is determined. (28) The updated interference-canceled received symbol vector Y(i) is simpliﬁed to Y(i) = Y − I(i) . This algorithm is called “parallel. they could be forced to the nearest symbol of the used alphabet.. A. while estimates with small amplitudes are more or less unchanged. It is also noteworthy that the optimum PIC scheme makes use of the log-likelihood ratio from the MAP decoder [56]. Serial Interference Cancellation (SIC) The main difference between SIC and PIC is that the update steps (25) and (26) are not done in parallel for all subcarriers but sequentially one channel after the other. A proper initialization has to be done before entering the iteration loop. At the end of the iteration. the computational complexity of the algorithm is O(n2 ). Parallel Interference Cancellation (PIC) For initialization. After each estimate and decision. The basic idea behind OFDM interference cancellation is that the decisions of the symbols on the subcarriers are improved iteratively. VOL. with high SIR) are processed before the weak channels. diagH is the diagonal of H only and can be inverted with computational effort O(n). the interference (Ik )(i) = ˆ Hkl (Xl )(i−1) + l∈Xl decided in previous iteration and l=k ˆ Hkl (Xl )(i) l∈Xl decided in current iteration (30) is computed and subtracted. For each subchannel k of iteration step i.g. depending on the order in which the decisions of the subcarrier symbols are done. Performance can be further improved if c is increased from one iteration step to the next. Large c (c > 10) are appropriate for accurate estimates. Due to the vector–matrix multiplication. In the beginning. we again calculate a ﬁrst estimate X(0) = (diagH)−1 · Y.e. (29) |Hkl |2 where f (·) is the nonlinear decision function. with the special assumption of H = diagH. JULY 2007 is mathematically equivalent to cochannel interference (even though it is stemming from other subcarriers). The interference Ii in step i is I(i) = HX(i−1) − diagH X(i−1) . The error vector and the MSE in the receiver are deﬁned as ˆ = Y − H · Xi MSE = . In each iteration step (outer loop). In the most simple case. is large.. the updated estimate of the transmitted symbol on subcarrier k is (Xk )(i) = (Yk )(i) /Hkk (26) B. the interference of all other subcarriers is computed. The factor c in the hyperbolic tangent function controls the slope near zero. n − 1 simultaneously by a vector–matrix calculus. Small c (e. This technique. based on the decisions of the previous iteration. The computational effort is again O(n2 ) due to the necessity to sum up the off-diagonal elements of the channel matrix and the computation of the interference . the estimated symbols can be processed in a nonlinear fashion. That is the case for good channels with small delay spread. suggested by us in [43]. Here. More generally ˆ (Xk )(i) = f (Xk )(i) (27) . Hence.” because (25) and (26) can be applied to all channels k = 0 . (24) still unreliable so that small c is appropriate. e.2162 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY. was also used in [45].

For OFDM systems with CP. even if the CP is large enough to eliminate all ICI. while for the SIC. Note that the interference is calculated from the actual ˆ estimate X(i) compared to Section IV-A. which is deﬁned via the relationship ∞ ∞ Fig. and SIC.45.0 in each iteration step. we analyze a static channel so that the channel is characterized by its power-delay proﬁle (PDP) only PDP(τ ) = E |h(τ )|2 . Furthermore. four off-diagonals. We show the BER of an uncoded OFDM system for various propagation channels. 2) the PIC technique with progressively increasing values of the parameter c.. τ ). or the number of iterations becomes 30. The rest of the algorithm is similar to PIC. can be explained by the frequency . in each of which 100 OFDM symbols are transmitted (sample simulations with 500 channel realizations gave the same results). E {h∗ (t. without any nonlinear processing (decisions) and using Auer’s acceleration of convergence. The other channels were decided during the last iteration step. for the OPT. so that the number of iterations was always 30. we iterate until the MSE between subsequent iteration rounds falls below a threshold of 10−3 . OFDM system with 64 tones and no CP. BER as a function of the rms delay spread for a two-spike proﬁle. 1. however. and 3) SIC. the impact of estimated symbols on lowSIR carriers is considered immediately. we set c = 0. the MSE threshold was not reached. namely ten. We ﬁnd that the BER is lower in an equalized system without CP than in a conventional system with CP. for unequalized single-carrier systems. we use the tanh mapping function. within a single iteration step. τ )h(t . These cases will be simply called OPT. OFDM system with 64 tones and CP with 12 samples length. This fact. It is well known that. we use a depth of ﬁve.e. resulting in the familiar Rayleigh fading. Here.1 For the SIC and the PIC. We furthermore assume that the statistics of the amplitudes are zero-mean complex Gaussian. PIC. [59]. henceforth. c increases by 1. For most of the examples. a different dependence of the BER for different PDPs. we use a predetermined number of iterations. Figs. i. τ )δ(ν − ν )δ(τ − τ ) (31) assuming that the wide-sense stationary uncorrelated-scattering assumption [57] is fulﬁlled. We can thus expect 1 In the simulations that follows. where it is calculated ˆ from the previous estimate X(i−1) . V. ν is the Doppler frequency. The major advantage of SIC compared to PIC is that. 2. it increases by 2. we present numerical results to demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed techniques. BER as a function of the rms delay spread for a two-spike proﬁle. X(i) contains all the decisions of subchannels that were previously made because they have higher SIR. For the PIC. We investigate 1) the OPT. where τrms is the rms delay spread normalized to the OFDM symbol duration. we need to consider only the part of the PDP that exceeds the length of the CP. The channels are characterized by their scattering functions Ps (ν. For the OPT and the SIC (outer loop). S IMULATION R ESULTS In the following. which is astonishing at ﬁrst glance. the simulations use 100 channel realizations.5 in the ﬁrst iteration. 1 and 2 show the BER for a two-spike proﬁle PDP(τ ) = δ(τ ) + δ(τ − 2τrms ) (33) We ﬁrst analyze the impact of the shape of the PDP on the effect of the bit-error probability (BER) for the different equalization techniques.MOLISCH et al. τ )} exp [2πj(νt − ν t )] dtdt −∞ −∞ = Ps (ν. the BER is proportional to the squared magnitude of the rms delay spread [58].: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2163 terms. For the PIC. (32) Fig.

However. interference on the different tones. the maximum rms delay spread considered here is smaller: We investigate only cases where the maximum excess delay is smaller or equal to one symbol duration (as the exponential PDP extends to inﬁnity. i. Finally. 8 shows the impact of using different numbers of off-diagonal elements in the iterations. OFDM system with 64 tones and no CP. eight. 1. diversity inherent in delay dispersion. Figs. A conventional system with CP discards all information “hidden” in the ﬁrst G received samples. this information is detrimental. For an OFDM system without equalizer. It is noteworthy that the OPT performs better than the interference-cancellation technique in this case. 3 and 4 show the BER for rectangular and exponential PDPs. we ﬁnd that. BER as a function of delay spread for OPT with different numbers of diagonals accounted for in H. Fig. Fig. Finally. 7. we require that the “signiﬁcant” part of the PDP lasts only one symbol duration).e. Fig. Fig. some delay spreads can be equalized more easily than others (this was conﬁrmed by runs with more channel realizations). which shows that good results can be achieved with a H that requires little numerical effort for its inversion. 32. JULY 2007 Fig. a system with one of our equalizers can actually make good use of this information—essentially. 5. We also observe that. 3. less sensitive to fading. OFDM system with 64 tones and no CP. We see that there is hardly any difference in the resulting BER. Note that. for those proﬁles. We also note that. the simple but effective approach of [60] can be used. BER as a function of the rms delay spread for a rectangular PDP. 56. if there is a CP and no equalizer. Once again. see Fig.094 (0. thus. We analyze next the performance in a scenario that does not show delay dispersion (single-tap channel) but rather only time Fig. 4. We also investigate the impact of the acceleration procedure for the OPT. in the Doppler case. respectively. The “choppiness” (nonmonotonicity) of the curves stems from the idiosyncrasies for the channel models. 4.. the impact of ICI is noticeable for all rms delay spreads larger than 0. all of the equalization techniques start to break down. thus. since it leads to ICI and. variance of the channel. for a given channel model. BER as a function of the rms delay spread for an exponential PDP. it carries information about each bit on several tones simultaneously and is. 6 shows how the acceleration steps improve of the MSE. following a “classical” Jakes Doppler spectrum. We also investigate the impact of using different approximate operators H in the OPT. for very large delay spreads. 5 shows the BER as a function of the delay spread of a rectangular PDP when H contains two. NO. VOL.2164 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY. we note that the SIC and PIC perform slightly better than the OPT. and 64 off-diagonals of H. . the OFDM symbol length being considered here is 64 samples. We plot the BER versus the rms Doppler spread (normalized to the inverse of the OFDM symbol duration) for the case of a classical Jakes Doppler spectrum SD (ν) ∝ 1 2 νmax − ν2 (34) at an SNR of 30 dB.5∗12/64) for the choice of parameters in Fig.

7. We . Blue line: With acceleration. the OPT. we used the IEEE 802. as well as the PIC and SIC.11 standard. does not exhibit a ﬂoor at SNRs up to 30 dB. 9. Performance is analyzed in a channel model F of the 802. VI. as deﬁned in the 802. The system bandwidth was taken to be 20 MHz. Fig.0. making this case suffer from ICI due to Doppler. If the CP is 16 samples long. Black line: Without acceleration. We ﬁnd that.11-like OFDM system with 64 carriers and eight samples CP. Fig.1]. maximum excess delay: One sample.11n channel models with 100-m/s velocity. Fig. and the carrier frequency was taken to be 5 GHz.: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2165 Fig. two-spike PDP.11a system has 48 data carriers as well as pilots and null carriers). S UMMARY AND C ONCLUSION In this paper. We approximate the standardized system by taking a 64-carrier OFDM system (the actual 802.11n standard. Red stars: Acceleration steps. no CP. BER as a function of Doppler spread for OPT with different numbers of diagonals accounted for in H.MOLISCH et al. which was recently suggested as an option for the 802. 6. 9 plots the BER for various interference-cancellation techniques versus SNR in comparison with a case where no equalizer is present in the OFDM receiver. from this. BER as a function of the normalized Doppler spread for Jakes Doppler spectrum. as well as delay spread. if the CP is only eight samples long. BER as a function of SNR for an 802. Simulation parameters: OFDM block size: 16 samples. Impact of the acceleration of convergence onto the MSE. we performed simulations of a system similar to the IEEE 802. we have presented several algorithms for the equalization of OFDM systems that suffer from ICI. mean spike powers: [1. 64 carriers. 8. then ICI is negligible (simulation results not shown here for space Fig.11a standard.11n channel models [61] which deﬁne both the delay and angular dispersion. while the unequalized receiver shows an error ﬂoor of 10−3 . the velocity was taken to be 100 m/s (which is much higher than can usually be anticipated for 802.11a systems). In order to analyze the usefulness of our algorithms in comparison to an OFDM system without any equalizer. Single-tap PDP. the scattering function can be derived. ICI becomes noticeable. reasons). However.

2001. 1999. 2003. pp.” Furthermore. H... Zhao and S. Conf. Weinstein and P. Electr. [24] R. III-2329–III-2332. IEEE Int. Apr. 2002. Bahai. pp. “Forward error correction codes to reduce intercarrier interference in OFDM. Tong.” IEEE Trans. [17] H. Armstrong.” Proc. vol. “Effective optimisation method for channel shortening in OFDM systems. O. no. Muenster. [14] M. 566–569. IEEE Int. 2000. Kozek and A. [16] Y.. and T. Stamoulis. no. 1996. and A. IEEE Int. S. vol. O’Hara and A. and S. Chen and T. We then investigated various schemes for the efﬁcient inversion of this process. G. “Data transmission by frequency-division multiplexing using the discrete Fourier transform. Adv. NJ: IEEE Std. M. 2001. Petrick. Ohrtmann.” IEEE Trans. Karp. Rohling. Pubs.. Speech. Yao.” IEEE Commun. 2136–2148. 2. “Intercarrier interference compression in OFDM communication systems by using correlative coding. “Nonorthogonal pulseshapes for multicarrier communications in doubly dispersive channels. pp. Z. Sun and L. Haggman. Lett. pp. vol.. 52. [28] J. Commun. Lett.. de Courville. “Optimal OFDM pulse and lattice design for doubly dispersive channels. 2002. 2000. Im. Slimane. H. vol. Moose. “An equalization technique for orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing systems in time-variant multipath channels. R. Choi. 47.. [32] K. Al-Dhahir. Symp. [36] Y.” in Proc. Jan.” in Proc. H. pp. 2078–2079. B. Seyedi and G. “OFDM. pp. Dec. pp.11 Handbook: A Designer’s Companion. 2535–2538. pp. H. M. Aug. Kim.. Apr. . Oct. 7. 4. J.15-03/267r2. Areas Commun. 2003. S. vol. 50. K. 1998. and F. [33] Y. IEEE Int. Park and G. Signals. pp.” IEEE Trans. “Frequency offset correction for coherent OFDM in wireless systems. vol. Angerbauer. Ser.. A. “A study on an MMSE ICI canceller for OFDM under Doppler-spread channel. We ﬁrst established a general system model to represent all ICI contributions as off-diagonal elements of a channel matrix that multiplies the transmit symbols. Fujii. [2] T. vol. and S. “Frequency domain equalization of DMT/OFDM systems with insufﬁcient guard interval. 42. 2908–2914.” in Proc. and E.. 1811–1819.” IEEE J. pp. 2005.” IEEE Trans.. VOL. M. pp.. pp. Wireless Communications. Hanzo. “Efﬁcient DMT/OFDM transmission with insufﬁcient cyclic preﬁx. pp. WiMax Handbook.” IEEE Trans. no. 1998. Jul. PIMRC. IEEE Globecom. no. 1185–1191.. and R. 85–90. Conf.. Jul. 2003. pp. Mar. Signal Process. Stuber. 12. vol. no. 1632–1636. M. “Robust OFDM receivers for dispersive time-varying channels: Equalization and channel acquisition. pp. 550–553. 1646–1650. 2001. OFDM and MC-CDMA for Broadband Multi-User Communications. 1999.” IEEE Trans. NO. Inst. J.” in Proc. Beaver and T. pp. Tellambura. pp. vol. “Performance of fractionally spaced linear and decisionfeedback equalizers for multitone systems. pp. Electron. “Analysis and simulation of a digital mobile channel using orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. “Low complexity ICI cancellation for OFDM systems in doubly-selective fading channels. Aug. D. J. an insufﬁcient duration of the guard interval. Simulations demonstrated that all three schemes lead to a drastic reduction of the error ﬂoor created by ICI and can even lead to performance that is better than with long CP. Molisch. Haggman. Acoust. IEEE Symp. “A technique for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing frequency offset correction. Linnartz. pp. IEEE Pers.” IEEE Trans.. Comput. “Cyclic preﬁxing or zero padding for wireless multicarrier transmissions?” IEEE Trans. and J. Jeon. J. O. vol. Our simulation results show that the low-complexity equalization techniques can be effectively used in practical OFDM systems and give guidelines for their implementation. [25] S. no. 36. “Analysis and optimization of the performance of OFDM on frequency-selective time-selective fading channels. “Residual ISI cancellation for OFDM with applications to HDTV broadcasting. Gorokhov and J. Edfors. Rajatheva. [37] M. vol. B.” Electron. [3] L. Commun.. 236–240.. J. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank Prof. as well as temporal variations of the channel. J. They would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments. pp. J. Multi-Band OFDM Physical Layer Proposal. Commun. Commun. Chen and T. IEEE Int. IEEE Int. NJ: PrenticeHall. Eng. Paez-Borollo. [31] C. pp. 2001. [34] L. [15] D. Document IEEE 802. 2nd ed. no. no. Yao. vol. Zhao. and N.” IEEE Trans. Molisch. 56. 8. Ed.. Conf. 150. WLANs and Broadcasting. “ICI mitigation for mobile OFDM receivers. Keller. [7] F. 8.—Communications. Wireless Commun. Mobile Radio Commun. Oct...” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans. 2nd IEEE Workshop Signal Process. “A bandwidth efﬁcient OFDM transmission scheme.” IEEE Trans. B. J. Voltz. COM-19. Areas Commun. “Intercarrier interference self-cancellation scheme for OFDM mobile communication systems. Cox. 10.. 3351–3355. Moeneclaey. Cimini. pp. 3. “FEQ for OFDM systems with insufﬁcient CP. Leclercq. Aghvami. 12. F. M. 2653–2657. Muenster and L. Hoboken. Sathananathan and C. 1375–1387.. G.” in Wideband Wireless Digital Communications. Lett. Commun. 1–5. 16. Trautmann. Itami.” IEEE Commun. vol. W. vol. 27–32. May and H. A. 2003. Kim and G. vol.” in Proc. JULY 2007 considered all sources of ICI. and P. pp. 4. This approach can be improved by adding an “acceleration of convergence scheme. 187–193. no. 576–578. 2004. Commun.” IEEE J.” in Proc. Signal Process. “General self-cancellation scheme for mitigation of ICI in OFDM systems. Giannakis. Fliege.. Speidel. Duhamel. pp. Itoh. Syst. Chang. decides for the next-best tone. no.. Consum. Powers. no. Edfors for critical reading of the manuscript. Englewood Cliffs. 1994. a SIC scheme ﬁrst decides about the tone with the strongest SINR. P. 47. [6] A. We ﬁrst considered a linear-equalization approach. Commun. ISI can be eliminated by decision-feedback algorithms..” in Proc. “On channel estimation and detection for multicarrier signals in fast and frequency selective Rayleigh fading channel. no. and Y. Cho. Fernandez-Getino-Garcia. [8] S. pp. 2000. [26] A. Batra et al. Piscataway.. Sathananthan. Molisch. Zhu. COM-33. 35th Asilomar Conf. L. Conf. 8. M. NJ: Wiley. Commun. pp.2166 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY. 10. Indoor. no. 2005.” in Proc. while. 36–40. Pers. 365–369. Alternatively. where the inversion of the channel matrix is done iteratively by means of OPT. 1590–1599. 628–634. no. 2001. 49. “Reduction of guard interval by impulse compression for DMT modulation on twisted pair cables. and J. K. J. 16. 2451–2464. no. pp. and N. no. [27] J. G. vol. Wang. Circuits Syst. 25. G. “Second-order channel parameter estimation assisted cancellation of channel variation-induced inter-subcarrier interference in OFDM systems. 50. introducing decisions between the iteration steps leads to a PIC scheme. Sel. [23] A. Diggavi. 146–149. Stromer.. Choi. Mostoﬁ.. [4] A. Commun. 1999. P. 2004. 665–675. R EFERENCES [1] L. [9] B. pp. F. Cassara. namely. Sep. [22] K. [35] W. Dec. “Channel equalization using one-tap DFE for wireless OFDM systems with ICI and ISI. 47. Mobile Radio Commun. 214–216. Oct. [30] S. 1971. 7. Dec. vol.. “Cancellation technique to reduce intercarrier interference in OFDM. The IEEE 802. [29] S. 2005. vol. 8. where the interference from neighboring tones (based on preliminary decisions) is subtracted in several stages. Commun. and A. 8. [19] S. Commun. 9. 1579–1589. Zhang. [5] B. [10] T.. Feb. “Intercarrier interference in MIMO OFDM. 2004. Indoor. pp. 47. 1763–1767. 572–583. pp. [18] W. Conf. Commun. Sel. Muquet. at the same time improving spectral efﬁciency. [13] P. 49.” in Proc. NJ: IEEE Press. 2. 5. Commun. pp. 1. C. New York: McGraw-Hill. “Analysis of new and existing methods of reducing intercarrier interference due to carrier frequency offset in OFDM. Steendam and M. D. and so on. no.. Hanzo. [20] J. P. 1998. T. Ebert. Kang. 2003. 1985. J.-S. Piscataway. 2004.” in Proc. F. Comf. Vandendorpe.. IEEE Global Telecommun. subtracts its interference from the neighboring tones.” in Proc. 2003. 2002. 1999. 2001.. Oct. [11] Y. Saulnier.. [21] Y. Schur.” in Proc. no. [12] A.” in Proc. Nakamura. 1. N. Oct. 2002. Commun.

pp. 1994. 333–342. pp.. From 2000 to 2002. Schotten. K. Mao. Sel.. “A matrix-algebraic approach to linear parallel interference cancellation in CDMA.. He was the recipient of the Vodafone U. T. Jul. Trans. 1051–1055. 336–340. [53] K. Guo. Commun. In particular. His current research interests are multiple-input–multiple-output (MIMO) systems. Lett. Commun. [44] Q. 2000. 1989. [43] M. Molisch. “Indoor MIMO WLAN channel models. 9. Conf. Areas Commun. Sameer Vermani received the B. Sweden. Dec. “Acceleration of convergence. pp. 2003. Leus. Austria. AT&T (Bell) Laboratories Research. 2000. “ICI cancellation in OFDM wireless communication systems. Bogucka and K. “Frequency-domain echo cancellation in digital multicarrier modulation systems. [59] A. Phys. where he develops smart-antenna radio network planning and optimization tools. 11 book chapters. Dec. 61. vol. 9. no. Chem. in 2006.: Cambridge Univ. no. Schniter. 1974. 1950–1954. no. Ed. pp. [46] B. IEEE Veh. vol. His research focused on signal processing. Cambridge..” “COST 259. 2003.Techn. New York: Prentice-Hall.” J. Commun.K. pp. 2002. D. 3377–3381. some 100 journal papers. orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing and smart-antenna radio-channel measurements. He was Chairman of the IEEE 802.K. P. 2047–2056. Telecommun. Rasmussen. W. Shen.S. 2000. coauthored. 2005. Baum. Molisch is an Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS. Conf.. Cambridge. Andreas F. 1963. Banelli. Cai and G.” IEEE Trans. pp. IEEE Int. 1002–1011. B. He has participated in the European research initiatives “COST 231. U. and A. F. pp. Ed. and S. Dr. respectively.—Spring. and X. T.) degree in communications engineering and the Dr. and wideband systems.S.” IEEE Trans.. IV-237–IV-240. measurement and modeling of mobile-radio channels. “Equalization of OFDM-systems by interference cancellation techniques. Lim. pp. he founded SYMENA Software and Consulting Ltd. J. J. Johansson. PIMRC.” and “COST 273. Baltimore. Busboom. From 1991 to 2000. 1996. where he is now a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff. .. In 2002. Wiley–IEEE Press). degree in electrical engineering from the University of California. Press. U. [61] V. 152–161. Standardization Drafts IEEE 802 Meeting. SAC-5. Signal Process. Oct. Molisch. Rugini. Multiuser Detection. pp. Toeltsch and A. Xuerong and Z.. H. and ultrawideband (UWB) systems. [40] M. “Iterative cochannel interference cancellation in synchronous CDMA on a frequency selective channel. [47] J. 2004. Middletown. “Channel modeling and associated intercarrier interference equalization for OFDM systems with high Doppler spread. 1987. “Low-complexity equalization of OFDM in doubly selective channels. he was with the Wireless Systems Research Department. 1363–1367.” in Proc. Technol. Dallas. Verdu. Jan. S. P. and 1999.” IEEE J. [60] L. ICC. Commun. he was with the Technical University of Vienna.. and K. Cambridge.. in 1998 and 2002. pp..” Eur. and numerous conference contributions. Jun. Chuang. Press. Dr. Giannakis. 7. Commun.. 2003. C. [41] H. 1. Xu. degree from the Technische Universität Wien (TU-Wien). [54] S. Guillaud and D. Guest Editor of a recent Special Issue on UWB (in the IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS). Y. and T. 48. TU-Wien. Vienna. Since then. Slock. Int. he worked in the ﬁeld of signal and image processing for medical applications.” in Proc. no. Lund. he was a member of the Mobile Communications Group at the Institut für Nachrichten-und Hochfrequenztechnik. 2003. 52. W.” where he was Chairman of the MIMO channel working group. [50] L. degree (with the institute silver medal) in electrical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology. 7. Cai.MOLISCH et al. L. no. [48] G. Wesolowski.. 632–636. Vienna. He has authored. vol. He is also a Professor and Chairholder for radio systems at Lund University. His research interests span the physical layer of wirelesscommunication systems. Kalkofen. pp.” IEEE Trans. NJ. [39] P. 879–888. Bello. 4. in 1990. J. cooperative communications. IEEE ICASSP. 51.Tech. Molisch. TPC Chair for Chinacom 2007. vol. he has done work in the areas of multiple-input–multiple-output and orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing systems. Mark. Austria. 2nd ed. Suyama. COM-11. Commun. Erceg. Matrix Computations. Yang. Kyritsi. Ng. Conf. [56] S. 5th IEEE Conf. MA. and Habilitation degrees from the Technical University of Vienna. Berkeley.: ITERATIVE METHODS FOR CANCELLATION OF ICI IN OFDM SYSTEMS 2167 [38] X. In his doctoral thesis. F. 2000. H.K. Rasmussen. Vienna. vol. Toeltsch and A. “A matrix-algebraic approach to successive interference cancellation in CDMA. Jan. pp.Tech. He has been a member of numerous Technical Program Committees (TPCs). pp.” IEEE Trans.4a channel model standardization group and is also Chairman of Commission C (signals and systems) of the International Union of Radio Scientists. Ed. (M. and A. Sun. no. vol. Gorokhov. 4. Mar. Technol. pp. no. 1998. atomic line ﬁlters. Apr. India. L. U. 360–393. 1. pp.15. vol. 2003. 48. and Wireless Symposium Chair for Globecom 2007.” IEEE Trans. TX.” IEEE Commun. [49] H. “An OFDM receiver employing turbo equalization for multipath environments with delay spread greater than the guard interval. 145–151. [58] J. From 1998 to 2002. [52] L. 656–660.. [45] J. he has been with Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories. F. or edited four books (among them is the recent textbook Wireless Communications..: Cambridge Univ.S. Foundation Fellowship for graduate study at Berkeley. Ing. “Interchannel interference cancellation in wireless OFDM systems via Gauss–Seidel method. Vice Chair of the TPC of Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC) 2005 spring. 427–438. [51] D. Int. 2. pp. 2001. respectively. He has done research in the areas of surface-acoustic-wave ﬁlters. Univ. as well as propagation and channel modeling. [42] M. “Non-local perturbation techniques. Molisch (S’89–M’95–SM’00–F’05) received the Dipl. Raphaeli. 1998. 1984. Suzuki. Delhi. “A multi-carrier detection algorithm for OFDM systems without guard time. Conf. no. San Diego.. K. vol. W. Fukawa. and A.” in Methods in Radiative Transfer. F.” in Proc. D. “Bounding performance and suppressing intercarrier interference in wireless mobile OFDM. “Efﬁcient OFDM transmission without cyclic preﬁx over frequency-selective channels. 2680–2689. Molisch. General Chair of ICUWB 2006. MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. L.. Lim. Schumacher. vol. “Simple equalization of time-varying channels for OFDM. He is an IEEE Distinguished Lecturer and recipient of several awards. smart antennas. Press. he investigated high-resolution evaluations of directionally resolved radio-channel measurements. From 1992 to 1998. “The effects of time delay spread on portable radio communications channels with digital modulation. He is currently with Qualcomm Inc. radiative transfer in atomic vapors. IEEE Global Telecomm. 40. S. CA. [55] D. A.” in Proc. 5.” in Proc.” in Proc.” in Proc. “Efﬁcient implementation of linear multiuser detectors for asynchronous CDMA systems by linear interference cancellation.” IEEE Trans. “Hypernetted chain solutions for the classical onecomponent plasma up to gamma = 7000. Press. Golub and C. no. van Loan. most recently as an Associate Professor. Kalkofen. “Characterization of randomly time-variant linear channels. Pers. Martin Toeltsch (M’00) received the Dipl. Cambridge. and the M. no. Auer.” in Proc.” in Numerical Radiative Transfer. 2003. and G. Wideband Wireless Digital Communications. [57] P. vol. Lijun. M. 2000. Cannon.: Cambridge Univ. 5. pp.” in Proc. 619–621.Ing. Commun. C. Elders-Boll. 1987. pp. Commun.. 12. Feb.

- IEEE 802 Standards for exams just in briefUploaded bymr_abhi9770
- ImpUploaded byShankarPrasai
- final ppt on 4GUploaded byrajeshbv056135
- Wireless Transmission System for the Improved Reliability in the Flying Ad-hoc NetworkUploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- Hartley TransformUploaded byeng2011tech
- LteUploaded byManjunath Dv
- Omnitik u 5hnd RvUploaded byAntonio Edmundo Martinez Andrade
- Thesis Final Charles ScribUploaded byCharles Joseph Ogala
- 34-H-KIRAN GOWDA-A Comprehensive Study on 4gUploaded byteenu1
- chưa biếtUploaded byHạt Bụi Cô Đơn
- NMP-8602-Datasheet 11162006 Module IndustrialUploaded bytupunga
- GK_FYP2016.pdfUploaded byManoj Safi
- fannynb mlinanr sky mobile broadband91106.pptxUploaded by李中琳
- EAP900H rev2Uploaded byonard_deardo
- The Meaning of Pa、Pb and RS powerUploaded byApisit Kaeokham
- TransWCUploaded byKarim Ben Hamida
- Introduction to Optical OfdmUploaded byAli Kamil Aldulimy
- Factors Affecting LTE Throughput and Calculation Methodology HaweiUploaded byabhi
- IdentiFi-376X-DS.pdfUploaded byPipe Norris
- 09Dec BarberUploaded bySheharyar Khan
- LTE Physical LayerUploaded byhimanshu gupta
- 04 WLANUploaded byHelmi Imaduddin
- 10-VN-WLANUploaded byHoang Linh Nguyen
- Hikvision Ds 2cd2142fwd i(s) Data SheetUploaded byJohnny Boby
- OFDMA.docxUploaded byAmgad
- Comparison of BER Performances ForConventional and Non Conventional MappingSchemes Used in OFDMUploaded byNehaKarunya
- Fourth GenerationUploaded byNishant Garg
- A Novel Timing Estimation Method for OFDM SystemsUploaded byapi-3826450
- PDCCH Tuning_Throughput ImprovementUploaded byritgailmatheologic
- 5ghz vs 2.4ghz Wireless LanUploaded byfarrukhmohammed