1
Implementation scenarios for an adaptable
LTE turbo decoder based on BLER
C. Chaikalis
Abstract—The idea of an adaptable SOVA/logMAP turbo decoder has been well addressed and discussed in published
literature. This work shows that such a decoder can be implemented in LTE standard for AWGN and uncorrelated Rayleigh
fading channels. For physical shared channel (uplink and downlink) we use pipeline turbo decoder architecture and we consider
BLER or FER performance in our analysis. We examine two data rates and for each one we consider the nine possible QCIs
using five frame lengths. Considering BLER and delay limitations for each QCI, logMAP is proposed for small frames for all
data rates, QCIs and AWGN channel. SOVA represents the proposed choice for larger frame lengths for both AWGN and
uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channels and for low data rates. Comparison with already published results considering BER
performance shows similar findings for uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channel, whereas for AWGN channel there are different
findings only for logMAP.
Index Terms— AWGN, BLER, LTE, Turbo codes, Uncorrelated Rayleigh fading.
—————————— ! ——————————
1 INTRODUCTION
A
reason for the explosion of mobile communications
the last two decades is the use of a new channel coding scheme called turbo coding [1]. Turbo codes
have been adopted as a channel coding scheme in the 4th
generation mobile communications standard LTE (Long
Term Evolution) for high data rates. SISO (Soft Input Soft
Output) decoder is the most important part of the turbo
decoder. The two main algorithms used in a SISO decoder
are SOVA (Soft Output Viterbi Algorithm) [2] and logMAP (Maximum A Posteriori) algorithm [3]. LogMAP
gives better performance than SOVA, but SOVA is less
complex, resulting in lower latency and thus, according to
[4], the two algorithms share some common operations,
which are defined as “reconfigurable”. Furthermore, for
the control of the proposed approach of the reconfigurable or adaptable SOVA/logMAP turbo decoder two parameters are considered: performance and latency (delay)
[4]. Implementation scenarios of the proposed SOVA/logMAP turbo decoder for the 3rd generation mobile communications standard UMTS (Universal Mobile Telecommunications System) based on BER (Bit Error Rate)
can be found in [4], [5], [6] for different mobile channels.
In LTE standard a mobile terminal communicates with
the EUTRAN (Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access Network) via the radio interface, which consists of
three protocol layers: layer 1 (physical layer), layer 2 (data
link layer) and layer 3 (network layer) [7], [8], [9]. In this
paper we concentrate on physical layer.
2 LTE QUALITY OF SERVICE CONCEPT AND BLER
LTE includes the evolution of both radio aspects through
EUTRAN and nonradio aspects (SAE  System Architecture Evolution) of EPC (Evolved Packet Core) network.
LTE and SAE represent the Evolved Packet System (EPS).
For QoS (Quality of Service) each radio bearer represents
an IP (Internet Protocol) packet flow, which has an associated QCI (Quality of Service Class Identifier) and an
ARP (Allocation and Retention Priority). When the radio
bearer is successfully established, the eNodeB ensures the
QoS over the air interface with the consideration of QCI.
5
TABLE 1: STANDARDIZED QCIS FOR LTE
Resource
Priority
Packet
BLER
Example
sertype
delay
or FER
vices
budget
(msec)
GBR
2
100
≤101
Conversational
voice
1
GBR
4
150
≤10
Conversational
video (live
streaming)
1
GBR
5
300
≤10
Nonconversational
video (buffered
streaming)
1
GBR
3
50
≤10
Realtime gaming
NonGBR
1
100
≤101
IMS signaling
6
NonGBR
7
100
≤101
7
NonGBR
6
300
≤101
8
NonGBR
8
300
≤101
9
NonGBR
9
300
≤101
QCI
1
2
3
4
————————————————
• C. Chaikalis is with the Department of Computer Science & Engineering,
Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Thessaly, Larissa, 41110,
Greece.
Voice, video
(live streaming),
interactive
gaming
Video (buffered
streaming)
TCPbased
(www, email),
chat, FTP, p2p
file sharing,
progressive
video
The same like
QCI 8
2
In this paper we assume that each user has only one
radio bearer. The QCI table is given above (Table 1) according to [7], [8], [9]: each QCI can either be GBR (Guaranteed Bit Rate) or NonGBR. Furthermore, each QCI is
characterized by priority, packet delay budget and packet
error loss rate budget [7], [8], [9].
According to published literature BLER (Block Error
Rate) or FER (Frame Error Rate) is defined as the ratio of
the number of erroneous blocks (or frames) received at
the receiver to the total number of blocks sent by the
transmitter. Moreover, according to [7], [8], [9], for LTE
BLER must be ≤10%. Therefore, in Table 1 we have added
a column addressing the above limitation for all QCIs. We
will use Table 1 in our analysis at the following sections.
zero mean and power spectral density N0/2. The variable
aκ is a fading amplitude and its value is generated for
each bit k, according to the formula a k = b k 2 + c k 2 ,
where bκ and cκ are zero mean statistically independent
Gaussian random variables each having a variance σ2=0.5
[11].
To scale the extrinsic information in the turbo decoder
a common factor s=0.7 is used in both algorithms, according to [4], [5]. In order to compute the latency tδ for our
system, pipeline architecture is assumed for the turbo
decoder. We also assume a single transmitting and receiving antenna in our simulated system. The formulas to
calculate the latency for the two algorithms are the same
as in [4], [5], [6].
3 SIMULATION MODEL
4 IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS OF THE PROPOSED
DECODER FOR AWGN CHANNEL
The simulation model is shown in Fig. 1: for a particular
physical data channel (uplink or downlink) every TTI
(Time Transmission Interval), which is 1 msec for LTE,
the data with the characteristics specified in a physical
shared channel (frame or block size or kf bits) is turbo
encoded in the transmitter and decoded in the receiver.
The frame bits must be larger than 40 and less than 6144
according to LTE specifications [7], [8], [9], [10]. Additionally, the turbo encoder parameters (constraint length,
coding rate, turbo encoder inner interleaver) used for the
simulations are those specified for LTE [7], [8], [9], [10].
Furthermore, the two RSC (Recursive Systematic Convolutional) encoders of the turbo encoder are left open (no
tail bits used) and no quantisation is used at the reception
of the data in the decoder (floating point arithmetic).
4.1 Scenario 1
According to Table 2, two LTE implementation scenarios
of the proposed adaptable turbo decoder are examined
using two example bit rates (1 and 30 Mbps). For 1 Mbps
data rate an LTE uplink physical channel is considered
(PUSCH – Physical Uplink Shared Channel). Additionally, for 30 Mbps data rate an LTE downlink physical channel (PDSCH – Physical Downlink Shared Channel) is considered in our analysis. The maximum values of the data
rates for PUSCH and PDSCH channels are 50 and 100
Mbps, respectively, according to [7], [8], [9].
Fig. 1. Simulation model
For our simulations two mobile channel models are
used: the wellknown AWGN (Additive White Gaussian
Noise) channel model and the uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channel model. The analysis of the last channel model
follows.
According to Fig. 1, the output bits of the BPSK (Binary
Phase Shift Keying) modulator yκ are multiplied by fading amplitudes aκ and then noise nκ is added to produce
the received bits rκ. Subsequently, rκ bits are BPSK demodulated and turbo decoded. With appropriate sampling, the discrete representation of the uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channel is rκ=aκyκ
+
nκ where k is an integer
bit index (here k=3i: every symbol has 3 bits), yκ is a BPSK
symbol amplitude and nκ is a AWGN component with
Fig. 2. FER (or BLER) vs. Eb/N0 for AWGN channel, various small frames, SOVA and logMAP (s=0.7).
© 2016 JOT
www.journaloftelecommunications.co.uk
3
Fig. 3. FER (or BLER) vs. E /N for AWGN channel,
various large frames, SOVA and logMAP (s=0.7).
b
0
Moreover, in Fig. 2 and 3 FER performance simulations
results are presented for an AWGN channel for small and
large frame lengths, respectively. The data rate considered for this scenario is 1 Mbps. The simulations were
carried out for turbo code with all the chosen frame (or
block) lengths, rate 1/3, K=4 and 12 decoder iterations for
improved SOVA and logMAP (s=0.7). For scenario 1
Eb/No=0.6 dB is used in our analysis.
TABLE 2: SCENARIOS OF LTE TURBO ENCODED PHYSICAL CHANNELS.
scenario
channel
1
PUSCH
2
PDSCH
Frame size
40, 1120, 3008,
4800, 6144
40, 1120, 3008,
4800, 6144
Max data
rate Mbps
50
Chosen data
rate  Mbps
100
30
1
(150 msec) which does not affect the algorithm choice.
Here a potential application is conversational video (live
streaming), according Table 1.
For Table 5 (QCIs 3, 7, 8, 9) it can be seen that the small
frame length of 40 bits cannot be used because for this
QCI the FER must be very low and this requires longer
data frame lengths. It has to be mentioned that QCIs 3, 7,
8 and 9 are grouped together at the same table because all
of them have the same latency limitation. Therefore, the
analysis has to be done at the same table. For the other
small frame length of 1120 bits, logMAP is proposed because it satisfies both latency and FER criteria. For large
frame lengths of 3008, 4800 and 6114 bits both algorithm
satisfy the two criteria. The asterisk indicates that FER for
SOVA is close to the limit. From Table 1 we can observe
that a suitable application for QCI 3 is nonconversational
video (buffered streaming). On the other hand, a suitable
application for QCI 7 is video (buffered streaming), while
for QCIs 8 and 9 suitable applications are www, email,
chat, FTP (File Transfer Protocol), p2p file sharing and
progressive video.
TABLE 3: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCIS 1, 5, 6 SCENARIO
1.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
0.48
LogMAP
td
msec
1.34
Max
delay
msec
100
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
Pr. alg.
40
5.8*10
5.5*10
101
None
1120
13.4
37.6
100
2.8*10
9.8*10
101
101.06
100
1.7*10
7*102
101
LogMAP
Either*
3008
36.09
4800
57.6
161.2
100
1.1*10
7.5*10
101
SOVA*
6114
73.72
206.4
100
8*102
8*102
101
SOVA
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
TABLE 4: QOS PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCI 2, SCENARIO 1.
At the following Tables and for each scenario, five example frame (or block) lengths (40, 1120, 3008, 4800 and
6144 bits) are used similarly to [12], [13]. For the calculation of latency for SOVA and logMAP we use the formulas which are given in [4], [5], [6]. For each data rate, all
possible 9 QCIs are applied, with each QCI corresponding
to a possible application, according to Tables 1 and 2.
As can be seen in Table 3 for QCIs 1, 5 and 6 SOVA is
the best turbo decoding algorithm choice since it can satisfy both the FER and latency criteria for large frames.
The asterisk indicates that the FER achieved with SOVA
is very close to the limit (for frame lengths of 3008 and
4800 bits). For a frame of 3008 bits either algorithm can be
used, while for a small frame of 1120 bits, logMAP satisfies the latency and FER criterion. On the other hand, for
the smallest frame length of 40 bits neither algorithm can
be applied. According to Table 1, a possible application
for QCI 1 is conversational voice, for QCI 5 IMS signaling,
while for QCI 6 voice, live streaming video and interactive gaming.
The analysis is similar for QCI 2 (Table 4). The only
change compared with Table 3 is the looser latency limit
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
0.48
LogMAP
td
msec
1.34
Max
delay
msec
150
40
1120
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
Pr. alg.
5.8*10
5.5*10
101
None
13.4
37.63
150
2.8*10
9.8*10
101

LogMAP
Either*
1
1
1
2
36
101.06
150
1.7*10
4800
57.6
161.2
150
1.1*10
7.5*10
101
SOVA*
6114
73.7
206.4
150
8*102
8*102
101
SOVA
1
2
10
1
3008
1
7*10
2
4
TABLE 5: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCIS 3, 7, 8, 9 SCENARIO 1.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
Max
delaymsec
0.48
LogMAP
td
msec
1.34
40
1120
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
300
5.8*10
5.5*10
101
None
13.4
37.63
300
2.8*10
9.8*10
101

1
1
3008
36.09
101.06
300
1.7*10
4800
57.6
161.28
300
1.1*10
6114
73.72
206.4
300
1
1
8*102
1
2
7*10
2
7.5*102
8*102
10
1
101
101
Pr.
alg.
TABLE 7: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCIS 1, 5, 6 SCENARIO
2.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
40
LogMAP
Either*
1120
3008
1.2
Either*
4800
1.92
Either
6114
sova
td msec
0.48
LogMAP
td
msec
1.34
Max
delay
msec
50
40
1120
13.44
37.63
3008
36.09
4800
6114
40
101
LogMAP
SOVA*
5.5*10
101
None
100
2.8*10
9.8*10
101
3.36
100
1.7*10

LogMAP
Either*
5.37
100
1.1*10
6.88
100
0.44
1.25
3008
1.2
7.5*10
101
SOVA*
4800
8*102
101
None
6114
101
None
50
2.8*10
9.8*10
101
101.06
50
1.7*10
7*102
57.6
161.28
50
1.1*10
73.72
206.4
50
8*102
2
5.8*10
1120
5.5*102
Max
FER
0.01
5.8*10
1
LogMAP
FER
Max
delay
msec
150
Pr. alg.
1
2.45
sova
FER
LogMAP
td msec
0.04
Max
FER
1
1.25
sova
td msec
LogMAP
FER
1
0.44
frame
 bits
sova
FER
1
Max
delay
msec
100
In Table 6 (QCI 4) the delay limit is very low (50 msec).
It can be seen that for the largest frame length of 6114 bits
neither algorithm can be applied. For frame lengths of
3008 and 4800 bits SOVA is the best choice (the asterisk
indicates that FER is very close to the limit). For a small
frame of 1120 bits only logMAP satisfies both FER and
delay criteria, while for the smallest frame length of 40
bits neither algorithm is proposed. A suitable application
is real time gaming for this QCI.
4.2 Scenario 2
For scenario 2 the data rate is 30 Mbps and Eb/No is
0.6 dB. In our analysis we also consider the simulation
results presented in Fig. 2 and 3. As can be seen in Table 7
for QCIs 1, 5 and 6 for all large frame lengths both algorithms are equally suitable. For the smallest frame of 40
bits neither algorithm can be applied. For the other small
frame of 1120 bits, logMAP is proposed because SOVA
cannot satisfy the FER limit of 10 . The asterisk again indicates that SOVA FER is very close to the FER budget
(10 ), thus we assume that the FER criterion is satisfied.
1
1
1
8*10
2
1
2
7*10
2
10
7.5*10
101
2
8*10
1
2
10
1
Either*
Either
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
Pr. alg.
5.8*10
5.5*10
101
None
150
2.8*10
9.8*10
101
3.36
150
1.7*10
7*102
101
LogMAP
Either*
1.92
5.37
150
1.1*10
7.5*10
101
Either*
2.45
6.88
150
8*102
8*102
101
Either
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
The proposed algorithm for all frame lengths is the
same like above for Table 8 (QCI 2), Table 9 (QCIs 3, 7, 8,
9) and Table 10 (QCI 4). This is because for this scenario
the latency for each algorithm is low. Thus, both algorithms satisfy the latency criterion for all QCIs.
TABLE 9: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCIS 3, 7, 8, 9 SCENARIO 2.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
40
0.01
LogMAP
td msec
0.04
Max
delay
msec
300
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
5.8*10
5.5*10
101


1
1
1
1.25
300
2.8*10
3008
1.2
3.36
300
1.7*10
7*102
101
LogMAP
Either*
4800
1.92
5.37
300
1.1*10
7.5*10
101
Either*
6114
2.45
6.88
300
8*102
8*102
101
Either
1
1
2
2
10
None
0.44
1
9.8*10
Pr.
alg.
1120
1
1
1
Pr.
alg.
TABLE 8: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCI 2, SCENARIO 2.
TABLE 6: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCI 4, SCENARIO 1.
frame
 bits
0.01
LogMAP
td msec
0.04
5
TABLE 10: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCI 4, SCENARIO 2.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
0.01
LogMAP
td msec
0.04
Max
delay
msec
50
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
40
5.8*10
5.5*10
101
None
1120
0.44
1.25
50
2.8*10
9.8*10
101
3.36
50
1.7*10
7*102
101
LogMAP
Either*
3008
1.2
4800
1.92
5.37
50
1.1*10
7.5*10
101
Either*
6114
2.45
6.88
50
8*102
8*102
101
Either
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
Pr.
alg.
5 IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS OF THE PROPOSED
DECODER FOR UNCORRELATED RAYLEIGH
FADING CHANNEL
5.1
lated Rayleigh fading channel. Moreover, in Fig. 4 and 5
FER performance simulations results are presented for
small and large frame lengths, respectively. The data rate
considered for this scenario is 1 Mbps, while Eb/No=2
dB.
As can be seen in Table 11 for QCIs 1, 5, 6 and Table 12
for QCI 2, SOVA is the proposed turbo decoding algorithm choice since it can satisfy both the FER and latency
criteria for the large frames (blocks) of 4800 and 6144 bits.
On the other hand, for frame lengths of 1120 and 3008 bits
both algorithms satisfy the latency and FER criterion. Furthermore, for the smallest frame length of 40 bits neither
algorithm can be applied. The asterisk for a 1120bit
frame indicates that SOVA simulated FER is very close to
the FER limit of 101, while for a 3008 bits frame the asterisk indicates that logMAP calculated latency is very close
to the latency limit of 100 msec.
Scenario 1
TABLE 11: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCIS 1, 5, 6, SCENARIO 1.
Fig. 4. FER (or BLER) vs. Eb/N0 for uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channel, various small frames, SOVA and logMAP (s=0.7).
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
0.48
LogMAP
td
msec
1.34
Max
delay
msec
100
40
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
Pr. alg.
5.5*10
5.1*10
101
None
1120
13.4
37.6
100
1.3*10
7*102
101
Either*
3008
36.09
101.06
100
7.4*10
6.8*10
101
Either*


1
SOVA
1
1
2
4800
57.6
161.2
100
6.3*10
6114
73.72
206.4
100
1.3*10
2
1
1
2
5.8*10
2
7.4*102
10
101
SOVA*
For QCIs 3, 7, 8 and 9 (Table 13), for all frame lengths
both algorithms are equally suitable apart from the very
small frame length of 40 bits where neither algorithm can
be applied. It is obvious that both algorithms satisfy the
latency and FER limits for this scenario. Here, the asterisk
indicates that the FER achieved with SOVA is very close
to the FER budget.
TABLE 12: QOS PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCI 2, SCENARIO 1.
Fig. 5. FER (or BLER) vs. Eb/N0 for uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channel, various large frames, SOVA and logMAP (s=0.7).
The same two scenarios of Table 2 (section IV) are also
considered for the LTE implementation of the adaptable
SOVA/logMAP turbo decoder in the case of an uncorre
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
0.48
LogMAP
td
msec
1.34
Max
delay
msec
150
40
1120
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
Pr. alg.
5.5*10
5.1*10
101
None
13.4
37.63
150
1.3*10
7*102
101
Either*

1
Either*
SOVA
1
1
1
3008
36
101.06
150
7.4*10
4800
57.6
161.2
150
6.3*10
5.8*10
101
150


1
6114
73.7
206.4
2
2
2
1.3*10
1
6.8*10

2
7.4*10
2
10
10
SOVA*
In Table 14 (QCI 4) the latency limit is very low (50
msec). It can be seen that for the large frame lengths of
4800 and 6114 bits neither algorithm can be applied due
to the low latency limit. For a frame length of 3008 bits
SOVA is the best choice, while for a small frame length of
6
1120 bits, either algorithm is proposed (the asterisk indicates that SOVA FER is very close to the limit). Finally, for
the smallest frame length of 40 bits neither algorithm is
proposed due to the high FER achieved which is far away
from the limit.
TABLE 13: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCIS 3, 7, 8, 9 SCENARIO 1.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
40
0.48
LogMAP
td
msec
1.34
1120
13.4
37.63
Max
delaymsec
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
300
5.5*10
5.1*10
101
None
300
1.3*10
7*102
101
Either*

1
1
Max
FER
1
Either
36.09
101.06
300
7.4*10
4800
57.6
161.28
300
6.3*10
5.8*10
101
Either
6114
73.72
206.4
300
1.3*10
7.4*10
101
Either*
2
1
2
2
2
10
1
3008
2
6.8*10

Pr.
alg.
TABLE 14: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCI 4, SCENARIO 1.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
40
0.48
LogMAP
td
msec
1.34
1120
13.44
37.63
Max
delay
msec
50
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
Pr.
alg.
5.5*10
5.1*10
101
None
50
1.3*10
7*102
101
Either*

3
SOVA
1
1
1
3008
36.09
101.06
50
7.4*10
4800
57.6
161.28
50
6.3*10
5.8*10
103
None
6114
73.72
206.4
50
1.3*10
7.4*10
103
None
2
2
1
6.8*10

2
2
2
10
5.2
Scenario 2
For scenario 2 the data rate is 30 Mbps and Eb/No is 2
dB. Our analysis is based on the simulation results presented in Fig. 4 and 5. As can be seen in Tables 15, 16, 17
and 18 for all QCIs, for all frame lengths both algorithms
are equally suitable apart from the very small frame
length of 40 bits where neither algorithm can be applied.
It is obvious that both algorithms satisfy the latency and
FER limits for this scenario. Here, the asterisk indicates
that the FER achieved with SOVA is very close to the FER
budget.
TABLE 15: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCIS 1, 5, 6 SCENARIO 2.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
0.01
LogMAP
td msec
0.04
Max
delay
msec
100
40
1120
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
5.5*10
5.1*10
101
None
0.44
1.25
100
1.3*10
7*102
101
Either*

1
1
1
Either
Either
1.2
3.36
100
7.4*10
4800
1.92
5.37
100
6.3*10
5.8*10
101
100


1
6114
2.45
6.88
2
2
1.3*10
1
2
7.4*10
2
10
1
3008
2
6.8*10

10
Pr.
alg.
Either*
TABLE 16: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCI 2, SCENARIO 2.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
0.01
LogMAP
td msec
0.04
Max
delay
msec
150
40
1120
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
5.5*10
5.1*10
101
None
0.44
1.25
150
1.3*10
7*102
101
Either*

1
1
1
Either
Either
1.2
3.36
150
7.4*10
4800
1.92
5.37
150
6.3*10
5.8*10
101
150


1
6114
2.45
6.88
2
2
1.3*10
1
2
7.4*10
2
10
1
3008
2
6.8*10

10
Pr.
alg.
Either*
TABLE 17: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCIS 3, 7, 8, 9 SCENARIO 2.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
40
0.01
LogMAP
td msec
0.04
Max
delay
msec
300
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
5.5*10
5.1*10
101
1

1
None
0.44
1.25
300
1.3*10
3008
1.2
3.36
300
7.4*10
6.8*10
101
Either
4800
1.92
5.37
300
6.3*10
5.8*10
101
Either
6114
2.45
6.88
300
1.3*10
7.4*10
101
Either*
2
2
1
2
2
2
10
1
1120
1
7*10
2
Pr.
alg.
Either*
TABLE 18: QOS, PROPOSED ALGORITHM FOR QCI 4, SCENARIO 2.
frame
 bits
sova
td msec
0.01
LogMAP
td msec
0.04
Max
delay
msec
50
40
1120
0.44
1.25
3008
1.2
4800
1.92
6114
2.45
sova
FER
LogMAP
FER
Max
FER
5.5*10
5.1*10
101
None
50
1.3*10
7*102
101
Either*
3.36
50
7.4*10
6.8*10
101
Either
5.37
50
6.3*10
5.8*10
101
Either
50


1
6.88
1
1
2
2
1.3*10
1
1
2
2
7.4*10
2
10
Pr.
alg.
Either*
7
7
CONCLUSION
In this work we show that an adaptable SOVA/logMAP turbo decoder can be implemented in the next
generation standard LTE. Considering BLER or FER
performance, latency, pipeline turbo decoder architecture, single inputoutput antennas, five different frame
(block) lengths and two example service scenarios (data rates), we propose a turbo decoding algorithm for
AWGN and uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channels.
The proposed turbo decoding algorithm for each frame
length also depends on Eb/N0, the data rate and the
QCI.
As our analysis has shown for AWGN channels, for
large data rates (scenario 2 with 30 Mbps), either
SOVA or logMAP are proposed for all QCIs and
frame lengths since they both satisfy the FER and latency constraints. There are two exceptions: the first is
the very small frame length of 40 bits, where neither
algorithm can be applied for both scenarios. The second exception is the small frame length of 1120 bits
where logMAP is proposed.
For small data rates and for scenario 1 (1 Mbps), either algorithm is the proposed choice for QCIs with
loose latency limits (300 msec) apart from the small
frame of 1120 bits where logMAP is proposed. On the
other hand, for QCIs with tight latency limits (50
msec), SOVA represents the proposed algorithm for
medium and large frames (3008 and 4800 bits), whereas for small frames (1120 bits) logMAP is preferred.
For even larger frame lengths (6114 bits) no algorithm
is proposed. For QCIs with medium latency limits (100
and 150 msec) SOVA is proposed for large frames,
whereas for medium frames (1120 bits) either algorithm is proposed. Furthermore, for the small frame of
1120 bit, logMAP is proposed.
As our analysis has shown for uncorrelated Rayleigh
fading channels, for large data rates (scenario 2 with 30
Mbps), either SOVA or logMAP are proposed for all
QCIs and frame lengths since they both satisfy the FER
and latency constraints. The exception is the very small
frame length of 40 bits, where neither algorithm can be
applied (for both scenarios).
For small data rates and for scenario 1 (1 Mbps), either algorithm is the proposed choice for QCIs with
loose latency limits (300 msec). On the other hand, for
QCIs with tight latency limits (50 msec), SOVA represents the proposed algorithm for medium frames (3008
bits). For larger frame lengths no algorithm is proposed. For QCIs with medium latency limits (100 and
150 msec) SOVA is proposed for large frames, whereas
for medium and small frames (1120 and 3008 bits) either algorithm is proposed.
The research findings described above are similar with
the observations in [12] for uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channel, where BER performance is considered.
For [13] again BER is considered and the comparison
with the work presented here shows that in [13] logMAP is proposed for high data rates and all frames,
whereas in this work we show that logMAP is pro
posed for all data rates and small frames. Future work
should focus on correlated Rayleigh fading channel
with different mobile terminal speeds.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This research has been cofinanced by the European Union (European Social Fund  ESF) and Greek national
funds through the Operational Program "Education and
Lifelong Learning" of the National Strategic Reference
Framework (NSRF) – Research Funding Program: ARCHIMEDES III: Investing in knowledge society through
the European Social Fund.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
C.
Berrou, A. Glaviex, P. Thitimajshima, “Near Shannon limit
errorcorrecting coding and decoding: Turbocodes”, IEEE ICC
’93, Geneva, 10641070, 1993.
J. Hagenauer, P. Hoher, “A Viterbi algorithm with soft outputs
and its applications”, IEEE GLOBECOM ’89, Dallas, 16801686,
1989.
P. Robertson, E. Villebrun, P. Hoher, “A comparison of optimal
and suboptimal MAP decoding algorithms operating in the log
domain”, IEEE ICC ’95, Seattle, 10091013, 1995.
C. Chaikalis, J. M. Noras, “Reconfigurable turbo decoding for
3G applications”, Elsevier Science Signal Processing Journal,
Volume 84, Issue 10, pp. 19571972, October 2004.
C. Chaikalis, “Implementation of a reconfigurable turbo decoder in 3GPP for flat Rayleigh fading”, Elsevier Science Digital
Signal Processing Journal, Volume 18/2, pp. 189 – 208, March
2008.
C. Chaikalis, “SOVA/logMAP: analysis and 3G implementation for uncorrelated Rayleigh fading”, The Mediterranean
Journal of Electronics and Communications, Volume 3, Number
1, pp. 716, January 2007.
H. Holma, A. Toskala, “LTE for UMTS”, J. Wiley, 2009.
M. Rumney, “LTE and the Evolution to 4G Wireless: Design
and Measurement Challenges”, J. Wiley, 2013.
E. Dahlman, S. Parkvall, J. Skold, “4G: LTE/LTEAdvanced for
Mobile Broadband” Elsevier Academic Press, 2011.
3GPP TS 36.212 V10.3.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project,
Multiplexing and channel coding, 2011.
S. Barbulesku, ‘Iterative decoding of turbo codes and other
concatenated codes’, PhD thesis, University of South Australia,
Feb 1996.
C. Chaikalis, C. Liolios, V. Vlachos, “An LTE reconfigurable
SOVA/logMAP turbo decoder for uncorrelated Rayleigh fading”, IEEE International Conference on Computer, Information
and Telecommunication Systems (CITS), Gijon, Spain, pp. 8084, 1517 July 2015.
C. Chaikalis, C. Liolios, V. Vlachos, “Implementation of an improved
reconfigurable SOVA/logMAP turbo decoder in LTE”, IEEE Telecommunications Forum (TELFOR), Belgrade, Serbia, pp. 218221, 2527 November 2014.
Costas Chaikalis was born in Athens, Greece, on March 1973. He
received the B.Sc. degree in electrical engineering in 1995 from
Technological Educational Institute of Lamia, Greece. He also received the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees from Department of Electronics
and Telecommunications, University of Bradford, Bradford, UK in
1999 and 2003, respectively. During his doctoral studies he worked
as a Research Assistant for Mobile Virtual Center of Excellence
(Mobile VCE), Terminals Group, UK. Costas Chaikalis is the author
or coauthor of about 40 technical papers published in international
8
conferences, journals and book chapters. His research interests are
in all areas of mobile communications but especially in forward error
correction coding, reconfigurable (software radio) architectures,
cross layer architectures and DSP applications. Currently, he is a
lecturer in the Department of Computer Science & Engineering,
Technological Educational Institute (TEI) of Thessaly, Larissa,
Greece.