12 views

Uploaded by chand123123

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- XERES Maritime Security Kit
- HCIA-WLAN_V2.0_Training_Materials.pdf
- 802.15.2-2003
- Unit 3 Wireless LANs
- WLAN_Handoff
- smcwebtg
- MA5631 Glossary(V800R308C02_01).pdf
- 1GP56_2E
- Screen Spot: Multidimensional Resource Discovery for Distributed Applications in Smart Spaces
- Wireless 150 Router
- Lecture Slides for BER+Q-factor+EyeDiagram
- BER for BPSK in Rayleigh Channel
- AP90 Series Installation Guide Rev 06
- Aruba AP93
- Bluesocket 1840 - Datasheet - 61700911F1-8
- Bit error rate characterisation and modelling for GSM
- NFT_1N_(AF)
- cv
- QOS.pdf
- DS AP200Series

You are on page 1of 8

11b

Christof Jonietz† , Wolfgang H. Gerstacker† , and Robert Schober‡

†

Chair of Mobile Communications, University of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Cauerstrasse 7, D-91058 Erlangen, Germany

Email: {jonietz, gersta}@LNT.de

‡

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Email: rschober@ece.ubc.ca

Abstract

In this paper, complementary code keying (CCK) transmission over frequency–selective fading channels is

investigated. A vector signal model is introduced since CCK can be interpreted as a block code. Based on pairwise

error probabilities we derive a performance approximation for optimum detection obtained for given channel

statistics, and compare the theoretical results with simulations. Because optimum maximum–likelihood sequence

estimation (MLSE) is not practical for large channel delay spreads, minimum mean–squared error decision–feedback

equalization (MMSE–DFE) is employed. Two different DFE approaches are considered here: (a) the conventional

scalar DFE and (b) a block–based DFE, which is well suited for the underlying vector signal model. For various

common indoor channel profiles, numerical results are given for MLSE, scalar DFE and block DFE in terms of bit

error rates (BERs) and packet error rates (PERs).

CCK modulation are proposed. An approximation for

In the last few years, the increase in digital wireless

the error probability of MLSE is developed and verified

and mobile communications as well as internet users

by simulations. It is shown that the performance of DFE

has been tremendous. High–rate standards for indoor

is close to that of MLSE for many relevant scenarios.

use with up to 11 Mbit/s have been developed by

the IEEE 802.11b committee for wireless local area Alternative equalization schemes for WLANs can

networks (WLANs). Currently, IEEE 802.11b is the be found in [3], [4], [5]. In [3], the performance

most widespread WLAN standard in practical applica- of an enhanced RAKE receiver for indoor multi-

tions and operates in the 2.4 GHz Industrial–Scientific– path WLAN IEEE 802.11b applications using direct–

Medical (ISM) band. Four transmission modes have sequence spread spectrum signals is examined. A

been specified for 802.11b with data rates of 1, 2, decision–feedback structure is embedded in the channel

5.5, and 11 Mbit/s, respectively. For the 1 and 2 matched filter and codeword correlator. Simulation re-

Mbit/s modes direct–sequence spread spectrum (DS– sults in [3] show, however, that this approach leads to a

SS) using an 11 chip Barker sequence is employed. worse performance than a pure DFE approach. In [4],

For the higher transmission rates complementary code a constrained RAKE receiver (designed to cope with

keying (CCK) and packet binary convolutional coding a certain maximum excess delay) is proposed for the

[1] have been adopted. In this paper, CCK is considered extension of WLAN IEEE 802.11b to outdoor cellular

since it is extensively implemented in today’s WLAN environments. However, RAKE receivers suffer in prin-

IEEE 802.11b terminals. CCK is a variation of M – ciple from an error floor for CCK transmission due to

ary orthogonal keying modulation with complex–valued the nonorthogonality of the code words. Hence, for high

chips in each word. 5.5 and 11 Mbit/s are supported. performance the RAKE principle should be avoided

In a rich scattering environment, e.g. an indoor office for receivers designed for WLAN IEEE 802.11b. An

environment or dense built outdoor areas, multipath approach to jointly suppress co–channel interference

propagation leads to intersymbol interference (ISI), and ISI is presented in [5]. Unfortunately, this method

and an equalizer is mandatory for high performance. requires a modification of the transmitter and is not

There are three common equalization approaches: lin- compatible with the current IEEE 802.11b standard.

ear equalization (LE), decision–feedback equalization The rest of the paper is organized as follows. An

(DFE), and maximum–likelihood sequence estimation introduction to CCK modulation is given in Section 2.

(MLSE) [2]. MLSE yields optimum performance at a A chip–based and a symbol–based system model for

high computational complexity. LE is much simpler to CCK transmission are established in Section 3. Section

implement but may suffer from a significant perfor- 4 introduces receiver concepts for CCK transmission

mance loss compared to MLSE. DFE often offers a for optimum and suboptimum detection. Additionally,

good trade–off between performance and complexity. a performance approximation is derived for optimum

TABLE I

detection. Simulation results are given in Section 5,

M APPING OF DIBIT PATTERNS ONTO PHASES

which show the tightness of the derived performance

approximation for optimum detection and demonstrate Dibit pattern Phase ϕν+1

the good performance of the proposed suboptimum {d2ν , d2ν+1 }

detection algorithms. Section 6 concludes the paper. 00 0

01 π/2

10 π

2 Complementary Code Keying 11 3π/2

Complementary codes have been originally proposed

by Golay for infrared multislit spectroscopy in [6],

where pairs of complementary binary code words have even chip phases, ϕ2 in the first and third pair of chip

been given. Based on Golay’s work, Tseng and Liu dis- phases, and ϕ3 in the first quadruple of chip phases.

cussed sets of complementary sequences in [7]. Later, The fourth and seventh chips are rotated by 180 ◦ ,

Siviswamy [8] and Frank [9] generalized the concept respectively, by a cover sequence in order to optimize

and considered polyphase (multiphase) complementary the sequence correlation properties and to minimize the

codes and their construction. Complementary code DC offset in the code words [1] (cf. the minus signs in

words are basically characterized by the property that the second line of Eq. (1)).

the sum of the autocorrelation sequences of both words The phases ϕ0 , ϕ1 , ϕ2 , and ϕ3 are determined by

is zero everywhere except for zero shift [8]. the dibits {d0 , d1 }, {d2 , d3 }, {d4 , d5 }, and {d6 , d7 },

In wireless communications, multipath propagation respectively, as specified in Table I.

causes multiple echoes of the same transmitted signal

and propagation paths of different lengths cause ISI

at the receiver. The special properties of complemen- 3 Transmission Model

tary codes make them suitable for wireless communi-

cations in frequency–selective environments. In [10], 3.1 Chip–Based Model

it has been shown that a high power efficiency can

be obtained for ISI channels using CCK signals for First, we consider a chip–based model for CCK trans-

transmission. mission over frequency–selective channels. Simplified

block diagrams of the continuous–time and discrete–

The data bits are encoded differently in the 5.5 and time transmission models in equivalent complex base-

11 Mbit/s modes. For 5.5 Mbit/s, 4 information bits are band representation are shown in Figs. 1a and 1b,

mapped onto one code word, whereas for 11 Mbit/s 8 respectively.

bits correspond to one code word. The CCK encoder maps the input data words d[k] to

In this paper, only the 11 Mbit/s mode is considered, code words c[k] (k: time index at code word level). The

since it is most relevant for high–rate applications. In channel impulse response (CIR) between transmit and

this case, the binary input data sequence is partitioned receive antenna is denoted by hC (t). Assuming a block

into vectors of length 8, d = [d0 . . . d7 ]T ∈ {0, 1}8 , fading channel (random impulse response, varying from

where [·]T refers to transposition of a vector. The packet to packet, but being constant within each packet)

complex–valued code words c are chosen from set C with L discrete paths,

with cardinality |C| = 28 = 256 according to the rule

L−1

X

[1]:

hC (t) = gp δ(t − τp ) (3)

c = [ c0 c1 c2 c3 c4 c5 c6 c7 ]T (1) p=0

jΘ0 jΘ1 jΘ2 jΘ3 jΘ4 jΘ5 jΘ6 jΘ7 T

=[ e e e −e e e −e e ] . is valid, where gp is the random complex Gaussian

Hence, each code word c is composed of 8 complex– weight of path p with mean g p = E{gp } and variance

2

valued chips, where c0 is transmitted first in time. The σg,p = E{|gp − g p |2 }, and τp and δ(·) denote the

phases of the 8 chips are determined according to corresponding path delay and the Dirac impulse, re-

spectively. E{·} refers to expectation. The transmit and

Θ0 1 1 1 1

Θ1 1 0 1 1 receiver input filters adopted for the numerical results

have both square–root raised cosine frequency response

Θ2 1 1 0 1 ϕ0

with roll–off factor 0.3, respectively. The overall CIR

Θ3 1 0 0 1 ϕ1

is given by

Θ4 = 1 1 1 0 ϕ2 (2)

Θ5 1 0 1 0 ϕ3 L−1

X

Θ6 1 1 0 0 h(t) = hT (t) ∗ hC (t) ∗ hR (t) = gp hG (t − τp ), (4)

Θ7 1 0 0 0 p=0

Note, that ϕ0 is contained in all chip phases and simply where hT (t) and hR (t) denote the transmit and re-

rotates the whole code word c. ϕ1 is contained in all ceiver input filter impulse responses, respectively, and

n(t)

a)

dF [·] CCK cF [·] r[µ]

hT (t) hC (t) hR (t)

encoder t=µT

n[µ]

b)

dF [·] CCK cF [·] r[µ]

h[l]

encoder

n[k]

c)

d[k] CCK c[k] r[k] ML ĉ[k] CCK d̂[k]

H s [m] demapper

encoder detector

Fig. 1. Block diagrams of a) the continuous–time, b) the chip–based discrete-time, and c) the symbol–based discrete–time equivalent baseband

transmission model.

signal can be written as q̃h

X

8K r[k] = H s [m] c[k − m] + n[k], (8)

X

m=0

r(t) = cF [µ]h(t − µTc ) + hR (t) ∗ n(t) (5)

µ=1 where H s [m] are the overall 8 × 8 CIR coefficient

matrices, which are specified below. q̃h denotes the

(Tc : chip interval), where order of the matrix filter, q̃h = ⌈qh /8⌉ (⌈x⌉: smallest

n o integer ≥ x), and specifies the number of past code

cF [·] = c0 [1], c1 [1], c2 [1], . . . , c5 [K], c6 [K], c7 [K] (6) words which affect the current received word (inter–

code–word interference (ICI)). The matrix–valued taps

denotes the transmit sequence of an entire packet H s [m] can be determined from the 8(q̃h +1)×8 matrix

(frame) consisting of K successive code words c[k] H ′s as follows:

with chips cν [k], ν ∈ {0, 1, . . . , 7}. The sequence

dF [·] corresponding to an entire packet of information H s [0]

bits is defined similar to Eq. (6). With µ, 1 ≤ µ ≤ 8K, H s [1]

H ′s = .. , (9)

a chip inside a particular code word within a packet .

is addressed. n(t) is additive white Gaussian noise H s [q̃h ]

(AWGN) with single–sided power spectral density N0 .

After Tc –spaced sampling the discrete–time received where H ′s is a Toeplitz matrix and defined as

signal is given by H ′s = [h′0 . . . h′7 ]. (10)

qh

X Each column vector h′ν

contains the overall CIR h[l],

r[µ] = r(µTc ) = h[l] cF [µ − l] + n[µ], (7) h iT

l=0 h′ν = 0Tν h[0] . . . h[qh ] 0T8 (q̃h +1)−(qh +1)−ν , (11)

with the discrete–time overall CIR h[l] = h(lTc ), l ∈ and 0ν is the zero column vector of length ν.

{0, 1, . . . , qh } (qh : order of discrete–time CIR). Note

that n[µ] is a discrete–time AWGN process.

4 Receivers

3.2 Symbol–Based Model1

4.1 MLSE

A symbol–based model, which is more suitable for In the following, we consider optimum maximum–

block–coded transmission, is now derived from the

likelihood decoding for continuous transmission of

chip–based model. Instead of single chips, received CCK code words over ISI channels. The block diagram

vectors r[k] corresponding to transmitted code words is shown in Fig. 1c. Assuming that the channel impulse

are considered. The block diagram of this model is

response H s [·] is perfectly known at the receiver and

shown in Fig. 1c. n[k] is a zero–mean white complex Gaussian vector

The received word r[k] can be written as the con- process with components of variance σn2 , the proba-

volution of a finite impulse response (FIR) matrix bility density function (pdf) of r[k] conditioned on a

filter impulse response and the transmitted code word hypotheses e r[k] for the noiseless received vector is

1 In this paper, the terms ”symbol” and ”code word” are inter- 1 || r[k] − er [k] ||2

r[k]) =

p(r[k] | e exp − (12)

changeable. (πσn2 )8 σn2

Hyper–branch:

P parallel branches TABLE II

between two states N UMBER OF TRELLIS STATES NS AND PARALLEL BRANCHES P

S1

FOR A GIVEN CHANNEL MEMORY qh .

S2

Memory qh states NS branches P

0 1 256

S3 1 4 64

2 16 16

3, 4 64 4

5, 6, 7, 8 256 1

SNS

k k+1

Another possibility for trellis–based equalization of

Fig. 2. Trellis diagram for one time step.

CCK signals is suggested in [11], where a Path Re-

stricted MLSE (PR-MLSE) for CCK transmission is

proposed. There, trellis states are defined for each chip

(|| · ||: L2 –norm of a vector), where er [k] is related to instead of each symbol. Within this trellis, only the

the code word hypotheses e c[·] according to transition paths permitted by the CCK encoding law

q̃h

X are considered for survivor selection.

r [k] =

e H s [m] e

c[k − m]. (13)

m=0 4.2 Performance Approximation for MLSE

The (optimum) maximum–likelihood decision rule for In the following, the achievable performance of an

forming an estimate ĉ[·] for the sequence c[·] is MLSE receiver for CCK transmission over fading ISI

(K ) channels is investigated. Based on the results in [12]

X 2

for transmission of space–time block codes over ISI

ĉ[·] = argmin e[k] .

r[k] − r (14)

e

c[·] channels, we derive the pairwise error probability (PEP)

k=1

for CCK transmission. Furthermore, we give an ap-

A corresponding NS –state trellis diagram for the proximation for the bit error rate (BER) for MLSE.

Viterbi algorithm for recursive minimization of the right Similar to [12] we consider the transmission of a

hand side in Eq. (14) is given in Fig. 2. The trellis states single code word. The derived result for PEP is a

S n , 1 ≤ n ≤ NS , depend on the channel memory qh lower bound for continuous transmission of code words,

which determines the number of chips from past code because previous and subsequent code words are not

words affecting the current code word. The states are taken into account [12]. Nevertheless, simulation results

defined as for MLSE for continuous transmission presented in

Section 5 will demonstrate the tightness of the derived

S n [k] = c7 [k−1] . . . c0 [k−1] . . . c7 [k− q̃h ] . . . performance approximation.

. . . c7−(l−1) [k− q̃h ] , (15) For a single code word c we obtain the received

vector

with l = mod8 (qh ) (mod8 (·): remainder after division

with 8). Note that the last qh chips of the last qeh code r = C mh + n (16)

words determine the states S n . with r = [r[0] . . . r[7 + qh ]]T , h = [h[0] . . . h[qh ]]T

For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to qh ≤ 8 in and the noise vector n defined similarly as r. The

the remainder of this subsection, i.e., ICI occurs only modified (8 + qh ) × (qh + 1) code matrix is given by

between adjacent code words. Regarding the encoding

law in Eqs. (1) and (2), we observe that, when tracing C m = [cm,0 . . . cm,qh ] (17)

back the channel shift register, ϕ0 appears first in c7 2 , with

ϕ1 appears first in c6 , ϕ2 appears first in c5 , and

ϕ3 appears first in c3 . Therefore, P parallel branches cm,l = [0Tl cT 0Tqh −l ]T . (18)

merge from each state to any allowed next state, which We assume again, that the channel vector h is perfectly

are subsumed in one hyper–branch in Fig. 2. Each known at the receiver. The pdf of r conditioned on

branch within one hyper–branch represents one code hypothesis e

c is

word. The number of parallel branches depends on the ( )

number of states NS with P = 256/NS . The number of 1 e m h||2

||r − C

p(r|e

c) = exp − , (19)

trellis states and the number of parallel transitions are (πσn2 )8+qh σn2

summarized in Table II for channel memories qh ≤ 8.

e m is defined similarly to C m .

cf. Eq. (12), where C

2 Recall that c0 is sent first in time. The maximum–likelihood decision rule for forming an

estimate ĉ for c is and 0 ≤ ξ ≤ 1, e.g. ξ = 0.995. The dominant pairs can

n o be easily obtained using an upper bound for the PEP.

e m h||2 .

ĉ = argmin ||r − C (20)

Since Φ∆(α,β) (s) is known, a simple upper bound takes

e

c

the form [12]

The PEP Pe (α, β) is the probability that a code word where γ0 has to fulfill γ0 < ℜ{s1 }. γ0 = 10−3 is

c = cα is transmitted and the maximum–likelihood typically a good choice. The relevant pairs of (α, β)

receiver decides in favour of ĉ = cβ (cα , cβ ∈ C, α 6= are then determined by comparing the corresponding

β). According to [12] values of Φ∆(α,β) (γ0 ).

2 2

Pe (α, β) = Pr{||r − C α β

m h|| > ||r − C m h|| } 4.3 Decision–Feedback Equalization

= Pr{ ∆(α, β) < 0 }, (21) Because the complexity of MLSE seems to be too high

where Cα and C βm

are defined similarly to Eq. (17). for a practical implementation, suboptimum receiver

m

Thus, the PEP can be reduced to the probability that concepts for CCK modulation are required. In [14],

a random variable ∆(α, β), which depends on the combined equalization and decoding of CCK signals

mean and the autocorrelation matrix of h (see [12] for based on the Fano sequential decoding algorithm has

details), with pdf p∆(α,β) (x) takes on a negative value been proposed, and it has been shown that such a

[13] sequential decoder performs close to the optimum

receiver for certain scenarios. However, the compu-

Z0 tational load of a sequential decoder is a random

Pe (α, β) = p∆(α,β)(x) dx. (22) variable which might be a drawback if regularity is

x=−∞ required in an implementation. Therefore, alternative

In order to evaluate the PEP, the Laplace transform low–complexity concepts are of interest.

Φ∆(α,β) (s) of the pdf p∆(α,β) may be used, which is In the following, combined equalization and decod-

given in [12] in closed form. Then, the PEP for an ing of CCK signals based on feedback of previous

arbitrary code word pair can be determined as decisions is investigated. Because block–coded signals

are transmitted, decision feedback has to be done at

Z ∞

γ+j

block level, i.e., block decision–feedback equalization

1 ds

P (α, β) = Φ∆(α,β) (s) (23) (DFE) [15], [16] is applied. For the simplest version of

2πj s

γ−j ∞ a block DFE, the decision rule is given by [15]

n

for 0 < γ < ℜ{s1 }, where s1 denotes that pole of

ĉ[k] = argmin r[k] − H s [0] c̃[k]

Φ∆(α,β) (s) which has minimum positive real part (ℜ{·} e

c[k]

is the real part operator). We evaluate Eq. (23) numer- )

Xq̃h 2

ically based on Gauss–Chebyshev quadrature rules as

− H s [m] ĉ[k − m] ,

described in [12]. m=1

(28)

4.2.2 Approximation of the Bit Error Rate where ĉ[k−1], . . . , ĉ[k− q̃h ] denote previously decided

code words.

Based on the PEP, the Union Bound on the average bit The performance of a block DFE can be improved

error rate Pb is given by if an FIR matrix feedforward (FF) filter with impulse

|C| |C| response F [m] is introduced in order to concentrate

1 X X n(α, β)

Pb ≤ · Pe (α, β), (24) the energy of the overall response in the first matrix

|C| α=1 8

β=1 tap, cf. Fig. 3. In the feedback (FB) section, the

β 6= α

postcursor ISI corresponding to the overall forward

where n(α, β) denotes the number of bit errors if cα impulse response is subtracted using a FB filter with

is transmitted and cβ is detected. coefficient matrices B[m]. The FF and the FB filter

In order to avoid the computation of the PEP for all may be jointly optimized according to the minimum

possible pairs of (α, β), only those (dominant) pairs mean–squared error (MMSE) criterion, cf. [17]. For

of (α, β) are considered for evaluation of Eq. (24), for this, the autocorrelation matrix of the code words is

which required, which is given by a scaled 8 × 8 identity

matrix because the chips of a code word c are mutually

Pe (α, β) ≥ ξ · Pe,max (25) uncorrelated.

is true, where For sufficiently high signal–to–noise ratios (SNRs)

n o and FIR filter orders, the MMSE solution tends to the

Pe,max = max Pe (α, β) (26) zero–forcing (ZF) solution. The transfer function (z–

(α,β)

(α6=β) transform of impulse response) of the ZF–DFE FF filter

n[k]

H s [m] F [m] W demapper

encoder decision

B[m]

reads [18] Here, Hmin (z) and H(z) denote the z–transforms of

hmin [·] and h[·], respectively.

F (z) = H −1 −1

s,min [0] H s,min (z) H s (z). (29) Hence, for high SNRs the application of an MMSE

Here, H s,min (z) is the minimum–phase equivalent of matrix FF filter at symbol level is equivalent to op-

the transfer matrix H s (z), with timum FF filtering at chip level. On the other hand,

for low–to–moderate SNRs the MMSE matrix FF fil-

HH ∗ H ∗

s (1/z ) H s (z) = H s,min (1/z ) H s,min (z) (30) ter yields a somewhat better performance than scalar

MMSE FF processing, cf. Section 5. FF filtering at

((·)H : Hermitian transposition), and det(H s,min (z))

chip level and subsequent collection of chips in words

(det(·): determinant of a matrix) has roots only inside

can be also described by Fig. 3, where the FF filter

the unit circle. Furthermore, similar to the scalar case,

matrices F [m] can be obtained similarly to H s,min [m]

H s,min [·] is characterized by a better energy concen-

(Eqs. (32), (33)) from the scalar FF filter coefficients

tration in the front part than H s [·] [18],

f [0], . . . , f [qf ] (qf : FF filter order). Note that in this

k

X k

X case the additional 8 × 8 whitening matrix W (dashed

kH s,min [κ]k2F ≥ kH s [κ]k2F , 0 ≤ k ≤ q̃h part in Fig. 3) is not necessary because the components

κ=0 κ=0 of the error vector of the DFE are uncorrelated. On the

(31)

other hand, if the optimum matrix DFE filters according

(k·kF : Frobenius norm of a matrix).

to [17] are chosen, the chips of the error vector are

Because of the special structure of H s (z)

correlated, and spatial whitening is necessary if the

(cf. Eqs. (9), (10)), it turns out that the coefficient

Euclidean metric is applied for forming code word

matrices of the minimum–phase equivalent can be

decisions3 . For high SNRs, W = H s,min [0] results.

determined (up to an arbitrary unitary matrix factor)

from an 8 (q̃h + 1) × 8 matrix H ′s,min as follows:

5 Numerical Results

H s,min [0]

H s,min [1]

For three test channels, the derived performance ap-

H ′s,min = .. , (32)

. proximation for MLSE is compared with simula-

H s,min [q̃h ] tions. We consider the AWGN channel, a test channel

(ProB ) with fixed channel impulse response h[·] =

where, similar to Eq. (9), H ′s,min is defined as the {0.407, 0.815, 0.407} [2], and a stochastic test channel

Toeplitz matrix (3TAP ) with 3 taps. The amplitudes of the 3TAP

H ′s,min = [h′0,min . . . h′7,min ] (33) channel are Rayleigh distributed with equal variances.

The taps of the ProB and 3TAP channels are Tc –spaced

which is composed of column vectors contain- h′ν,min (Tc = 90.9 ns). For these channels, memories of qh = 2

ing the scalar minimum–phase equivalent hmin [·] of (corresponding to 16 trellis states and 16 branches per

the scalar channel impulse response h[·], hyper–branch) result, respectively.

h Fig. 4 shows the BER and packet error rate (PER)

h′ν,min = 0Tν hmin [0] versus Eb /N0 (Eb : received energy per bit), respec-

iT tively. One packet consists of K = 1000 code words. A

. . . hmin [qh ] 0T8 (q̃h +1)−(qh +1)−ν

. good agreement of the simulated BER with the derived

(34) performance approximation for MLSE can be observed

It can be easily checked that the resulting impulse at moderate Eb /N0 already. For high Eb /N0 both

response fulfills Eqs. (30) and (31). For transforming curves are identical. Hence, the derived performance

H s (z) into H s,min (z) via FF filtering, block pro- approximation is an efficient tool to estimate the BER

cessing is not necessary in this special case. Instead, of MLSE.

filtering the received sequence first at chip level with 3 The reason for this is that a standard (optimum) block DFE results

an allpass filter F (z) = Hmin (z)/H(z) and then in a reference tap close to the identity matrix. Therefore, correlations

collecting the filtered chip sequence in words suffices. of the chips of the error vector cannot be avoided.

0 0

10 10

−1

10

−2

10

−1

10

−3

10

BER →

PER →

−4

10

−2

10

−5

10

−6

10

MLSE, AWGN MLSE AWGN

MLSE, 3TAP MLSE 3TAP

−7

MLSE, ProB −3

MLSE ProB

10 10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

10⋅log10(Eb/N0) [dB] → 10⋅log10(Eb/N0) [dB] →

a) b)

Fig. 4. a) BER and b) PER versus Eb /N0 for MLSE (solid lines) and the derived performance approximation for MLSE (dashed lines). ’◦’:

AWGN channel, ’+’: 3TAP channel, ’△’: ProB channel.

0 0

10 10

−1

10

−2

10

−1

10

−3

10

BER →

PER →

−4

10

−2

10

−5

10

10

Office A, block DFE Office A, block DFE

Residential C, scalar DFE Residential C, scalar DFE

−7

Residential C, block DFE −3

Residential C, block DFE

10 10

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

10⋅log10(Eb/N0) [dB] → 10⋅log10(Eb/N0) [dB] →

a) b)

Fig. 5. a) BER and b) PER versus Eb /N0 for DFE (solid lines) with scalar and matrix FF filter and the derived performance approximation

for MLSE (dashed lines). ’◦’: Office A channel and scalar FF filter, ’+’: Office A channel and matrix FF filter, ’△’: Residential C channel and

scalar FF filter, ’×’: Residential C channel and matrix FF filter.

TABLE III

(JTC) to characterize indoor radio environments [19].

JTC C HANNEL PROFILES : O FFICE A AND R ESIDENTIAL C

Three channel profiles (A, B, C) for each of three

different propagation environments (office, residential,

Channel Channel

Office A Residential C and commercial area) are standardized. The JTC pro-

files Office A and Residential C are depicted in Table

Excess Rel. Excess Rel.

Tap Delay Att. Delay Att. III (delay and relative attenuation (Rel. Att.) of each

(ns) (dB) (ns) (dB) path). Regarding the large excess delays of the JTC

1 0 0 0 -4.6 channels and multipath spacings unequal to multiples

2 50 -3.6 50 0 of Tc , simulations for MLSE are not feasible. However,

3 100 -7.2 150 -4.3

in addition to DFE with both FF filtering approaches,

4 225 -6.5

5 400 -3.0 the proposed performance approximation for MLSE is

6 525 -15.2 also shown in Fig. 5.

7 750 -21.7 For low–to–moderate Eb /N0 the matrix FF filter at

symbol level yields a slightly better performance than

scalar MMSE FF filtering. As expected, at high Eb /N0

The performance of DFE with scalar and matrix both DFE schemes achieve the same performance, since

FF filter, respectively, is compared in Fig. 5. Here, the MMSE matrix FF filter is equivalent to optimum FF

the comparison is based on multipath Rayleigh fading filtering at chip level in this case, cf. Section 4.3.

models developed by the Joint Technical Committee

6 Conclusions [17] N. Al-Dhahir and A.H. Sayed. The Finite-Length Multi-Input

Multi-Output MMSE-DFE. IEEE Trans. Signal Processing,

48:2921–2936, October 2000.

In this paper, the performance of various receiver [18] W.H. Gerstacker and D.P. Taylor. On Prefiltering for Reduced–

concepts for complementary code keying (CCK) trans- State Equalization of MIMO Channels. Accepted for ITG

mission over ISI channels has been investigated. Inter- Conference on Source and Channel Coding, Erlangen, 2004.

[19] Joint Technical Comittee on Wireless Access. Final Report on

preting CCK as a block code, a performance approxi- RF Channel Characterization, Sept. 1994.

mation for optimum MLSE is derived and validated by

simulations. Furthermore, MMSE–DFE with optimum

scalar and matrix feedforward filters, respectively, is

proposed. Our results show, that the performance for

matrix filtering is slightly better than that for scalar

filtering at low–to–moderate SNRs, whereas both ap-

proaches are equivalent at high SNRs.

References

[1] IEEE Standard 802.11b, Part 11: Wireless LAN Medium Access

Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications –

Higher Speed Physical Layer Extension in the 2.4 GHz Band,

1999.

[2] J.G. Proakis. Digital Communications. Mc Graw Hill, 2000.

Boston.

[3] M.A. Webster et al. Rake Receiver with Embedded Decision

Feedback Equalizer, May 2001. United States Patent, No.: US

6,233,273 B1.

[4] M.V. Clark, K.K. Leung, B. McNair and Z. Kostic. Outdoor

IEEE 802.11 Cellular Networks: Radio Link Performance. In

IEEE International Conference on Communications, pages 512

–516, April 2002. New York.

[5] H. Luo and R.-W. Liu. Apply Autocorrelation Matching Method

to Outdoor Wireless LAN on Co–Channel Interference Suppres-

sion and Channel Equalization. In Wireless Communications

and Networking Conference, pages 459–464, March 2002.

[6] M.J.E. Golay. Complementary Series. IRE Trans. Inform.

Theory, pages pp. 82–87, April 1961.

[7] C.C. Tseng and C.I. Liu. Complementary sets of sequences.

IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-8(no. 5):pp. 644–651, Sept.

1972.

[8] R. Sivaswamy. Multiphase complementary codes. IEEE Trans.

Inform. Theory, vol. IT-24(no. 5):pp. 546–552, Sept. 1978.

[9] R.L. Frank. Polyphase complementary codes. IEEE Trans.

Inform. Theory, vol. IT-26(no. 6):pp. 641–647, Nov. 1980.

[10] K. Halford, S. Halford, M. Webster and C. Andren. Comple-

mentary code keying for RAKE-based indoor wireless commu-

nication. In IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and

Systems, pages 427–430, May 1999.

[11] Y. Kakura. A Path Restricted Sequence Estimator using Code-

word Characteristics. In 11th IEEE International Symposium

on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pages

1305–1309, Sept. 2000. London.

[12] R. Schober, W.H. Gerstacker and L. Lampe. Performance

Analysis and Design of STBC’s for Frequency-Selective Fad-

ing Channels. To appear in IEEE Transactions on Wireless

Communications, 2003.

[13] E. Biglieri, G. Caire, G. Taricco and J. Ventura-Travest. Com-

puting Error Probabilities over Fading Channels: a Unified

Approach. European Trans. on Telecom., 9(1):15–25, Jan.-Feb.

1998.

[14] C. Heegard, S. Coffey, S. Gummadi, E.J. Rossin, M.B. Shoe-

make and M. Wilhoyte. Combined Equalization and Decoding

for IEEE 802.11b Devices. IEEE Selected Areas on Com.,

21(2):125–138, Feb. 2003.

[15] D. Williamson, R.A. Kennedy and G.W. Pulford. Block decision

feedback equalization. IEEE Trans. on Com., 40(2):255–264,

Feb. 1992.

[16] A. Stamoulis, G. Giannakis and A. Scaglione. Block FIR

Decision-Feedback Equalizers for Filterbank Precoded Trans-

missions with Blind Channel Estimation Capabilities. IEEE

Trans. on Com., 49(1):69–83, Jan. 2001.

- XERES Maritime Security KitUploaded byLiger30
- HCIA-WLAN_V2.0_Training_Materials.pdfUploaded byLeonardo Vargas Peña
- 802.15.2-2003Uploaded byNguyễn Tiến Đạt
- Unit 3 Wireless LANsUploaded bymaniarunai
- WLAN_HandoffUploaded byVijay Ukani
- smcwebtgUploaded byxXHercules01Xx
- MA5631 Glossary(V800R308C02_01).pdfUploaded byNelson R. Vicente André
- 1GP56_2EUploaded bylayout123
- Screen Spot: Multidimensional Resource Discovery for Distributed Applications in Smart SpacesUploaded byAbhishek Mishra
- Wireless 150 RouterUploaded bypelangkidul
- Lecture Slides for BER+Q-factor+EyeDiagramUploaded byNaveel Arshad
- BER for BPSK in Rayleigh ChannelUploaded byinvention8484
- AP90 Series Installation Guide Rev 06Uploaded byJorge Bueno
- Aruba AP93Uploaded byHaseeb Vtply
- Bluesocket 1840 - Datasheet - 61700911F1-8Uploaded byFemmy Ferdian
- Bit error rate characterisation and modelling for GSMUploaded byPhilippe
- NFT_1N_(AF)Uploaded byAthanase Wognin
- cvUploaded byChairul Ichsan
- QOS.pdfUploaded byEagle Madridesta
- DS AP200SeriesUploaded byHaseeb Vtply
- Secure Wireless Lan WpUploaded byim
- 802_11g_whitepaperUploaded byIke Tien
- Get PDFUploaded bynsu2785
- 201508181629102776Uploaded byDaryl Dixon
- Fedora 13 Wireless Guide Es ESUploaded byJulio Molina
- Pepwave_AP_Pro_Datasheet.pdfUploaded byJohn C. Young
- Archer T4U 2.0Uploaded byMSCM
- MATLAB IntroductionUploaded byPrasenjit Saha
- Multi-channel MAC for Ad Hoc Networks.pptUploaded byHassan Hassan
- et03Uploaded byapi-25903925

- Wireless CommunicationsUploaded bychand123123
- DNS RecursionUploaded bychenn2010
- Defense DDoSUploaded bychand123123
- ddosUploaded bychand123123
- 040421 Swans AodvUploaded bychand123123
- Bachelor of Computer Applications AssUploaded bychand123123
- Adv CompUploaded bychand123123
- Web ServicesUploaded bychand123123
- Security OverviewUploaded by23wings
- Research on MCCDMAUploaded bychand123123
- An 9850Uploaded bychand123123
- Computer newUploaded bychand123123
- Co QuestionsUploaded bychand123123
- Computer OrganizationUploaded bychand123123
- C short lecUploaded byapi-3838604
- Symmetric EncryptionUploaded bychand123123
- Why CryptographyUploaded bychand123123
- Overview of E-MailUploaded bychand123123

- GMAT Quant Topic 4 - Numbers SolutionsUploaded byBhagath Gottipati
- CE300Uploaded bymapalet
- 1756-XXXX ControlLogix Digital I-O ModulesUploaded bydaovanthanh_bk2007
- Edu Cat en v5f Ff v5r18 Lesson04 ToprintUploaded byDaniel Martínez
- 5SYA 2093-00_thermal Design of IGBT ModulesUploaded byNuwantha Fernando
- GWT training session 2Uploaded bySnehal Masne
- Nation Types of the Stellar EmpiresUploaded byKadaeux
- Scriptie Youtube Poop v 2Uploaded byfelipeespinola
- Ora-Accesul La Date PL-SQLUploaded byDaniela Lutic
- Model 3Uploaded byRajesh CyberPiraten
- Mrunal [Aptitude Q] STD Table _ Application in Train Man Bridge, Time and Work Problems - MrunalUploaded byRahul Gaurav
- mca4_2Uploaded bydilipomi
- computer organisation bca 2050.docxUploaded byaryanboxer786
- 978-3-7315-0090-2Uploaded byantonioulbra
- Bart ISGC 2012 TalkUploaded byLaurien M. Buday
- Installation GuideUploaded byVladimir Jerson Alferez Vargas
- Educational System in PakistanUploaded bym13329
- Effect of BLDC Motor Commutation Schemes on Inverter Capacitor Size SelectionUploaded byXristos Lian
- mc-ty-scalarprod-2009-1.pdfUploaded byMohamed Yahia
- Huawei NQ Weekly Report 11Dec2017Uploaded byangga meas
- ACCL CATALOUGEUploaded byUNNI VENUGOPAL
- Fluent-Intro 15.0 WS04 AirfoilUploaded bymatteo_1234
- WEEK 01Uploaded byJaafar Soriano
- Sp14 Cs188 Lecture 9 -- Mdps IIUploaded bypandarean
- Windows XP Pro. Service Pack 4 [P.R.I.v.a.T.E D X86 Retail - 100% Pure PerformanceUploaded byLuis Fisher
- 224 Centralized Web Application Supporting Vehicle Toll Payment System.pdfUploaded byEditor IJTSRD
- Asta PowerProject TutorialUploaded byswingingsanda
- Advance Agile HandoutUploaded byAjay Krish
- Opinst Man PV500 EnUploaded byNaga Muneendra Reddy Kota
- CANADA TESTS.docxUploaded byGeorgeta Tufis