UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Constant Envelope OFDM Phase Modulation A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements

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

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

2005

Copyright Steve C. Thompson, 2005 All rights reserved.

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

Co-Chair

Chair

University of California, San Diego 2005

iii

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

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

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

iv

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

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

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

13 2. 38 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (N = 64) .15 Block diagram. . . . . . . 21 Block modulation with cyclic prefix and FDE.2 2. . . . . 31 2. . . . . 34 2. . . . .5 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . TWTA=thin) for various backoff ratios K. . . . . . . . . .k | = 1. . . . . . the range is reduced further from nonlinear amplifier distortion.25 dB PAPR). . . . Subcarrier and overall spectrum. . . . . . . . . . . . Intersymbol interference. The PAPR is 9. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 OFDM is a special case. . for all k) . . . . .4 2. . . . . . . (N = 64) . . . . . 10. . . . . . . 29 Fractional out-of-band power of OFDM with ideal PA and with TWTA model at various input power backoff. . . . . . . .LIST OF FIGURES 1. . . . . .7 1. . . . . . .4 1. . . . .13 The potential range of system is reduced with input backoff. . . . (N = 64) . .16 Unclipped OFDM signal (9. . . . . . . . . 19 Circular convolution with channel and the inverse channel. . . . 33 2. . . . . . A typical OFDM signal (N = 16). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Performance of M -PSK/OFDM with SSPA. . . .6 1. . . . .11 Performance of QPSK/OFDM with nonlinear power amplifier with various input power backoff levels. The rings have radius A max which correspond to various clipping ratios γ clip (dB). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 viii . . . . OFDM with cyclic prefix (CP). . . . . . . IBO in dB) . . . . . . A wireless channel in time and frequency. k = 5. . . 10 Power amplifier transfer function. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 1. . . . . ( fo 2 2 3 5 7 8 9 = 0. . . . . (N = 16. The system is evaluated with and without PAPR reduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2.25) . . . . . . . . 31 2. . . . . . 23 Complementary cumulative distribution functions. . . . . . . . .8 1. .3 2. . . . 36 2. 25 PAPR CCDF lower bound (2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 Spectral growth versus IBO. . . . .6 2. |I 0. . . . . . . . . .10 Comparison of OFDM and CE-OFDM signals. . . . . . . . . . . . Frequency offset causes ICI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 Sampling instances. . .1 2. . . . 6. . .7 2. . OFDM converts wideband channel to N narrowband frequency bins.5 dB. 21 OFDM system diagram. .8 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . .31) for N = 2 k .5 2. . . . . .9 Representation of a wireless channel with multipath.3 1. . 26 AM/AM (solid) and AM/PM (dash) conversions (SSPA=thick. . . . . . . . . . (N = 64) . . . . .14 Power amplifier efficiency. (N = 64. . . . . . . . . . .1 1.

. . [M = 2. .2 3. . . . .7) . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 Discrete-time phase demodulator. . . over L blocks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 4. . . . . . . . . . . . (2πh = 0. . . . . . . . . N = 64. .9 4. . . . . . . 2πh = 0.n (K). 70 CE-OFDM performance with and without FIR filter. . . . . . N = 8) . (N = 64) . . . . .10 CE-OFDM versus OFDM. . . (M = 8. . . . . . . . . .11 Correlation functions ρm. . . .12 CE-OFDM optimum receiver performance. . . . . 40 2. . 40 2. . . . . . . . 55 3. . . . .17 PAPR CCDF of clipped OFDM signal for various γ clip (dB). 45 Phase discontinuities. . 2πh = 0. System 1 (S1) has phase offsets {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0. . . . (M = 8. . . . . . 68 Threshold effect at low CNR.19 A comparison of the total degradation curves of clipped and unclipped M -PSK/OFDM systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Threshold effect at low CNR. (N = 64. . .6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J = 8] .18 PAPR of clipped signal as a function of the clipping ratio. . . . various 2πh. . . . . . . . (M = 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Fractional out-of-band power. . . . . .9 The CE-OFDM waveform mapping. . . . fcut /W . . . N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 3. . . . . . . . . . . . .5) . . .2. . . . . 77 ix . J = 8) . . .10 The optimum receiver. . . . . . . . . 43 Instantaneous signal power. . . . . N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Basic concept of CE-OFDM. . .5 and Eb /N0 = 10 dB) . 53 Power density spectrum. . . . 50 Estimated fractional out-of-band power. . .4 Phase demodulator receiver. . . (N = 64) . J = 8) . . . . 58 Bandpass to baseband conversion.1 3. . . . . 72 4. . . 2π)}. .6) . . . . . . . . . (N = 64) . . .7 4. . .1 4. . . . . . 62 Performance with and without phase offsets. 52 Double-sided bandwidth as a function of modulation index. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 3. (M = 2. . . 69 Magnitude response of various Hamming FIR filters. . .11 CE-OFDM versus OFDM with nonlinear PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (M = 2. 57 4. .3 4. . . . . 2πh = 0. . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Performance for various filter parameters L fir . . . 76 4.5 4. . .6 4. . . . . . . N = 64. . . .7 3. J = 8. . . . . .8 4. . . . and System 2 (S2) doesn’t (θ i + φ0 = 0). . . (N = 64) . 2πh = 0. 56 3. . . . . . . . [N = 64] . . . . . . .4 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (N = 64) . N = 64. . . . . 49 Continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples. . . . . . (N = 64. . . . . on the complex plane. . .6 3.8 3. . . . . . J = 8. . .2 4. . . . . (N = 64) . . . . . .

. . . . . . .15 Noise samples PDF versus Gaussian PDF.25)] of the four channel models considered. . . . . N = 64) . . . . 92 Comparison of semi-analytical technique (5. . .5 6. . . . . 105 Channel E results. (SSPA model. . . . . . .18 A comparison of CE-OFDM and conventional OFDM. (M = 8. . . . . . (N = 64. . triangle=Rice. .5 6. . N = 64. 101 Channel B results. . . . . . . . . (N = 64) . 130 B. . . . . . . . . . . the Rayleigh. . 93 CE-OFDM system with frequency-selective channel. .12 CE-OFDM versus QPSK/OFDM. . . . . . .16 Performance of M -PAM CE-OFDM. 2πh = 0.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N = 64. . . . Solid line=Semianalytical curve. . . N = 64) . . . . . . . . . . 82 4. .7 6. N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15). . . . . . . . 107 Fundamental characteristic functions and quantities [(6. . . . . . . . . . . 2πh = 1. . . . .1 6. . K = 10 dB. .15) with (5. . . . . . . Channel C f . (Circle=Rayleigh. . . . . 113 5. . . . . . . . . .1 “OFDM” search on IEEE Xplore [222]. . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Channel D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2πh = 0. . . . . †=leftmost curve. . . . . . .9 6. . . .n (K) for M = 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (N = 64) . . . . . . . . . . 102 Channel C results. . . . . . . .21)–(6. . . . 78 4. . . Channel C f . . . . .3 5. . . . 90 A (n + 1)-region model. . 120 B. . .10) and (5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Papers. . . . . . . . . . . . L = 1 result is that of the frequency-nonselective channel model. .2 5. . . 80 4. . . . . . (M = 4. . 81 4. . . . . . . 79 4. . . . square=Rice. . . . . . K = 3 dB.6 6. .13 All unique ρm. . N = 64. . M = 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2πh = 1. . 91 Performance of CE-OFDM in flat fading channels. . 106 Channel F results. points=simulation. . .2) . . . . . . . . .0) . . . . N = 64. . .1 5. . . . . . . 119 6. . . . .11). . . . . . . . filed and piled. . . . . (5. . . . . . . . 131 x . . . . . . 104 Channel D results. . . . 85 5. (M = 8. . MMSE) . . (E b /N0 = 30 dB) . N = 4 DCT modulation. . .2 6. . . . . . .6) . . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MMSE) . . . . . . . . . (M = 4. . 99 Channel A results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 6. . .17 Spectral efficiency versus performance. . . . . . . . ‡=rightmost curve) . . (M = 2. . .14 Phase demodulator receiver versus optimum. . . (Multipath results are labeled with circle and triangle points. . N = 64. . . . . . . . . .11 Single path versus multipath. . .6) . . .4 Performance of CE-OFDM in flat fading channels. 88 A simplified two-region model. .8 6. . . . . .10 Performance results. . . .

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

xi

LIST OF TABLES

6.1 6.2 6.3

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

xii

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

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

1999 Summer 2001 2001 2001–2005

Summer 2004 2005

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

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

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

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

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

Ii g(t − iTs ). The dispersion in the time domain leads to frequency-selectivity in the frequency domain.2 Figure 1.1 is shown in Figure 1. The first path arrives at the receiver 0.5 Frequency.2: A wireless channel in time and frequency. Figure 1.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (µs) (a) Time domain. The signal waveform of such a system is s(t) = i is a transmit pulse shape. Ts is the symbol period. and g(t) ¢£ point A Propagation paths 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 12 14 -30 −1 −0. a digital communication system maps bits to k b -bit data symbols.1 0. In a conventional single carrier system. 1 Channel power (dB) Path power 0. For time-dispersive channels. {Ii } are the data symbols. An example profile of the channel in Figure 1.2(a). such as the 4-path example in where t is the time variable. ¡  ¡       point B (1.1: Representation of a wireless channel with multipath. The Fourier transform of the profile yields the frequency-domain representation shown in Figure 1.5 µs after the signal is transmitted.2(b). the last path arrives with a 14 µs delay.5 0 0. The channel is viewed over a 2 MHz range centered at the center frequency f c . f − fc (MHz) 1 (b) Frequency domain.1) . the symbols are then transmitted serially. Notice that the channel power fluctuates by 30 dB (a factor of 1000) over the frequency range. In general. Each path has its own associated delay and power.

Since the maximum propagation delay of the channel is τ max = 14 µs. which grows exponentially with the ISI length.2. Nonlinear decision feedback equalizers (DFEs) have similar complexity as the linear type and have better performance. g(t) is rectangular.2.. t) + n(t) ∞ = −∞ h(τ.5 µs. τmax . t). therefore creating intersymbol interference. T s = (2 × 106 )−1 = 0.. . (1.2) the time-dispersive channel is shown to smear symbol 1 into symbol 2. p. interference is caused from symbol to symbol. 97] r(t) = s(t) ∗ h(τ. τmax /Ts = (14 µs) / (0. The received signal is expressed mathematically as [387. The signal bandwidth is roughly proportional to the symbol rate 1/Ts Hz. The channel is represented by its time-variant impulse response h(τ. having a complexity which grows roughly linearly with ISI length. The effect of s(t) . but perform much worse than the optimum receiver. Linear equalizers are much simpler.1) over the 2 MHz channel in Figure 1. t)| r(t) ISI τ 0 Ts 2Ts t Figure 1. The traditional approach to combating intersymbol interference is with time-domain equalizers [421]. the ISI spans .3: Intersymbol interference.3. ranging in complexity and in effectiveness. This intersymbol interference (ISI) is illustrated in Figure 1. Consider transmitting the signal in (1. (For comparison. Therefore making s(t) a 2 MHz signal.5 µs) = 28 symbols..3 spans less than one symbol.3 Figure 1. t |h(τ. The optimum maximum-likelihood (ML) receiver is the most effective but is typically impractical due to its high complexity. where τ is a propagation delay variable. s(t) Transmitter Channel r(t) Receiver where ∗ represents the linear convolution operator and n(t) is additive noise. For simplicity.) Such severe ISI must be corrected at the receiver in order to provide reliable communication. There are many types. The severity of the ISI depends on the symbol period relative to the channel’s maximum propagation delay. the ISI in Figure 1. t)s(t − τ )dτ + n(t). 0 symbol 1 symbol 2 Ts 2Ts .

especially for time-varying channels. 160. an estimate of h(τ. and stability. Training times become long and convergence of the channel estimator is problematic. orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. in wireless broadcast applications such as digital audio and video broadcasting (DAB and DVB) and in-band on-channel (IBOC) broadcasting [392]. converges quickly. There are various algorithms available for the estimation process. For scenarios like the example above with an ISI spanning 28 symbols.11 and the ETSI HYPERLAN/2 standards [552]. Using a QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying) signal constellation. t) is made.4 All of these techniques require knowledge of the channel. under the IEEE 802. Such a bit rate is desired in current wireless systems. cellular systems. 2×10 6 symbols/s are transmitted. 1. 264. but has higher complexity and can be unstable. Then by comparing the received signal to what was transmitted. OFDM is being developed for ultra-wideband (UWB) systems. and for other wireline systems such as power line communication (PLC) [119. but suffers from a slow convergence rate. alternative techniques have been considered. OFDM . 604]. which maps kb = 2 bits per symbol. on the other hand. convergence rate.1 An Introduction to OFDM To meet the demanding data rate requirements. The least-mean-square (LMS) algorithm is the most stable and the least complex. and in many cases demand for many tens of Mb/s is common. In the example. The recursive least-square (RLS or Kalman) algorithm.1. 1. OFDM has been implemented in wireline applications such as digital subscriber lines (DSL) [95]. has become exceedingly popular. Instead of transmitting symbols serially. It has been used in wireless local area networks (LANs) under the IEEE 802. One approach.16 (WiMax) standard.1 ISI-Free Operation OFDM’s main appeal is that it supports high data rate links without requiring conventional equalization techniques. the bit rate is 4 Mb/s. which is estimated by transmitting a training sequence which is known at the receiver. conventional equalization becomes difficult. wireless metropolitan area networks (MANs). each having its own complexity.

g(t). T g .4: OFDM with cyclic prefix (CP).k }N −1 are transmitted during the ith block. The pulse shape. 1.4) . ISI s(t) Tg CP |h(τ.k ej2πfk t g(t − iTB ). ηt = TB /(TB + Tg ) = 150/165 ≈ 0. ISI is avoided by inserting a guard interval between period is TB = N Ts = 300 × 0.91. otherwise.3). Selecting a is designed such that Tg ≥ τmax so that the channel is absorbed in the guard interval guard interval Tg = 15 µs for the channel in Figure 1. The center k=0 1 Notice that the N data symbols {Ii. the block of the channel’s impulse response. T B . and choosing N = 300.3) set of complex sinusoids {exp (j2πf k t)}N −1 are referred to as subcarriers. The OFDM block period. The guard interval and cyclic prefix is discussed in Chapter 2. (1. g(t) =  0. (1. and the OFDM block is uncorrupted. is typically rectangular:   1. with a small reduction in efficiency. This is illustrated in the figure below. t)| TB OFDM block t τ r(t) ISI-free block t Figure 1. which is more than 10 times the duration successive blocks during which a cyclic prefix is transmitted. the guard interval is excluded from the signal definition in (1. Continuing the example above. Therefore. The interval duration.5 µs = 150 µs.1.2 results in a transmission efficiency is eliminated.2 A Multicarrier Modulation The OFDM signal can be expressed as1 N −1 s(t) = i k=0 Ii.5 sends N symbols as a block. 0 ≤ t < TB . is thus N times longer than the symbol period. The k=0 For simplicity.

Consider the 0th OFDM block: N −1  0.k sinc f− k TB TB . (1. sinc(x) =  sin πx  .6 frequency of the kth subcarrier is f k = k/TB and the subcarrier spacing. the subcarriers. For single carrier. 0 ≤ t < TB . In general. are non-interfering (i. s(t) = k=0 I0. Notice that at the kth have zero-crossings. (1. where (·)∗ represents the complex conjugate operation. p. k/TB . the kth subcarrier has a peak and all the other subcarriers where F{·}(f ) is the Fourier transform and   1. Therefore.6) The frequency-domain representation is N −1 S(f ) = F {s(t)} (f ) = TB e −j2πf TB /2 k=0 I0. a transmitted bandpass signal is [421. TB 0 ej2π(fk2 −fk1 )t dt (1. (1.7) Figure 1.k ) g(t − iTB ).10) while for multicarrier. (1.5) k 1 = k2 . makes the subcarriers orthogonal over the block interval. (1. k 1 = k2 .1). 1/TB Hz.8) where fc is the carrier frequency.5 plots |S(f )/TB | for N = 16 subcarriers and data symbols with normalized amplitudes. The subcarrier orthogonality can also be viewed in the frequency domain. expressed mathematically as 1 TB TB 0 ∗ ej2πfk1 t ej2πfk2 t dt = = 1 TB   1.5 also demonstrates that OFDM is a multicarrier modulation. 151] x(t) = s(t)ej2πfc t . orthogonal). The individual subcarrier spectra are also plotted. while tightly packed (which improves spectral efficiency).9) subcarrier frequency. Figure 1. N −1 xmc (t) = i k=0 |Ii.k ej2πfk t . πx x = 0. (1. otherwise.e. as opposed to a single carrier modulation like the signal in (1. xsc (t) = i |Ii | cos [2πfc t + arg(Ii )] g(t − iTs ).k | cos 2π fc + k TB t + arg(Ii.11) .

.2(b). (N = 16. Frequency selectivity is the frequency-domain dual of intersymbol interference. . for all k) For single carrier each symbol occupies the entire signal bandwidth. |S(f )/TB | 1 0. known as bit loading.7 1. For OFDM. the overall channel is frequency-selective but for each bin the chan[−0. Notice that the multicarrier signal transmits the N data symbols in parallel over multiple carriers each centered at (fc + k/TB ) Hz.8 0.k | = 1.6 0. By properly designing the subcarrier spacing. The OFDM modulation can be optimized for the channel by sending more bits in frequency bins with high gain and fewer bits in frequency bins with low gain. For this reason.9.6 shows 18 bins in the range Notice that the channel gain per bin varies over a 15 dB range.5: Subcarrier and overall spectrum.4 0. . while for multicarrier the bandwidth is split into many frequency bands (also referred to as frequency bins). Figure 1. The wideband frequency-selective channel is converted into N contiguous narrowband frequency-nonselective bins. requires a fairly stable channel. 1.2 0 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Normalized frequency. N − 1.78] MHz for the N = 300 OFDM system over the channel in Figure 1. |I 0. −0. f TB 12 14 16 18 Figure 1. . . one that can be accurately measured.2 Subcarrier Overall Spectrum magnitude. each frequency bin is made frequencynonselective. bit loading is more common in wireline systems and stationary wireless systems than in wireless systems with high mobility. This technique. Transmitting the single carrier signal over the 2 MHz channel results in a frequency-selective response. k = 0.

I0.6) at N equally spaced time instances: N −1 y[i] ≡ s(t)|t=iTB /N = I0.13) which is the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) performed on the time-domain samples. . two of OFDM’s primary advantages have been discussed: the elimination of ISI and the ability to optimize the modulation with bit loading. The frequency-domain symbols {I 0. Therefore. (1. This is seen by sampling s(t) in (1. (1. 1. Consequently. k=0 i = 0. respectively. Figure 1. f − fc (MHz) −0.1 .k ej2πki/N . .8 Figure 1. 1. s(t) is generated at the transmitter with an IDFT folN −1 lowed by a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter. .85 Frequency. 1.k }k=0 can be expressed as I0.k = 1 N N −1 y[i]e−j2πkn/N . . . N − 1. N − 1. Therefore. nel is frequency non-selective and thus ISI is avoided. .6 illustrates a frequency-domain interpretation of how OFDM avoids intersymbol interference.9 Frequency bins −0.N −1 ]. The third appeal of OFDM is that the modulation and demodulation is done in the discrete-time domain with the inverse fast Fourier transform (IFFT) and fast Fourier transform (FFT).0 .8 5 Channel power (dB) 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 −0. . the symbols are demodulated at the receiver with an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter followed by a DFT.6: OFDM converts wideband channel to N narrowband frequency bins. i=0 k = 0. . I0.1.12) which is the inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) of the symbol vector I 0 = [I0. .3 Discrete-Time Signal Processing Thus far. . .

2 Problems with OFDM OFDM has two primary drawbacks. 1. Figure 1.5. k = 0. say.5 < fo < 0. |S(f )/TB | 1 0.2 0. ( fo = 0. Doing so is much simpler than performing the modulation/demodulation in the continuous-time domain with N orthogonally tuned oscillators.7: assuming that the receiver is tuned to (k + fo )/TB Hz. f TB k+1 Figure 1. where −0. N − 1.7: Frequency offset causes ICI. 1. The intercarrier interference causes ISI—and potentially high irreducible error floors. This intercarrier interference (ICI) is illustrated in Figure 1.5 shows that the subcarriers are properly orthogonal at f = k/TB . Moreover. fo /TB not orthogonal and therefore interfering with one another. making OFDM suitable for software defined radios (SDRs) [185]. This sensitivity arises from the close subcarrier spacing. . The first is sensitivity to imperfect frequency synchronization which is common for mobile applications. . the subcarriers are Hz rather than at the ideal k/TB Hz. . The real and imaginary part of the Spectrum magnitude. the N − 1 neighboring subcarriers interfere with the demodulation of the kth subcarrier. if the frequency synthesizer at the receiver is misaligned by.9 The IDFT/DFT is performed efficiently with IFFT/FFT algorithms. The second problem with OFDM is that the signal has large amplitude fluctuations caused by the summation of the complex sinusoids.04 k−1 k + fo k Normalized frequency. the signal processing can be performed in software.25) . However. .

is plotted in Figure 1.8 1 0 0 0. The PAPR is 9. Figure 1. (1. (b) Signal power. 10 log 10 9 ≈ 9.8 1 Subcarriers {s(t)} {s(t)} 160 140 120 Power magnitude 100 80 60 40 20 |s(t)|2 Peak power Average power 2 {s(t)} + 2 {s(t)}.2 0.5 dB.k } sin (2πkt/TB ) + {I0. (1.k } cos (2πkt/TB ) . but when summing the sinusoids the resulting OFDM signal fluctuates over a large range. The ratio between the peak (a) Signal amplitude.k } sin (2πkt/TB ) . The instantaneous signal power. Also plotted are the individually modulated sinusoids.14) N −1 k=0 {I0. Figure 1. t/TB 0.8: A typical OFDM signal (N = 16). OFDM’s high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) requires system components with a large linear range capable of accommodating the signal. the circuitry .10 OFDM signal is N −1 {s(t)} = and {s(t)} = k=0 {I0. t/TB 0.8(b). 12 10 8 6 Signal amplitude 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 0.8(a) shows the real and imaginary parts of an example OFDM signal with N = 16 subcarriers.6 Normalized time.4 0.4 0. |s(t)|2 = power and the average power is 144/16 = 9 (or in decibels.5 dB). Otherwise.15) respectively.2 0.k } cos (2πkt/TB ) − {I0. Notice that each sinusoids has a constant amplitude.6 Normalized time.

8 is 9. the IBO must be at least equal to the PAPR. IBO of 9.5/10 ) ≈ 0. At this backoff the efficiency of a Class A power amplifier is less than 6%. In reality the PA has a limited linear region. Thus the required IBO for the OFDM signal in Figure 1.5 dB. the operational range of the system is reduced by a factor of nine2 . Ideally the output of the PA is equal to the input times a gain factor. but for signals with large PAPR the operating point must shift to the left keeping the amplification linear. known as the AM/AM conversion.5/10 ≈ 9 times less signal power transmitted in channel. Max output Optimum Output power Linear region Saturation region Actual Backoff AM/AM curve Operating points Ideal AM/AM Input power Figure 1. but as the input power increases the PA saturates. the (theoretical) efficiency of a Class A amplifier is 0. Such an efficiency is detrimental to mobile battery-powered devices which have limited power resources.5/(109.06 [374]. beyond which it saturates to a maximum output level. The most efficient operating point is at the PA’s saturation point. Figure 1. One such nonlinear device is the transmitter’s power amplifier (PA) which is responsible for the system’s operational range [424]. In the linear region the curve matches the ideal. 2 .9: Power amplifier transfer function. Moreover. and nonlinear distortion results in a loss of subcarrier orthogonality which degrades performance.11 distorts the waveform nonlinearly. The average input power is reduced and consequently this technique is called input power backoff (IBO). To keep the peak power of the input signal less than or equal to the saturation input level.5 dB corresponds to 109.9 shows a representative input/output curve.

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

this is accomplished since the CE-OFDM signal has the 0 dB PAPR property.k } cos (2πkt/TB ) − {I0. the phase signal can be the real part of the OFDM signal: N −1 φ(t) = {sOFDM (t)} = k=0 {I0. .16) where the phase signal is an OFDM waveform. Figure 1. Certainly.13 1. Both are derived from the same baseband OFDM message signal. The motivation for CE-OFDM is to eliminate the PAPR problem of the conventional OFDM system. (1.17) where sOFDM (t) is the signal in (1. The question is: at what cost? What is the performance of CEOFDM? What is its bandwidth? Can the guard interval be used in CE-OFDM as it is in conventional OFDM? This thesis aims to answering these questions by analyzing the various aspects of the CE-OFDM modulation. For example.6). The high peak-to-average power ratio OFDM signal is transformed into a CE waveform. The CE-OFDM signal takes the form of (1.4 Constant Envelope OFDM Constant envelope OFDM (CE-OFDM) combines OFDM and constant envelope signaling.10 compares a conventional OFDM bandpass signal with a bandpass CE-OFDM signal.10: Comparison of OFDM and CE-OFDM signals.k } sin (2πkt/TB ) .  OFDM bandpass OFDM message R CE-OFDM bandpass Figure 1.

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

5. as discussed in Section 2.2 the basic properties of OFDM are identified. 15 . In this chapter. Section 2. the processing of the discrete-time samples is described. The PAPR statistics are analyzed in Section 2. performance degradation (Section 2.1.3.1).2.1.3.2). In Section 2. the cyclic prefix is studied.1 covers key properties of OFDM. the various PAPR mitigation techniques found in the research literature are categorized in Section 2. Then in Section 2. Finally.4.1. OFDM is studied in more detail. OFDM is considered a special case of the more general block modulation with cyclic prefix scheme. In Section 2.4.1 and 1. in Section 2.1. and a technique called signal clipping is evaluated in terms of its effectiveness to improve system performance. Lastly.1.4 the effect of nonlinear power amplification on OFDM systems is studied in terms of spectral leakage (Section 2.4.3). and the equivalence of linear channel convolution and circular channel convolution is explained.4 the main functional blocks of the OFDM system are described. and system range and efficiency (Section 2. In light of this property.Chapter 2 OFDM In Sections 1.2 and power amplifier models used to evaluated system performance are described in Section 2.

(2. the waveform is N −1 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . (2. Thus the OFDM signal having a guard interval with cyclic prefix is simply N −1 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . Notice that the above simplification is made due to the periodicity of the signal. (2. If the channel is assumed to be time invariant. During the OFDM block interval.1 it is claimed that the use of the guard interval results in ISI-free operation. where Tg is the guard period. fk = k/TB is the center frequency of the kth subcarrier and where {Ik }N −1 are the data symbols.1. t). (2. {exp(j2πfk t)}N −1 are the subcarriers.2). This is demonstrated below and it is shown that ISI results if anything but the cyclic prefix is transmitted.1 More OFDM Basics The Cyclic Prefix In Section 1.1. To transmit a cyclic prefix. the impulse response is referred to as simply h(τ ).2) −Tg ≤ t < 0. This is true so long as a cyclic prefix is transmitted during the interval.3) The received signal is r(t) = s(t) ∗ h(τ ) + n(t) ∞ = = 0 −∞ τmax h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t) h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t). −Tg ≤ t < TB . 1 . the last T g s of the block is transmitted during the guard interval: N −1 N −1 N −1 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk (t+TB ) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t ej2πk = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t .4) where h(τ ) is the time-invariant channel impulse response 1 and n(t) is additive noise. The guard interval is defined during −T g ≤ t < 0. 0 ≤ t < TB . N is the k=0 k=0 TB is the block period. The bounds of integration are simplified since the channel is assumed causal [h(τ ) = 0 In (1.1 2.1) total number of subcarriers. the received signal is expressed in terms of the time-variant channel impulse response h(τ.16 2.

using the guard interval with cyclic prefix provides ISI-free operation. −Tg ≤ t < 0. N −1 symbols {Ik }N −1 scaled by the complex-valued channel gains {H[k]} k=0 . Suppose that the transmitted signal is   b(t).8) ˆ Ik0 = Ik0 H[k0 ] + Nk0 .6) 1 TB Ik k=0 0 h(τ )e−j2πfk τ dτ ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt + Nk0 . (2. 0 ≤ t < TB .9) h(τ )e−j2πfk0 τ dτ.11) . An estimate of the r(t) ej2πfk0 t ∗ dt. which has interference from the previous block k0 th data symbol is made by correlating r(t) with the k 0 th subcarrier: 1 ˆ I k0 = TB which expands to 1 ˆ I k0 = TB 1 = TB = where N k0 = But since 1 TB (2. is ignored and r(t) during 0 ≤ t < T B is processed. (2.5) r(t)e−j2πfk0 t dt h(τ ) k=0 Ik ej2πfk (t−τ ) dτ e−j2πfk0 t dt + Nk0 TB 0 (2.6) simplifies to TB 0 TB 0 TB 0 N −1 0 τmax τmax N −1 TB 0 (see Figure 1.   1. (2. s(t) =  N −1  Ik ej2πfk t .17 for τ < 0] and to have a maximum propagation delay τ max [h(τ ) = 0 for τ > τmax ]. where H[k0 ] = 0 τmax  0.7) ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt = k = k0 . 1 TB TB 0 n(t)e−j2πfk0 t dt. (2. k = k0 . The received signal during the guard interval. ISI is avoided k=0 Now it is shown that by transmitting a signal other than the cyclic prefix during the guard interval causes ISI.10) which is the Fourier transform of h(τ ) evaluated at f = f k0 . k=0 (2.4). (2. ˆ This shows that the N received data symbols { Ik }N −1 are equal to the transmitted k=0 since the kth symbol isn’t impacted by the N − 1 other symbols. Therefore.

8) can’t be applied to (2. (2. This phenomenon was described in Section 1. The estimated data symbol is expressed as ˆ Ik0 = Ik0 Hk0 C1 + Nk0 + ICI. intercarrier interference.15) ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt.14) thus Ak0 is a non-zero offset term which is a function of b(t). the orthogonality condition in (2. since the subcarriers are no longer orthogonal and interfere with one another. and this results in ISI. but has the advantage of being able to recover data symbols . The zero-padding causes ISI. k=0 Ik e The estimate of the k0 th data symbols is r(t)e−j2πfk0 t dt τmax 0 1 ˆ I k0 = TB 1 = TB TB 0 TB 0 h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ e−j2πfk0 t dt + Nk0 (2.2 in the context of imperfect frequency synchronization. For the second term.16) H[k] k=k0 Tg Ik ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt. (2. and when it does the data symbols interfere with one another resulting in ISI. cyclic prefixed OFDM is compared to zero-padded OFDM [b(t) = 0].13) (2. t − τ > 0. and the interference terms is ICI = Ak0 + 1 TB TB (2. [0. 1 TB TB Tg N −1 0 τmax τmax N −1 B k0 = h(τ ) k=0 Ik ej2πfk (t−τ ) dτ e−j2πfk0 t dt TB Tg (2. TB ]: A k0 = and B k0 = 1 TB 1 TB Tg 0 TB Tg 0 0 τmax τmax h(τ )s(t − τ )e−j2πfk0 t dτ dt.12) = A k0 + B k0 + N k0 . In [358]. Therefore. The bounds of integration are separated into two segments. where C1 = (TB − Tg )/TB . ICI can manifest itself in more than one way.18 where b(t) = N −1 j2πfk t .15).17) The interference is denoted as ICI. T g ] and [Tg . 1 = TB Ik k=0 0 h(τ )e−j2πfk τ dτ Due to the integration bounds for t. h(τ )s(t − τ )e−j2πfk0 t dτ dt.

that is. . . Nc − 1. . (2. a channel zeros at the kth subcarrier. Nc . NB − 1. . −Tg −Ng Tsa ··· Signal sampling ··· h(τ ) and r(t) at the sampling rate fsa = JN/TB samp/s. . The sampling instances are shown in the figure below. .18) where Tsa = 1/fsa and. The number of guard samples. The number of samples per block is N B = JN .21) i = −Ng .19 located at channel zeros. Ng . where J ≥ 1 is the oversampling TB t (NB − 1)Tsa −Tsa 0 Tsa −Ng Tsa ≥ −Tg Channel sampling 0 Tsa ··· τmax τ (Nc − 1)Tsa (Nc − 1)Tsa ≤ τmax Figure 2. . and the channel samples are h[i] = h(τ )|τ =iTsa . H[k] = 0. as shown in (2. 0.2 Discrete-Time Model It is convenient to describe OFDM by a discrete-time model. i = 0. . Nc ≡ Tg Tsa ≤ Tg . . Tsa (2. . and channel samples. NB − 1. .22) . 0. factor. This is in contrast with cyclic prefixed OFDM since. . . are defined as Ng ≡ and τmax τmax +1≤ + 1. The zero-padded system avoids this problem at the cost of increased receiver complexity due to equalization requirements. i = −Ng . (2. . results in an estimated data symbol that consists entirely of noise. . . .1: Sampling instances. Consider sampling s(t).20) The received samples are expressed by the linear convolution sum Nc −1 r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i]. . by design. .9). 2. Ng ≥ Nc . The signal samples are s[i] = s(t)|t=iTsa .19) Tsa Tsa is the sampling period. .1. (2. (2.

The guard interval samples are ignored Nc −1 and the samples r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i]. k = 0. 415–420].24) i = 0. NDFT −1 S[k] = i=0 s[i]e−j2πik/NDFT . . If NDFT > NB . size is.23) can be expressed as r[i] = IDFT {H[k]S[k]} = 1 NDFT NDFT −1 k=0 H[k]S[k]ej2πik/NDFT . Thus the transmit samples s[i] can be reconstructed by passing the receive samples r[i] through the inverse channel. Therefore.20 where {n[i]} are samples of the noise signal n(t). {s[i − m]} is periodic with period N B . .25) and H[k] = NDFT −1 h[i]e−j2πik/NDFT . which is then followed by an IDFT.24). . .2 shows a block diagram representing the calculation of (2. .26) are the NDFT -point DFTs of the signal and channel samples. NDFT ≥ NB . . .3 Block Modulation with FDE The inverse channel structure in Figure 2. . (2. The linear convolution in (2. respectively. . where IDFT{·} represents the inverse discrete Fourier transform. NB − 1. pp.23) are processed. The DFT NDFT > Ng .1. ignoring the noise samples. The circular convolution can be performed by taking the IDFT of the product of two DFTs [422. due to the cyclic prefix. . 2. NDFT − 1 (2. NDFT − 1 (2. . (2. . . NDFT − 1. NB − 1 (2. i=0 k = 0. Also shown is the inverse channel which is a DFT followed by a multiplier bank (1/H[k]) followed by an IDFT. .2 corrects the distortion caused by the channel in the frequency domain. . .23) is equivalent to a circular convolution since. The effect of the channel is simply a DFT followed by a multiplier bank (H[k]). the signal vector is zero-padded. in general. i = 0. and is therefore called a frequency-domain equalizer . the channel samples are zero-padded: h[i] = 0 for i = N c . . . . . Since Figure 2.

. Frequency-domain equalizer Data {Ik } Modulator Channel DFT Multiplier bank IDFT Demodulator Data ˆ {Ik } Figure 2.4: OFDM is a special case. Frequency-domain equalizer Data {Ik } IDFT Channel DFT Multiplier bank IDFT DFT Data ˆ {Ik } Data {Ik } IDFT Channel DFT Multiplier bank Data ˆ { Ik } Figure 2.3: Block modulation with cyclic prefix and FDE.21 Channel s[i] DFT H[k] IDFT r[i] Inverse channel r[i] DFT 1 H[k] IDFT s[i] Figure 2.2: Circular convolution with channel and the inverse channel.

the data symbols are complex numbers which result from mapping the bits to points on the complex plane. OFDM doesn’t eliminate the equalization problem (associated with conventional single carrier modulation). pointed out. 197. are passed through the digital-to-analog (D/A) converter to obtain the continuous-time OFDM signal s(t).4 conceptually illustrates the OFDM system. Figure 2. such as M -ary phase-shift keying (M -PSK) and M -ary quadrature-amplitude modulation (M -QAM). 30. 154.4. (The insertion of the cyclic prefix at the transmitter and removal at the receiver is implied but not included in the diagram for simplicity. The encoded bits are then mapped to the data symbols I k . rather. 463. In general. the modulation is a IDFT and the demodulation is a DFT as shown in Figure 2. 153. 460. 107. the signal is amplified and transmitted.5 shows a more detailed description of OFDM’s functional blocks. As Sari et al. . 54. 574]. Since Sari’s original paper. Next.4 System Diagram The block diagram in Figure 2. Such an equalizer can be used only when the effect of the channel is a circular convolution. This observation was first identified by Sari et al. 142. 565. 196. but isn’t unique to OFDM since any modulation can use a cyclic prefix.1. The cyclic prefix is added and the signal samples. This is the case for OFDM. 116. 533. 388. 245. s[i]. the symbols are serial-to-parallel (S/P) converted and processed by the IDFT. 2. 132. This operation is required for data symbols that rely on coherent demodulation. one complex multiplication per frequency bin.3 shows a simplified block diagram of such a system. there has been a considerable number of publications focused on the block modulation technique using conventional single carrier modulations [8. OFDM converts the problem to the frequency domain. [462] and suggests a more general modulation approach: block modulation with cyclic prefix and frequency-domain equalization. 481.22 (FDE). The multiplier bank at the output of the DFT is often referred to as a one-tap equalizer.) For the special case of OFDM. Notice that the DFT and IDFT cancel each other and the resulting diagram depicts the conventional OFDM system. 461. Finally. Figure 2. The encoder adds redundancy to the bit stream for error control.

5: OFDM system diagram. . In the next sections the impact of the PA is studied. r(t). are processed by the detector which outputs a stream of estimated receive bits. But first.23 Transmitter Bits 01101 Encoder 11101 Mapper Ik S/P IDFT Add CP P/S s[i] D/A s(t) Power amplifier Receiver r(t) A/D Remove CP r[i] S/P DFT Equalize C[k] P/S ˆ Ik Detector 11001 Decoder Bits 01101 Figure 2. the statistical properties of the PAPR are discussed. Ik . The estimated data symbols. The guard interval samples are removed. one of OFDM’s key drawbacks is the high peak-toaverage power ratio. First. the DFT is performed and each frequency bin is equalized by a complex ˆ multiplication.2. At the receiver. Nonlinearities in the power amplifier distort the transmitted signal and large input power backoff is required which results in low amplifier efficiency. and the decoder attempts to correct any bit errors that may have occurred. As discussed in Section 1. the received signal. the inverse operations are performed. is sampled to obtain the discrete-time sequence r[i].

the randomness of the PAPR depends on the randomness of the instantaneous power |s(t)| 2 . a N = 32 subcarrier system having 4-ary data symbols and a block period of TB = 100 µs obtains the theoretical maximum PAPR once every 3. For example.27) The signal during the guard interval is ignored since it has no impact on the PAPR average power of s(t) is distribution.TB ) (2. For large N . it is desirable to understand the statistical distribution of this quantity. Therefore. (2. therefore |I k | = 1 for all k. and the complementary instantaneous power over 0 ≤ t < TB .24 2. 0 ≤ t < TB . (2.29) Notice that the absolute maximum signal power is N 2 . there are M N unique symbol sequences. the instantaneous signal power is chi-squared distributed with two degrees of freedom [421. t∈[0. the PAPR is a random quantity since it depends on the data numbers. For any given block interval. M -PSK data symbols are assumed. so the PAPR can be as high as N . The Ps = 1 TB TB 0 |s(t)|2 dt = N. and more specifically. while others have a relatively low PAPR. Assuming that they’re selected randomly from a set of M complex k=0 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . as pointed out in [381]. the real and imaginary parts of . some have a high PAPR. Thus it is more meaningful to describe the PAPR statistically rather than in absolute terms.7 million years. the likelihood that all the subcarriers align in phase is extremely low. Consequently. Since the average signal power is a constant. the maximum s(t) are accurately modeled as Gaussian random processes (due to the application of the central limit theorem [394. However. and thus M N unique OFDM waveforms per block. The OFDM signal is N −1 symbols {Ik }N −1 .28) The peak-to-average power ratio is defined as PAPRs = max |s(t)|2 Ps . Of these waveforms. 41].2 PAPR Statistics The peak-to-average power ratio of the OFDM signal is best viewed statistically. 421]). p.

The PAPR of the discrete-time sequence provides 10−1 ` ´ CCDF. 1. (b) Peak-to-average power ratio. 2. Figure lower bound in (2. . . N −1} [173].31) {s(t)|t=iTB /N . (2. i = 0.30) 100 Simulation Lower bound (2.31) where 1 − (1 − e−x )N is an approximation to the CCDF of the PAPR of the sequence a lower bound to the continuous-time signal since peaks can occur between sampling times. . This demonstrates the accuracy of the Gaussian approximation to the real and imaginary part of s(t).6(a) compares a simulated instantaneous power CCDF with the approximation in (2. P (PAPRs > x) 2 4 x (dB) 6 8 10 10−1 10−2 10−2 10−3 10−3 10−4 0 10−4 4 6 8 10 x (dB) 12 14 (a) Instantaneous power.30). The 0.6(b) compares PAPR simulation results to the The bound is shown to be within 1 dB of the simulated result for lower values of x.31).30) A lower bound of the peak-to-average power ratio’s CCDF is [515] P (PAPRs > x) 1 − (1 − e−x )N .6: Complementary cumulative distribution functions. Figure 2.0001 PAPR is shown to be at around 11. 100 Simulation Approximation (2. (N = 64) Figure 2.25 dB.25 cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of the normalized instantaneous signal power is approximated as P |s(t)|2 >x Ps ≈ e−x . P |s(t)|2 /Ps > x CCDF. (2. and at this .

7: PAPR CCDF lower bound (2. that is. I k ∈ {±1. 10% have a PAPR greater than 8. . 100 symbols (4-ary PSK) are used. .31) over a range N = 32 to N = 1024. P (PAPRs > x) 10−2 10−3 10−4 4 5 6 7 8 x (dB) 9 10 11 12 Figure 2. ±j}.5 dB. k = 5. the PAPR is greater than 8 dB for roughly 10% of the time. They are described here and then used in Section 2.5% have a PAPR greater than 10 dB.31) for N = 2 k . For the results in Figure 2. Notice that essentially all OFDM blocks have a PAPR greater than 6 dB. the PAPR is greater than 8 dB nearly all of the time.001 PAPR is 1 dB larger for N = 512 than for N = 32.6. 6. power amplifier models must be defined. 10. While the symbols constellation k 5 6 7 8 9 10 10−1 CCDF.3 Power Amplifier Models To determine the impact of the PAPR on system performance. For the N = 1024 system. .26 level the bound is tight. 2. For the N = 64 system. however. the number of subcarriers does. Notice that the 0. Two models commonly used in the research literature are the solid-state power amplifier (SSPA) model and the Saleh traveling-wave tube amplifier (TWTA) model [454].4 for performance evaluation. Figure 2. . and 0.7 shows the lower bound (2. the number of subcarriers is N = 64 and QPSK data has little impact on the PAPR statistics. .

33) (2. A common simplification is to assume that the PA is a memoryless nonlinearity. Cann’s formula is obtained with the simple manipulation: G(A) =g0 A 1 + (A/Asat )2p A 1 + (A/Asat )2p Asat 1 + (Asat /A)2p 1/2p =g0 1/2p × . 5]). is non-zero. For example. [(Asat /A)2p ]1/2p [(Asat /A)2p ]1/2p (2. The SSPA model is expressed as G(A) = g0 A 1 + (A/Asat ) 2p 1/2p . 1 + β φ A2 1 + (A/Asat )2 (2. if the PA input is sin (t) = A(t) exp[jφ(t)]. and therefore has a frequency-nonselective response. (2.27 In general. and p controls the AM/AM sharpness of the saturation region. and Φ(A) = . . determined by the constants α φ and βφ . Cann. modeling nonlinear power amplifiers is complicated (see [233. For this model the AM/PM conversion is assumed to be negligibly small.34) should be credited to the original work by A.36) Notice that the AM/PM conversion. Though widely known as the Rapp model [426]. and Φ(A) = 0. Asat is the input saturation level.32) where G(·) and Φ(·) are known as the AM/AM and AM/PM conversions. chap. (2. published a decade earlier in the IEEE literature [71]. respectively. the output is sout (t) = G[A(t)] exp j{φ(t) + Φ[A(t)]} . J.35) =g0 1/2p which is precisely the nonlinearity presented in Cann’s paper. The TWTA model is therefore more nonlinear than the SSPA model. (2.34) where g0 is the amplifier gain. Saleh’s TWTA model is expressed as [110] G(A) = αφ A2 g0 A .

for the TWTA model. α φ = π/12 and βφ = 1/4. One the other hand. given Asat and IBO. the input signal power can be scaled accordingly to satisfy Assuming that the PAPR of the input signal is PAPR in . A2 sat . For K = −10 dB the IBO is one-tenth the input signal is normalized to the maximum input level A max . The x-axis maximum output level g0 Asat .8.8 shows the AM/AM (solid lines) and AM/PM (dashed lines) conversions For the SSPA model. PAPR. and thus the nonlinearity is severe. IBO K (2. and the y-axis is normalized to the for the SSPA (thick lines) and TWTA (thin lines) models for various backoff ratios K. the peak power can be written as Pmax = PAPRin · Pin = where K= A2 PAPRin 2 Asat = sat . Notice that for K > 1 the backoff is greater than the input signal’s PAPR. the conversions are never as linear as the K = 3 dB curves (the PAPR is a always greater than 3 dB) and are more nonlinear .37) can be written as where Pin = E{|sin (t)|2 } = E{A2 (t)} is the average power of the input signal. (2. For example. IBO (2.28 To reduce nonlinear distortion in the amplified OFDM signal. p = 2. for K < 1 the backoff is less than the input PAPR. the non-zero AM/PM conversion of the TWTA model makes it more nonlinear Insight can be gained by comparing Figure 2. As stated than the SSPA model. Pin (2.38).6(b) and Figure 2. the maximum the input saturation level: value of the input.41) Figure 2. can be written in terms of the backoff ratio and Amax = Asat Pmax = √ . K (2.37) lently.38) thus.39) IBO PAPRin (2. input power backoff (IBO) is required. assuming that the backoff is IBO = 6 dB. Now. EquivaPin = (2. for K = 10 dB the above. IBO is ten times the input signal PAPR and the PA response is nearly linear. It is defined as [375] IBO = A2 sat .40) is defined as the backoff ratio. Amax = max |A(t)|.

.5 −0. G(A)/g0 Asat −0.5 0.5 Normalized input value.5 0 0 −0.29 1 Normalized output value.5 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −0. A/Amax Normalized output value. A/Amax Normalized output value.5 0.5 0 0.5 Normalized input value.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 0 0.5 −0.8: AM/AM (solid) and AM/PM (dash) conversions (SSPA=thick.5 Normalized input value. TWTA=thin) for various backoff ratios K. A/Amax 1 (a) K = 10 dB (b) K = 3 dB 1 Normalized output value.5 0 0 −0. G(A)/g0 Asat 1 0. A/Amax 1 (c) K = −3 dB (d) K = −10 dB Figure 2.5 Normalized input value. G(A)/g0 Asat 1 0. G(A)/g0 Asat −0.5 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −0.

07W .9 shows the curves for an N = 64 subcarrier OFDM signal amplified by the TWTA power amplifier according to (2. however. the bandwidth is shown to grow roughly linearly with IBO. even with a large IBO of 6 dB. Figure 2. By using the Welch method [422.42) ∞ ˆ −∞ Φs (f )df is the signal power.1 Spectral Leakage The first problem considered is spectral leakage. (2. reducing the average transmit power reduces the operational range of the system.5Ps f > 0. The bandwidth of the undistorted OFDM signal is f = 1. However. on the transmitted signal. The result is used to calculate estimated fractional out-of-band power curves.5% bandwidth is 73% larger than the undistorted signal. For sufficient backoff. the degree of distortion for a given OFDM block is random (given a fixed IBO) since the PAPR for a given block is random.30 than the K = −3 dB curves for about 5% of the OFDM blocks (the 0. for IBO < 6 dB. For IBO = 1 dB. Notice that the spectral leakage is roughly the same for the two amplifier models. since PA efficiency reduces with IBO. Also. ˆ 0. Also plotted is the FOBP curve for ideal linear amplification. defined as ˆ FOBP(f ) = f 0 ˆ ˆ where Φs (f ) is the estimated power density spectrum of the signal and Ps = ˆ Φs (x)dx . In this section these various issues are studied. 911–913]. These results show that at least 6 dB backoff is required by the TWTA to avoid spectral broadening. Also. the PA can impose high nonlinear distortion 2. the bandwidth of the nonlinearly amplified signal is the same.05 PAPR is 9 dB). pp. This is an unsatisfactory solution. .36) at various backoff levels. These undesirable effects can be reduced with increase input backoff. the 99. the power density spectrum at the output of the power amplifier can be quickly estimated.10 shows the 99.4.5% bandwidth as a function of IBO. Figure 2. Therefore. 2.4 Effects of Nonlinear Power Amplification Power amplifier nonlinearities cause spectral leakage and performance degradation to OFDM systems.

6 1.2 1.8 99. f /W 1.25 0. (N = 64) . f /W 1.25 1. IBO (dB) 8 10 Figure 2.5% bandwidth.0 1.8 0 OFDM amplified with: TWTA PA SSPA PA ideal PA 2 4 6 Input power backoff.10: Spectral growth versus IBO.9: Fractional out-of-band power of OFDM with ideal PA and with TWTA model at various input power backoff.5 0.5 Figure 2.75 1 Normalized frequency.31 100 OFDM amplified with: TWTA PA ideal PA Fractional out-of-band power 10−1 IBO 0 10−2 2 4 6 10−3 0 0. IBO in dB) 2.4 1.0 0. (N = 64.

11 shows bit error rate (BER) performance as a function of E b /N0 . that is. the discrete-time signal representation is used and the sampling rate fsa = JN/TB where J ≥ 1 is the oversampling factor.43) where sout (t) is the output of the PA from (2. (2. The noise samples {n[i]} are Gaussian distributed and assumed independent:   2 σ .1. Thus assuming Bn = fs .45) The autocorrelation function of n(t) [the inverse Fourier transform of (2. 158]   N0 .44) where Bn is the bandwidth of the noise signal.33) and n(t) is a complex-valued Gaussian additive noise signal having a power density spectrum [421. the performance degradation caused by nonlinear amplification is considered. The received signal is thus. i 1 = i2 . h(τ ) = δ(τ ). pp.5) then passed to the detector which makes the final decision. The performance is estimated by way of computer simulation. For the AWGN channel. Φn (f ) =  0.2 Performance Degradation Next. The transmitted data symbols are estimated by the correlation in (2. |f | ≤ Bn /2. (2.45) is satisfied and the noise sample Figure 2. (2. and therefore no guard interval is used. i 1 = i 2 . the nearest point in the symbol constellation [421. This decision is based on the maximum-likelihood (ML) criterion assuming a linear PA.44)] has zerocrossings at τ = 1/Bn .2. The noise spectrum is assumed to be constant over the effective bandwidth of the information bearing signal and is thus called “white”. |f | > Bn /2. 242–247]. r(t) = sout (t) + n(t). The OFDM signal is passed through a PA and then it is corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). (2. n E {n[i1 ]n[i2 ]} =  0.4. where Eb = |sout (t)|2 dt Number of bits per block TB 0 (2.46) . 2 variance is σn = fsa N0 . Following the convention described in Section 2.32 2. p.

16 = best.47) is the Gaussian Q-function. (2. 0 = worst. Eb /N0 (dB) (a) SSPA model. 1. which is [421. 2. . or simply the SNR. 8 dB. For the SSPA results in Figure 2.33 10−1 Nonlinear PA Ideal PA 10−1 10−2 Bit error rate Bit error rate 10−2 Nonlinear PA Ideal PA 10−3 10−3 10−4 10−4 10−5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. (N = 64) is the energy per bit.11: Performance of QPSK/OFDM with nonlinear power amplifier with various input power backoff levels.11(a). 16 dB. 6. Figure 2. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. For M -PSK to 16 dB. (b) TWTA model. To avoid degradation. . 10. 8 = best. . BER = Q where Q(x) = √ ∞ −y 2 /2 e dy/ 2π x 2 Eb N0 . pp. IBO = 0. The TWTA results in Figure 2. . the IBO = 0 dB case suffers a 3 dB performance loss compared to ideal AWGN performance. QPSK data symbols are used. 4. Notice the irreducible error floors for IBO ≤ 7 dB. 16 . 8 dB of backoff is required. To avoid degradation.11(b) use IBO ranging from 0 dB of backoff is required—8 dB more than for the SSPA case. 268]. The quantity E b /N0 is referred to as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per bit. 0 = worst. the IBO ranges from 0 to 8 dB. and the oversampling factor is J = 4. The greater nonlinearity of the TWTA model is evident from the results in this figure. 1.0001 BER level. IBO = 0.12 compares performance for higher-order PSK modulations. Figure 2. 3. At the 0.

N log2 M (2. This is the case for linear modulation formats. therefore the bit energy is Eb = TB 0 (2. the M = 16 result for IBO = 3 dB has an irreducible error floor at 5 × 10 −3 . The number of bits per data symbols is log 2 M . the error floor for M = 16 drops to 2 × 10 −5 and the 0.) The higherorder modulations are shown to be more sensitive to the PA nonlinearity. IBO (dB) 10 (a) BER performance.34 10 10−1 Ideal PA SSPA: IBO = 3 dB IBO = 6 dB 8 10−2 Bit error rate Total degradation (dB) M = 16 M =8 M = 16 6 M =8 10−3 4 M = 2. When increasing the backoff to IBO = 6 dB. . m = 0. This isn’t necessarily the case for nonlinear modulation formats as discussed in Section 4. Eb /N0 (dB) 0 0 2 4 6 8 Input power backoff. .001 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. (b) Total degradation. (The results for M = 2 and M = 4 are very similar so only M = 2 is plotted.48) |sout (t)|2 dt . Figure 2.49) Higher-order constellations are used for increased spectral efficiency at the price of BER performance2 . .12: Performance of M -PSK/OFDM with SSPA. 4 2 Ideal PA SSPA 10−4 M = 2.001 bit error rate when compared to using IBO = 3 dB.001 BER is about 2 dB worse than AWGN. Using IBO = 6 dB for M = 8 results in 2 dB less degradation at the 0. while the M = 2.4. For example. 1. 2 . 4 Target BER = 0. M − 1}. (N = 64) the data symbols are Ik ∈ {exp(j2πm/M ). . In Figure 2.12(a) BER results for the SSPA model are shown. 4 result at the same backoff shows only a 1 dB degradation.

minimizes the total degradation. as represented by the innermost circle.51) The target BER for the curves in Figure 2. To quantify the relationship between the PA efficiency and the power backoff.12(b) is 0. Clearly the modulation order influences the degradation. as represented by the middle ring. the theoretical efficiency of a Class A power amplifier is used [374]: ηA = 1 1 × 100%.35 A more revealing way to view performance is in terms of total degradation.52) The efficiency is thus inversely proportional to IBO and the maximum efficiency. denote as IBOopt . This can be interpreted as follows: M = 8.3 System Range and PA Efficiency The total degradation is directly related to the system’s operational range. 50%.7 dB at IBO opt = 6. for M = 8. suffers less degradation and can operate with less backoff. resulting in improved range and higher PA efficiency. shown in Figure 2. (2. 2. while having lower spectral efficiency than M = 16 (3 b/s/Hz vs. that is. The M = 2 and M = 4 examples are shown to have the lowest degradation and are thus the more robust against nonlinear distortion. SNRPA (IBO) is the required SNR when taking into account the distortion caused by the power amplifier at a given backoff.5 dB.50) where SNRAWGN is the required signal-to-noise ratio per bit to achieve a target bit error rate in AWGN. can be used . TD(IBOopt ) = TDmin = IBO≥0 dB min TD(IBO). occurs at IBO = 1 (0 dB). The range is represented by the outermost ring in Figure 2. 4 b/s/Hz).14. Thus the actual range of the system is far less than the potential range of the transmitter. Consider a transmitter operating at maximum transmit power. as shown in Figure 2.13. TDmin = 5 dB at IBOopt = 3 dB.4. The total degradation is defined as [121] TD(IBO) = SNRPA (IBO) − SNRAWGN + IBO.12(b). [in dB] (2. (2. Any degradation caused by the PA further reduces range.001. The efficiency curve. The true capability of the power amplifier is greatly underutilized. The “optimum” IBO. The minimum TD for M = 16 is 7. Now assume that the system requires a 3 dB backoff: the range is reduced by one-half. 2 IBO IBO ≥ 1.

13: The potential range of system is reduced with input backoff. IBO (dB) 8 9 10 Figure 2. the bandwidth expansion is 42% (Figure 2. and performance/range. the range is reduced further from nonlinear amplifier distortion. ηA (%) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Input power backoff.14: Power amplifier efficiency. in conjunction with Figures 2. the optimum IBO in terms of total degradation for the 8-PSK SSPA example is IBO opt = 3 dB [Figure 2.5 dB.12(b)]: however.14). . The optimum IBO for the 16-PSK example.36 Potential range Potential range w/ IBO Actual range Figure 2. 6. results in no bandwidth expansion but the PA efficiency is reduced to 11%. The M = 2. For example. 50 45 Class-A PA efficiency. but the bandwidth expands by 87%.10 and 2.12(b) to gain insight to the various tradeoffs between PA efficiency. 4 systems required minimal IBO for the SSPA. spectral containment.10) and the PA efficiency is ηA = 25% (Figure 2. thus maximizing efficiency.

37 2. 138. The PA linearization schemes attempt to predistort the OFDM signal such that the overall response of the predistorter followed by the PA is linear—essentially equalizing the amplifier. 122. and multiple signal representation {aka selected mapping (SLM) or partial transmit sequences (PTS). Finally. 268. peak cancellation [330]. or 3. [376] (maximum-likelihood decoding). tone reservation [169. The PAPR reduction schemes can be further divided into distortionless and non-distortionless techniques. and applying the inverse transform at the receiver prior to demodulation. trellis-shaping [377]. and in [87] (interference cancellation). have been proposed. receiver enhancement techniques. The second category. The goal of any scheme is to reduce the minimum total degradation (for increased range) and the IBO opt (for increased PA efficiency). an LMS algorithm is applied for adaptive predistortion. 250. in [395] a neural network learning technique is used. 382]. This category includes constant envelope OFDM (as studied in the second half of this thesis) which uses a phase modulator as the transformer. Parametric techniques. 567] nonlinear polynomial models are used. 2. 569–571] a companding transform is suggested. 453] (signal reconstruction). the third category includes techniques that are based on transforming the OFDM signal prior to the PA.508] and reference therein). 329. schemes include signal clipping [27. in [259. 290. see [227] and its references}. In [85. signal transformation techniques. Transmitter enhancement techniques include PAPR reduction schemes and PA linearization schemes. Distortionless techniques include coding (see [126. have been suggested in [513]. 512]. receiver enhancement techniques. which design a predistorter based on a PA model. The various schemes can be placed in one the following three categories: 1. constellation extension [269]. In [215. Non-distortionless dowing [403]. and in [86] a Volterra-based model is suggested. and peak win- .5 PAPR Mitigation Techniques There have been many schemes proposed in the research literature aimed at reducing the impact of the PAPR problem. transmitter enhancement techniques. In [230].439.

382].15: Block diagram.38 Signal Clipping The remainder of this section focuses on the effectiveness of signal clipping.4. The impact of “clipping noise”—the intercarrier interference caused by the clipping process—on system performance has been extensively analyzed [39. which has been claimed to be the “simplest” and “most effective” PAPR reduction scheme [27. The system under consideration is shown in Figure 2. does not reduce TD min nor does clipping reduce IBOopt for an OFDM system. The input to the clipping block is the OFDM signal s(t) from (2. OFDM s(t) modulator PAPR reducing clipper off sin (t) on sclip (t) n(t) PA sout (t) h(τ ) r(t) OFDM demodulator Figure 2. 290. It is argued here that the effectiveness of a PAPR reduction scheme must be measured not only by PAPR reduction. the magnitude of the clipped signal does not exceed Amax and the phase of s(t) is preserved.54)  Amax ejψ(t) . 124. 377. 138.27). has an impulse response h(τ ) = δ(τ ). as before. This result brings into question the usefulness of non-distortionless PAPR reduction techniques in general. 371. 391]. defined as [375] Amax γclip = √ .2. 39. if |s(t)| ≤ Amax .) The clipping severity is measured by the clipping ratio. It is shown that clipping. Therefore. When the switch is “on” the PAPR reducing signal clipper is used.15. Ps (2.53) where ψ(t) = arg[s(t)]. 380. 382. a common assumption is that the PA is linear [27. 87. However. the output is the clipped OFDM signal: sclip (t) =   s(t). 391]. The channel. Therefore. 375. but by the more meaningful measures of TDmin and IBOopt reduction. the earlier unclipped results serve as a performance benchmark in which to compare the clipped results. When “off” the system is identical to the one studied in Section 2. . (2. 380. (This has been called “polar clipping” in the literature [276]. The system is evaluated with and without PAPR reduction. 290. 382. while an effective PAPR reduction scheme. if |s(t)| > Amax .

Figure 2.0001 PAPR improvement. The 0. and so forth.18 shows PAPRclip as a function of the clipping ratio.T ) . 2. The dark rings have radius Amax which correspond to clipping ratios γ clip = 0. PAPRclip ≤ 8 dB. sclip (t) is unclipped.2 dB for the the unclipped signal is 13 dB3 .17.16: Unclipped OFDM signal (9.2 dB for γ clip = 5 dB and by 3. the peak-to-average power ratio of the clipped signal is PAPR clip ≤ 10 compared to the unclipped signal. For clipping ratio dB. Notice that for large γclip .55) Clipping’s effectiveness at reducing PAPR is shown in Figure 2. γclip = 4 dB. The PAPR of γclip = 5 dB. for γclip = 4 dB. Figure 2. The rings have radius A max which correspond to various clipping ratios γ clip (dB).25 dB PAPR). and 4 dB. is 1. The PAPR of sclip (t) is max |sclip (t)|2 t∈[0. thereThis figure is made by generating 2 × 104 consecutive OFDM blocks.16 shows a typical OFDM signal on the complex plane. The PAPR of the overall block is 13 dB. 3 .39 20 γclip 4 OFDM signal Clip radius 2 10 0 Imaginary axis 0 −10 −20 −20 −10 0 Real axis 10 20 Figure 2. TB 1 |sclip (t)|2 dt TB 0 PAPRclip = (2.

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

the clipping is mild so the average power is PAPRclip → 0 dB. 4 the PAPR reducing clipping yields nearly identical results as the unclipped system.2 dB. For M = 2. using the clipping ratio γclip = 3 dB for the M = 8 case increases the TD min by 0. As γclip → 0. For M = 16. For example. γclip = 3 dB increases the degradation by 1. PAPR clip ≈ γclip Ps /Ps = γclip . the unclipped results are shown to provide a lower bound for the clipped. and the TD curve associated with γclip = 2 dB is beyond the viewing range of the figure.19 compares the total degradation curves of the unclipped system [from Figure 2. IBO (dB) 8 10 Figure 2. sclip (t) is clipped so the 2 2 approximately the same as s(t). The clipper is shown to increase both the minimum total degradation and the optimum backoff.2 dB. Clipping is clearly an effective technique at reducing the PAPR. using γclip = 2 dB increases TDmin by 1. The question is. However.2 dB. For the region 3 dB < γclip < 6. therefore. thus 2 peak power is A2 max = γclip Ps . reduced PAPR.5 dB. 10 M = 16 Total degradation (dB) 8 6 M =8 4 M = 2. the peak and average powers converge. Interestingly. does the PAPR reduction translate into reduced total degradation? Figure 2. (N = 64) Thus the effectiveness of a PAPR reduction scheme should be measured not only by its PAPR reducing capabilities but by its effectiveness in reducing total degradation (which increases range) and reducing the optimum IBO (which increases power amplifier . 4 2 Ideal PA Unclipped Clipped: γclip = 4 dB 3 dB 2 dB 0 0 2 4 6 Input power backoff.41 fore PAPRclip = PAPRs .12(b)] with the clipped system.19: A comparison of the total degradation curves of clipped and unclipped M -PSK/OFDM systems. system results. the γclip = 4 dB result is nearly identical to the unclipped result.

The clipping is shown to reduce the 0. Does a 3 dB reduction in PAPR results in a 3 dB reducing in IBOopt ? What is the resulting minimum total degradation? . but this reduction does not translate into increased PA efficiency. It would be interesting to also study these schemes in terms of total degradation. the effectiveness of non-distortionless PAPR reduction schemes in general is suspect. This is clearly shown to be the case for the clipped N = 64 M PSK/OFDM systems studied in this section. In fact.42 efficiency). The distortion caused by non-distortionless schemes can outweigh the benefit of the reduced PAPR.0001 PAPR by > 1 dB. This result brings into question the validity of the claims that clipping is an effective scheme. The effectiveness of distortionless PAPR reduction techniques are typically studied in terms of PAPR reduction and complexity. For these types of techniques it is important to take into account the effect of the nonlinear power amplifier.

1: The CE-OFDM waveform mapping.Chapter 3 Constant Envelope OFDM Conventional OFDM systems. typically require more input power backoff than convention single carrier systems. Therefore. The instantaneous power of the resulting signal is constant. OFDM is considered power inefficient. as depicted in Figure 3. Figure 3. even with the use of effective PAPR reduction and/or power amplifier linearization techniques. CE-OFDM can be thought of as a mapping of the OFDM signal to the unit circle. thus the PAPR is 0 dB. 43 . For the CE-OFDM signal the peak and average powers are the same.2 compares the instantaneous power of the OFDM signal and the mapped CE-OFDM signal. Signal Unit circle ⇒ OFDM CE-OFDM Figure 3.1. which is undesirable particularly for battery-powered wireless systems. The technique described in the remainder of the thesis takes a different approach to the PAPR problem.

For con- (3.44 5 OFDM CE-OFDM 4 Instantaneous signal power 3 2 1 0 0 0. the OFDM signal is used to phase modulate the carrier.3) . To see this.1) ventional OFDM the baseband signal is up-converted to bandpass as y(t) = m(t)ej2πfc t where {Ii.2: Instantaneous signal power. The mapping is performed with an angle modulator. For real-valued m(t).k qk (t − iTB ) (3. That is.6 Normalized time 0.k } are the data symbols and {qk (t)} are the orthogonal subcarriers. (For complex-valued m(t). m(t) is passed through a (3. The baseband signal is s(t) = ejαm(t) .2 0.2) = Am (t) cos [2πfc t + φm (t)] . as an amplitude single-sideband modulation.4 0. consider the baseband OFDM waveform N m(t) = i k=1 Ii. This is in contrast to conventional OFDM which amplitude modulates the carrier. specifically. a phase modulator. y(t) can be viewed phase modulator prior to up-conversion.8 1 Figure 3. φ m (t) = 0 and y(t) is simply an amplitude modulated signal. where Am (t) = |m(t)| and φm (t) = arg[m(t)].) For CE-OFDM.

4) = e−αAm (t) sin φm (t) cos [2πfc t + αAm (t) cos φm (t)] . The companded signal has an increased average power and thus a lower peak-to-average power ratio than conventional OFDM. In particular. other approaches based on signal transformation have been suggested. CE-OFDM can also be thought of as a transformation technique. y(t) = cos [2πfc t + αm(t)] . At the transmitter. At the receiver. Transmitter Transform OFDM modulator m(t) Phase modulator s(t) Power amplifier To channel (3.3: Basic concept of CE-OFDM. [215. For real-valued m(t). As mentioned in Section 2. however. as shown in Figure 3. 569–571] suggest a companding transform.45 where α is a constant. the high PAPR OFDM signal is transformed into a low PAPR signal prior to the power amplifier. .5. Therefore y(t) is a phase modulated signal. The bandpass signal is y(t) = = = s(t)ej2πfc t ejαAm (t) exp[jφm (t)] ej2πfc t e−αAm (t) sin φm (t) ej[2πfc t+αAm (t) cos φm (t)] (3. the inverse transformation is performed prior to demodulation.3.5) Receiver Inverse From channel Phase demodulator transform OFDM demodulator Figure 3. The advantage of the phase modulator transform is that the resulting signal has the lowest achievable peak-to-average power ratio of 0 dB. 329. The PAPR is still large relative to single carrier modulation.

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

13) . . . The phase signal during the ith block is written as N φ(t) = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii. 0 ≤ t < TB . .7) (3. N .11) where A is the signal amplitude. N 2.47 be real-valued.8) For each case. (3.12) where h is referred to as the modulation index. and (3. or equivalently by taking a 2N -point DFT of a conjugate symmetric data vector (see Appendix A. k ≤  B   qk (t) = sin 2π(k − N/2)t/TB . qk (t) =  0. N 2. iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB .8) with a discrete sine transform (DST). k 1 = k2 .   sin πkt/TB . (3.7) can be computed with a discrete cosine transform (DCT). where Eq = TB /2. . (3. 2. N σI (3. 0 ≤ t < TB . N . and full-wave cosines and sines. is set to CN ≡ 2 2.  0 ≤ t < TB . (3. otherwise. otherwise. .k qk (t − iTB ).10) In terms of implementation. . for k = 1. k >     0.) The baseband CE-OFDM signal is s(t) = Aejφ(t) .   cos πkt/TB . 2. half-wave sines. Three possibilities are considered: half-wave cosines. . otherwise. and θ i is a memory term (to be described below). (3.9) k1 = k2 . qk (t) =  0.  cos 2πkt/T . C N . The normalizing constant. (i+1)TB qk1 (t − iTB )qk2 (t − iTB )dt =  iTB 0. the subcarrier orthogonality condition holds:   Eq . . for k = 1.9) by taking the real part of a discrete Fourier transform (DFT). 0 ≤ t < TB . (3. (3.

k=1 (3. the phase signal variance is 2 σφ = E assuming equally likely signal points. ±3. for all i and k. N log2 M N log 2 M (3. Ab (k) = qk (0) and Ae (k) = qk (TB − ). Consequently.k = l) = 1/M . 3 1).k | 1 = M = M2 M l=1 (2l − 1 − M )2 (3. l = ±1. .20) → 0. The signal energy is (i+1)TB Es = and the bit energy is Eb = iTB |s(t)|2 dt = A2 TB . ±(M − 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB [φ(t) − θi ]2 dt N N = (2πh)2 2 2 TB N σ I (2πh)2 2 2 TB N σ I (i+1)TB iTB N k=1 0 TB k1 =1 k2 =1 E {Ik1 Ik2 } qk1 (t − iTB )qk2 (t − iTB )dt (3.14) −1 . N ci = θi−1 − θi + K k=1 [Ii−1.17) The term θi is a memory component designed to make the modulation phase-continuous. .48 2 where σI is the data symbol variance: 2 σI 2 = E |Ii. TB ).k Ab (k)] .19) Ii. (3. the phase discontinuity is ci = φ(iTB − ) − φ(iTB + ). . .21) where K ≡ 2πhCN .15) = 2 2 σI qk (t)dt = (2πh)2 . . that is.k Ab (k).k Ae (k). Since qk (t) = 0 for t ∈ [0. k=1 N (3.k Ae (k) − Ii.18) φ(iTB − ) = K and φ(iT + ) = K Ii−1.16) Es A2 TB = . it follows that / N → 0. Therefore. At the ith signaling interval boundary. which is only a function of the modulation index. (3. P (I i. (3.

ci = K phase discontinuities are eliminated with the use of memory as defined in (3. therefore.k Ab (k). for all i. .k Ab (k) − Ii−1−l. ci is plotted for memoryless modulation.5 1 0. Figure 3. the memory term is a function of all data symbols during and prior to the ith block. A second consequence of the memory terms is the entire unit circle is used for the CE-OFDM phase modulation. Figure 3.4 plots the phase discontinuities {c i } at the boundary times t = iTB . The benefit of continuous phase CE-OFDM is a more compact signal spectrum. θ i = 0. .k Ab (k)].5 which plots continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples on the complex .49 To guarantee continuous phase. ci 0. that is. This property is studied further in Section 3. i = N k=1 [Ii−1.22) Notice that θi depends on θi−1 .5 0 Phase discontinuity. 1. (3.5 1 Phase discontinuity.k Ae (k)] .k Ae (k)] . t/TB 50 1.k Ae (k) 0. .5 −1 −0. . c i = 0.5 0 − Ii.5 −1 10 20 30 40 Normalized time. (3. In Figure 3.4(b) shows that the −0.23) Thus.2. (b) With memory.k Ae (k). and the OFDM signal at the end of the (i−1)th block. ci 10 20 30 40 Normalized time.k Ab (k) − Ii−1. This is illustrated in Figure 3. the OFDM signal at the beginning of the ith block.4: Phase discontinuities. t/TB 50 −1. The recursive relationship can be written as ∞ N θi = K l=0 k=1 [Ii−l. 1. the memory term is set to N θi ≡ θi−1 + K k=1 [Ii.22).5 0 −1. that is. N k=1 Ii. 49. N k=1 Ii−1.4(a). Figure 3.5 0 (a) Without memory.

207–217] to calculate the power spectrum of conventional CPM signals can be applied to CE-OFDM.5(a) shows signal samples over L = 1 block.50 Unit circle Starting point (a) L = 1 (b) L = 100 Figure 3. The Fourier transform of the average autocorrelation function results in a two-dimensional definite integral. . those in [328. Figure 3.7. other techniques are required to understand the CE-OFDM spectrum.22) eliminates these lines. Insight can be gained by taking this approach. pp. [421. ±3. [17]. The approach taken in [34]. versus a single phase pulse as in CPM. 419]) fail to converge in a timely manner. over L blocks.5(b) shows that the phase signal occupies the entire unit circle. k = 0.7) plane. This makes the integrand very jagged for all but trivial values of N . (2πh = 0. . The simplest is with the Taylor . The problem is there are N sinusoidal phase pulses in CE-OFDM. Since the Fourier transform approach isn’t computationally feasible. The modulation index is 2πh = 0.5: Continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples.2 Spectrum CE-OFDM is a complicated nonlinear modulation and a general closed-form expression for the power density spectrum is not available. 3. ±1. . Viewing samples over L = 100 blocks. where the phase signal occupies about one-half the unit circle. Using memory as defined by (3. Figure 3. and numerical integration algorithms (for example. however. on the complex plane. It can be shown that memoryless modulation (θ i = 0) results in spectral lines at the frequencies f k = k/TB .

5Ps (3. The effective double-sided bandwidth. = Es /TB = A2 is the signal power. Brms = σφ W = 2πhN/TB . which assumes a Gaussian message signal. but. A more suitable . The CE-OFDM signal. The dashed lines represent the RMS (3. Due to the normalizing bandwidth.25) is the normalized OFDM message signal. the n = 0 term contains no information and thus has zero bandwidth. As defined in (3. the n = 2 term has a bandwidth 2W .27) fractional out-of-band power curves for N = 64 and various 2πh. with θi = 0.24). Figure 3. defined as the twice the highest frequency subcarrier. and so on. The results in Figure 3. the CE-OFDM bandwidth is at least W . the n = 1 term is information bearing and has bandwidth W . The result. as shown by the Taylor expansion in (3. the bandwidth of s(t) is at least W .6 shows estimated constant CN these curves are valid for any M . FOBP(f ) = where Ps = ∞ −∞ Φs (f )df Φs (x)dx ≈ 0.2). the RMS bandwidth can be less than W .k qk (t − iTB ) (3. for large N . 340–343] [437]. of m(t) is W =2× N N = . can be easily estimated by the Welch method ˆ of periodogram averaging [526].26) The bandwidth of s(t) is at least W : in (3.6 shows that Brms accounts for at least 90% of the signal power. is used to calculate the f 0 fractional out-of-band power.28) The RMS (root-mean-square) bandwidth is obtained by borrowing a result from analog angle modulation [423.51 expansion ex = ∞ n n=0 x /n!. n! N (3.24) where m(t) = CN i k=1 Ii. Thus. The power density spectrum.24).28). pp. the OFDM waveform is well modeled as such (see Section 2. Φs (f ) ≈ Φs (f ). 0.5Ps f 0 ˆ Φs (x)dx ˆ = FOBP(f ). and depending on the modulation index the effective bandwidth can be greater than W . due to the n = 1 term. can be written as s(t) = Aejσφ m(t) ∞ =A n=0 (jσφ )n mn (t). 2TB TB (3. Φs (f ).

4 10−6 0.8) and (3.2 1.8 compares spectral estimates for CE-OFDM signals with the three subcarrier modulations from (3. and compares it with the 90–99% bandwidths as determined by the Welch method. For small modulation index.29) Figure 3. With 2πh = 0. The modulation index is 2πh = 0.7 plots Bs versus 2πh.6.9).6).6 1. (3. Memoryless. 1)W.5 1 Normalized frequency.0.6 0.29) accounts for 99.8 0. Figure 3. Notice that (3.2 10−7 0 0.8% of the signal power (from Figure 3. (3.7). f /W 1.0 10−5 0. (3. B s is a conservative bandwidth.6: Estimated fractional out-of-band power.0 1.5 2 Figure 3. for example.52 100 ˆ FOBP(f ) Brms 10−1 2πh 10−2 Fractional out-of-band power 2.4 10−4 1. non-continuous phase CE-OFDM is compared to continuous phase CEOFDM (the continuous phase examples are prefixed with “CP”).4.29) is an accurate 90–92% bandwidth measure for 2πh ≥ 1.8 10−3 1. (N = 64) bandwidth is thus Bs = max(2πh. The estimates are also .

(N = 64) compared to the Abramson spectrum [1]: ∞ ΦAb (f ) = A where an = and 2 n=0 2 an Un (f ).32) = 1.8 0.31) n-fold convolution. B/W 2.6 0.4 0.6 2.7: Double-sided bandwidth as a function of modulation index. and 3  δ(f ). n = 1.8 1 1.4 Normalized double-sided bandwidth.6 1. n > 1.6 0.4 Modulation index.2 2 1. (3.53 3 2.     Un (f ) = Φm (f ).6 1.30) 2n e−σφ σφ n! .2 0. (3.4 0.2 0 0.    n  Φm (f ) ∗ Φm (f ).4 1. for example x(t) ∗ x(t) = x(t) ∗ x(t) ∗ x(t). ∗ denotes the n . ∞ n=0 an (3. and Φm (f ) is the power The weighting factors {an } are Poisson distributed.8 2. 2πh 1.8 1.8 2 Bs Welch: 90% 92% 95% 99% Figure 3. n = 0.2 1 0.2 1.

Therefore ∞ −∞ Un (f )df 4 e−σφ . (3. has a fractional contribution of 2 The functions {Un (f )} have the property:  sin πx  . .2.8: Power density spectrum. TB + sinc2 f+ k 2TB TB .30) has an an × 100% contribution to the overall spectrum.34) = 1. the carrier component accounts for e −0.54 0 Welch estimate terms from (3. the carrier component.33) x = 0.) for 2πh = 0.7 are equal zero. πx (3. otherwise.30) ˆ ΦAb (f ) −10 n=2 −20 n=3 Power spectrum (dB) −30 n=4 n=1 DCT DFT −40 −50 DST CP-DFT −60 −70 CP-DCT −80 −3 −2 −1 0 1 Normalized frequency. 2πh = 0. For example. the nth term in (3. and so on. Notice that 2 2 2 (This explains why the 90–92% curves at 2πh = 0.6) density spectrum of the message signal m(t) according to (3. Φm (f ) ∗ Φm (f ) has a fractional contribution (e −σφ σφ )/2.2 ×100 ≈ 96% of the signal power. (N = 64. for all n [1]. f /W 2 3 Figure 3. represented as δ(f ).25): Φm (f ) = where sinc(x) = TB 2N N sinc2 k=1 f− k 2TB   1.2 in Figure 3.

5 ≤ f /W ≤ 0. (N = 64. Figure 3. DST has a continuous phase [with or without memory since A b (k) = Ae (k) = 0. the spectral height depends on the overall smoothness of the phase signal. The smoothest phase results from CP-DCT which. the CP-DCT is the most spectrally contained.5 2 Normalized frequency. . otherwise] while DCT doesn’t [Ab (k) = Ae (k) = 1. 2πh = 0. Notice that the 99% spectral containment at f /W = 0.35) The Abramson spectrum is shown to match all estimates over the range |f /W | ≤ 1. (3. Memoryless DFT results in a slightly smoother phase than memoryless DCT since one-half of the subcarriers have zero-crossings at the signal boundaries [A b (k) = Ae (k) = 0. 2.8. for all k]. For reference. and the resulting sum 4 ˆ ΦAb (f ) = A2 n=0 an Un (f ) ≈ ΦAb (f ). unlike DST and CP-DFT.9: Fractional out-of-band power. for k = N/2 + 1. f /W 2.99% containment at f /W = 1. For CE-OFDM OFDM Brms DCT DFT 10−6 10−7 CP-DFT CP-DCT 10−8 0 0.9 shows estimated fractional out-of-band power curves that correspond to the signals in Figure 3.5 3 Figure 3.30). has a first derivative equal to zero at the boundary times t = iTB . for all k] and has a lower out-of-band power than memoryless DFT. Consequently.8 plots the n = 1.55 Figure 3. which isn’t phasecontinuous.5 1 1. 3. The continuous phase CE-OFDM signals are the most spectrally contained and are shown to have better than 99. . Over the range 0.6) . This 100 10−1 Fractional out-of-band power 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 DST |f /W | > 1. For example. .8.5 is the same for each signal. N . 4 terms in (3. conventional OFDM is also plotted. .25. and Ab (k) = Ae (k) = 1.

100 CE-OFDM OFDM 10−1 2πh 10−2 Fractional out-of-band power 2.8 10−3 1.6 1. the higher-order terms in (3.32) dominate. smaller h can be used if a tighter spectrum is required.0 10−5 0. The shape of “wideband FM” signals is well covered in the classical works of [1. and visa versa.5. greater than OFDM over all frequencies. f /W 1. otherwise CE-OFDM has more outof-band power for at least some frequencies f /W > 0. (N = 64) .56 figure shows that the CE-OFDM spectrum has more out-of-band power than conventional OFDM.2 1. This is due to the fact that for a large modulation index. Therefore.2 10−7 0 0.4 10−4 1.5 1 Normalized frequency. Notice that the shape of the spectrum appears Gaussian shaped.5 2 Figure 3. Figure 3.33).10: CE-OFDM versus OFDM.6 0. to conventional OFDM.0 example has a broad spectrum. 341.10 compares CE-OFDM. as will be discussed in the next chapter. with CP-DFT modulation over a large range of modulation index.4 10−6 0. The 2πh = 2. The tradeoff is that smaller h results in worse performance. They are Gaussian shaped due to the multiple convolutions of (3. the system designer can trade performance for spectral containment. 472]. Since the modulation index controls the CE-OFDM spectral containment.8 0. For 2πh ≤ 0. 437.0 1.4 the fractional out-of-band power of CE-OFDM is always better than OFDM.

Ideal CE-OFDM 10−1 IBO (dB) 0 2 4 6 Fractional out-of-band power 10−2 10−3 10−4 2πh 0.9) require > 6 dB backoff to avoid spectral broadening.5 2 Figure 3. 100 OFDM. f /W 1. (N = 64) .7 10−5 0 0.6 0. Figure 3.4 0. The OFDM curves (from Figure 2.5 1 Normalized frequency.57 Finally.11 compares CE-OFDM and OFDM with nonlinear power amplification. The CE-OFDM signals have a bandwidth that depends only on the modulation index and are not effected by the PA nonlinearity. TWTA OFDM.5 0.11: CE-OFDM versus OFDM with nonlinear PA.

Chapter 4

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

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

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

rbp (t)

To detector

Figure 4.1: Phase demodulator receiver.

58

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

4.1

The Phase Demodulator Receiver

The phase demodulator receiver essentially consists of a phase demodulator followed by a conventional OFDM demodulator. Figure 4.2 shows the model used in this analysis. The received signal is first passed through a front-end bandpass filter, centered at the carrier frequency fc , which limits the bandwidth of the additive noise. Then the bandpass signal is down-converted to r(t), sampled, and processed in the discrete-time domain. The conversion from rbp (t) to r(t) is described first1 , making use of the following trigonometric identities: cos(x − y) − cos(x + y) , 2 sin(x + y) + sin(x − y) sin(x) cos(y) = , 2 cos(x + y) + cos(x − y) cos(x) cos(y) = , 2 sin(x + y) − sin(x − y) cos(x) sin(y) = . 2 sin(x) sin(y) =
1

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

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

60
Lowpass filter 2 cos(2πfc t) rbp (t) Bandpass u(t) filter −2 sin(2πfc t) j Lowpass filter r(t) r[i] t = iTsa Phase demodulator OFDM demodulator

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

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

(4.9)

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

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

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

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

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

(4.16)

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

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

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

p.3. and the phase unwrapper is used to minimize the effect of phase ambiguities. the unwrapper makes the receiver insensitive to phase offsets caused by the channel and/or by the memory terms. The output of the phase demodulator is processed by the OFDM demodulator which consists of the N correlators.k qk (t − iTB ) + ξ(t). The discrete-time phase demodulator studied in this thesis is shown in Figure 4.21) . N (t) sin [Θ(t) − φ(t)] A + N (t) cos [Θ(t) − φ(t)] (4. one corresponding to each subcarrier.3: Discrete-time phase demodulator.4. i 1 = i2 . where s[i] = s(t)|t=iTsa and n[i] = n(t)|t=iTsa . (4. This correlator bank is implemented in practice with the fast Fourier transform.2. n i1 = i2 . (4. 4. but has been found effective at improving performance. Although the receiver operates in the discrete-time domain. and σn = fsa N0 . As will be shown. The angle of the received signal is N arg[r(t)] = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii.1 Performance Analysis In this section a bit error rate approximation is derived for the phase demodulator receiver. the noise samples {n[i]} are assumed independent: E {n[i1 ]n[i2 ]} =   2 σ . arg(·) simply calculates the arctangent of its argument. it is convenient to analyze it in the continuous-time domain.1.19) 2 and therefore the sampling rate is f sa = Bn .  0. The terms N (t) and Θ(t) in (4. 416].62 Phase demodulator r[i] FIR filter arg(·) Phase unwrapper To OFDM demodulator Figure 4.21) are the envelope and phase of n(t). where ξ(t) = arctan is the corrupting noise [624. As discussed in Section 2. The finite impulse response (FIR) filter is optional.20) iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB .

k is approximated as a zero mean Gaussian random variable with variance [442.k + Ψi.k = Since 0 TB (4. N. Ni.63 The kth correlator in the OFDM demodulator computes 1 TB The signal term is Si. It is well known that. 41–43]. (4.k + Ni. (4. k = 1. (4.k } ≈ The third term in (4. ξ(t) is well modeled as a sample function of a zero mean Gaussian process. Moreover. 2TB 2TB A2 This result is the same for DCT and DFT subcarrier modulation.n qn (t − iTB )qk (t − iTB )dt 1 2 Ii. (4. .k .k Eq = 2πh TB 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB ξ(t)qk (t − iTB )dt. the variance of the coefficient is proportional to the power density spectrum function noise at the output of a phase demodulator has a power density spectrum [423. with DST subcarrier modulation (3. pp.28) qk (t)dt = 0.26) evaluated at f = k/2TB [442.27) 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB θi qk (t − iTB )dt. var{Ni.25) which can be viewed as a Fourier coefficient of ξ(t) at f = k/2T B Hz. p.k .24) For example. pp.k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB ξ(t) sin [πk(t − iTB )/TB ] dt. 2N σI (4.8). A2 |f | ≤ W/2. . 2.k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB (i+1)TB iTB arg[r(t)]qk (t − iTB )dt = Si.26). W = N/TB is the effective bandwidth of φ(t).22). Therefore. As TB → ∞. Ni.k . Ψi. 410] Φξ (f ) ≈ N0 . 41–43] 1 1 N0 Φξ (f )|f =k/2TB ≈ . . (4. given a high CNR.22) [φ(t) − θi ]qk (t − iTB )dt (i+1)TB N iTB n=1 2πhCN = TB = The noise term is Ni. for high CNR.29) . (4. from (3. . is expressed as Ψi.k = Ii.23) 2πhCN Ii. the where.

Ψ i.31) (4. 195] BER ≈ SER ≈2 log2 M M −1 M log2 M Q 2πh 6 log 2 M Eb M 2 − 1 N0 .33) (4.30) is not averaged over i nor k since var{N i. the overall symbol error rate is SER = M −2 2 Pinner + Pouter M M 6 log 2 M Eb M −1 Q 2πh ≈2 M M 2 − 1 N0 (4. This highlights an important observation: DST subcarrier modulation (3.30) [Notice that (4. (3.8) is inferior to DCT and DFT since Ψ i.9)].32) .7).35) .k | > d) = 2P (Ni. For high SNR. (4. pp. For the M − 2 inner points.k = 0 isn’t guaranteed. where d = 2πh 1 2. 2N σI (4.27). The symbol error rate is computed by determining the probability of error for each error is signal point in the M -PAM constellation. Pinner ≈ 2 =2 d[N0 /(2A2 TB )]−0. the probability of Pinner = P (|Ni. 2 Therefore. Notice that for 2πh = 1.k = 0 and therefore has no effect on system performance.] Due to the Gaussian approximation applied to the random variable N i.34) . as approximated by (4. p.k > d). ∞ is a constant. 194–195].k }. the probability of error is 1 Pouter = P (Ni.k > d) = Pinner . in which case the bit error rate is approximated as [483. (4.34) is equivalent to the SER for conventional M -PAM [483.5 1 2πN0 /(2A2 T B) d ∞ exp −x2 / 2N0 /(2A2 TB ) dx (4. the only significant symbol errors are those that occur in adjacent signal levels.k .64 for DCT and DFT modulations [(3. 1 √ exp −x2 /2 dx 2π = 2Q 2πh 6 log 2 M Eb M 2 − 1 N0 = 2Q 2πh A2 TB 2 N0 N σ I For the two outer points.

35) is applicable. The former is referred to as System 1 (S1). This demonstrates a limitation of the phase demodulator receiver: for a large modulation index and low signal-to-noise ratio.38) Therefore. S1 and S2 are shown to have identical performance.3. the unwrapper works perfectly and the performance of S1 isn’t degraded. For Eb /N0 ≥ 10 dB and 2πh ≤ 0. See Section 4.4 compares the performance of N = 64. Also. For a smaller modulation index. Proper phase unwrapping is therefore required.01. and the analytical approximation in (4. Which is identical to (4. phase unwrapping a noisy signal is a difficult problem and the unwrapper makes mistakes. has more phase jumps since the received phase crosses the π boundary more frequently. the FIR filter (see Figure 4. As a result the performance degrades slightly. the phase demodulator has difficulty demodulating the noisy samples. 2π)}. Figure 4.1.35) closely matches the simulation results for BER < 0. With the 2πh = 0. The received signal is then r(t) = s(t)ejφ0 + n(t).k qk (t − iTB ) + φ0 + ξ(t).2.1. In this case. except the third term is Ψi.7 example.36) arg[r(t)] = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii. The angle of r(t) is N (4. M = 2 CE-OFDM with phase offset {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0. the analytical approximation is shown to be overly optimistic. S1 is shown to have a 1 dB performance loss compared to S2.4 for more on the filter design.5.3) has length Lfir = 11 and normalized cutoff frequency fcut /W = 0. and without (θi + φ0 = 0). The system is computer simulated with a sampling rate fsa = JN/TB . (4.20) with the addition of the channel offset term. The kth correlator is the same as (4. 4 . (4. For these cases the analytical approximation (4.2 Effect of Channel Phase Offset Suppose the channel imposes a phase offset of φ 0 .65 4. The performance of S1 is slightly worse than S2 since the output of the phase demodulator.37) iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB . where J = 8 is the oversampling factor 4 . However. the arg(·) block in Figure 4. the later as System 2 (S2).k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB [θi + φ0 ]qk (t − iTB )dt = 0.22). the phase offset due to the channel has no impact on performance.

the approximation is invalid and system performance degrades drastically. is a standard technique for analyzing phase demodulator receivers [423.40) is the noise power.1 10−4 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. the CNR is defined and the threshold effect for CE-OFDM is observed by way of computer simulation.5 0. N = 64.3 0.35) 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 2πh 0. [M = 2. System 1 (S1) has phase offsets {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0. which leads to the BER approximation (4.35). below a threshold value.26). Pn (4. In this section. and ∞ A2 . The CNR at the output of the analog front end. TB (4.39) Pn = Φn (f )df = Bn N0 −∞ (4. J = 8] 4.1.2 0. A well-known characteristic of such receivers is: at low CNR. From (3.4: Performance with and without phase offsets.17). the carrier power can be written in the form A2 = Eb N log 2 M . r(t).3 Carrier-to-Noise Ratio and Thresholding Effects The high-CNR approximation made in (4.66 100 System 1 System 2 Approx (4. 2π)}.41) . and System 2 (S2) doesn’t (θ i + φ0 = 0). is CNR = where A2 is the carrier power.7 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 Figure 4. 624].

and inversely proportional to the oversampling factor. the system is observed to be above threshold. This transition region is difficult to study analytically. In subfigures (a) and (b) the system is below and above the 10 dB threshold.35).43) Therefore. with a BER of 1/2. pp. This threshold level is studied in the following two figures. There is. For each case. with simulation results closely matching the analytical approximation. J (4. a transition region—that is. Figure 4. Bn = fsa = JN/TB .67 thus CNR = (Eb /N0 )N log2 M .35). the carrier-to-noise ratio is proportional to E b /N0 and M . above CNR = 10 dB. to where the system is above threshold. J = 8. the performance quickly degrades to a bit error rate of 1/2.42) reduces to CNR = (Eb /N0 ) log 2 M .42) Since the noise samples are assumed independent [see (4. N = 64. 87–91]. 120–138]. a region where the system is useless. simulation results for an M = 8.5. [501. however. Clearly.5 system are compared to (4. and (4. the performance begins to deviate from (4. and for CNR < 5 dB. pp.6 shows results for more values of 2πh. 2πh = 0. TB Bn (4. A commonly accepted threshold CNR for analog FM systems is 10 dB [472. . Below 10 dB.44) (4. 10 dB can be considered an appropriate threshold level.19)]. respectively. In Figure 4. Gaining more insight into this issue is a subject for future investigation.

5) 2πh 0. (M = 8. 2πh = 0.4 2πh 0. Figure 4.4 0.35) 10−3 10 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 11 12 13 14 15 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 16 (a) Below 10 dB threshold. various 2πh. J = 8. (b) Above 10 dB threshold.68 Bit error rate Bit error rate 10−2 Simulation Approx (4. N = 64.6 Simulation Approx (4. N = 64.6 0. (M = 8.2 10−2 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 10−3 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 24 (a) Below 10 dB threshold. Figure 4. J = 8) .5: Threshold effect at low CNR.2 10−1 Simulation Approx (4.35) 0.35) Bit error rate 10−1 Bit error rate 0.6: Threshold effect at low CNR.8 0.8 10−2 0.35) 10−1 Simulation Approx (4. (b) Above 10 dB threshold.

3) can improve performance. (M = 2. . the better than the unfiltered result. N = 64.5 system. require fcut /W > 0. The mation (4. J = 8. fcut /W 0. J = 8.4 FIR Filter Design The FIR filter preceding the phase demodulator (see Figure 4. N = 64.2 0. Figure 4. designed using the window technique described in [422.5 to yield good performance.6 Normalized cutoff frequency.5 are shown higher-order filters with fcut /W < 0. The SNR is held constant at E b /N0 = 10 dB.35) is BER = 0. has a length 3 ≤ L fir ≤ 101 performance without a filter is shown to be BER = 0.012. 2πh = 0. while the analytical approxi- and a normalized cutoff frequency 0 < f cut /W ≤ 1.5 distort the signal.5 and Eb /N0 = 10 dB) 5 It has been observed that the window type has negligible impact on performance. which have a narrower transition bands. The filters with L fir > 5 and fcut /W > 0. pp.1. fcut /W . Hamming windows are used5 . 623–630].69 4.35) 10−2 0 0. 2πh = 0. The filter. This is explained by noting that the (single-sided) signal bandwidth is at least W/2 Hz.1.7 shows BER simulation results of an M = 2. For fcut /W ≥ 0.4 0.8 1 Figure 4. This is due to the wide transition 10−1 Bit error rate Lfir = 3 5 7 9 11 21 31 61 101 No filter Approx (4. The higher-order filters. Notice that the L fir = 11 filter band of the lower-order filter. has equally good performance so long as f cut /W ≥ 0.7: Performance for various filter parameters L fir .05.4 all the filtered results are shown to be to have roughly the same performance. Therefore.

This is a consequence of imperfect phase demodulation. Notice the error floor developing below 10 −5 . as shown in Figure 4. fcut /W −20 9. and. The figure above shows the magnitude response of the various Hamming FIR filters. for 2πh = 0.7 there is a 2 dB improvement in the range 10−3 < BER < 10−5 . 0.1 −60 31. f /W 2. fcut /W = 0.1 example is shown to not have this property. The Lfir = 31.2 filter is used.5 result in good performance.9 compares the performance of binary (M = 2) CE-OFDM with and without the FIR filter. 0. 0.3 the filtered performance is a fraction of a dB better than the unfiltered.5 2 Normalized frequency.1 the filtered and unfiltered results are the same. Figure 4.5 1 1. 0.8: Magnitude response of various Hamming FIR filters. has worse BER performance than the other filters.7.7 9.1 −40 101. These results show that the filter becomes important for larger modulation index: for 2πh = 0.70 0 Lfir . for 2πh = 0.1 −80 −100 0 0.7 Magnitude response (dB) 3.5 3 Figure 4. fcut /W = 0. . The filters with relatively flat response over |f /W | ≤ 0. 0. The Lfir = 11. The filter lowers the error floor resulting in a 9 dB improvement at BER = 10−6 .

Consider the mth bandpass signal N sm (t) = A cos 2πfc t + θ0 + K k=1 Ik (m) qk (t) .1 10−4 10−5 10−6 0 5 10 15 20 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. During each block one of M N CE-OFDM signals is transmitted.3 0. . 0 ≤ t < TB . J = 8) 4. .71 100 Without FIR filter With FIR filter Approx (4. The set of all possible signals. IN ]}M . Eb /N0 (dB) 25 30 Figure 4. (M = 2.45) where K = 2πhCN .2 The Optimum Receiver As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter. Results obtained here are used in the following section to compare the phase demodulator receiver to optimum performance. In this section. yet impractical. the optimum. CE-OFDM receiver is studied. is determined by the m=1 set of all possible data symbol vectors {I (m) = [I1 (m) .35) 10−1 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0. N (4. but not necessarily optimum.9: CE-OFDM performance with and without FIR filter.7 0. The optimum m=1 (m) N . . I2 (m) . {s m (t)}M . N = 64. . the phase demodulator receiver is a practical implementation.

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

m=n where d2 = m. 288]  where Kd2 P (signal error) ≈ Kd2 Q  min min is the number of neighboring signal points having the minimum squared d2 = min min d2 .n .51) is the squared Euclidean distance between s m (t) and sn (t). 0 (4. as a function of the phase .n thus d2 = 2Es (1 − ρmax ). and in particular ρ max must be determined.46) and the approximation (4.49) the signal correlation properties must be studied.49) Euclidean distance m. (4.52) Therefore to obtain the performance bound (4. m.n 0 TB [sm (t) − sn (t)]2 dt (4. This quantity is related to the signal correlation as d2 = 2Es (1 − ρm.73 An upperbound for P (signal error) is [373]: 1 P (signal error) ≤ √ 2π ∞ −∞ 1 − [1 − Q(y)]M N −1 × (4. p.n = 1 Es TB sm (t)sn (t)dt.50) d2  min 2N0  . Therefore.48) An approximation for P (signal error) is [421. it provides an upperbound given that λ = ρmax = m. min (4.47) where ρm.n is the normalized correlation between s m (t) and sn (t): ρm.n ).n. m.  N0 max ρm.46) The above expression is the probability of detection error for M N signals with equal correlation −1 ≤ λ ≤ 1.n. m=n    1 exp − y −  2 2  2Es (1 − λ)   dy.n (4. (4. The normalized correlation between the mth and nth signal.53) (4.

n (kD )] cos[ω(i) + ψ(i)]dt. e ja cos b ∞ = i=−∞ Ji (a)eji(b+π/2) . and d=1 exp j2K 0 TB 0 D d=1 ∆m.n (K) = A2 2Es TB 0 ∞ i1 =−∞ ∞ ··· iD =−∞ Ji1 [2K∆m.n (kd ) = 0.n (k1 )] × · · · × JiD [2K∆m. and these indices don’t contribute to the correlation. the DCT modulation (3.n (k)qk (t) dt.7) is assumed. The double frequency term is ignored since f c cos 2K 0 d=1 ∆m.n (K) = 1 Es TB sm (t)sn (t)dt 0 TB N A2 = Es cos 2πfc t + θ0 + K 0 k=1 Ik (m) qk (t) × (4.57) where Ji (a) is the ith-order Bessel function of the first kind. d=1 To proceed.n (k) = 0. Notice that for k where ∆ m.n (K) = 2Es TB D − Ik ].55) in exponential form yields ρm.56) A2 = 2Es exp [j2K∆m.55) D is the total number of differences.n (k1 )]× iD =−∞ · · · × JiD [2K∆m. Making use of the Jacobi-Anger expansion [580].58) ··· Ji1 [2K∆m.5[Ik A2 2Es 0 TB N cos 2K k=1 (n) ∆m. ∆ m. (4.n (kD )]ejσ(i) dt = A2 2Es TB 0 ∞ i1 =−∞ ∞ (4.74 constant K = 2πhCN .56) is written as ρm.n (kd )qk (t) dt.n (kd )qk (t)] dt.n (k) = 0. (4.n (K) = A2 2Es TB D where {kd }D are the indices where the data symbols differ.n (kd )qk (t) dt (4.54) Ik qk (t) dt (n) N cos 2πfc t + θ0 + K k=1 = where ∆m. is ρm. Writing (4. . that is. 1/TB (m) is assumed. the data symbols are the same. (4. Therefore A2 ρm.

a symbol . k1 ∈ {1. N }. ρmax = J0 (2K).75 where σ(i) = ω(i) + ψ(i). . . .n (K) = J0 [2K∆m. .n (k1 ) = 1|.58) simplifies to D and ψ(i) ≡ π 2 D d=1 id . (M − 1)}.59) is slightly different since both sinusoids and cosinusoids are used as subcarriers.n (k1 )]. . For D = 1. 121]. .59) where ii ≡ [ii. Therefore. just on the magnitude of the difference |∆ m.60) for |∆m. the symbol P (signal error) ≈Q N Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 . a symbol error can result in 1 to log 2 M bit errors.60) Therefore the correlation is simply the 0th-order Bessel function. . .n (K) doesn’t depend on the subcarrier frequency fk1 = k1 /TB . = NQ Es [1 − ρmax ]/N0 Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 . (4. . represent the vectors whereby ω(i i ) = 0.63) For M = 2.1 . ii. Assuming each outcome is equally likely. 2. . For M > 2.61) (4. . For CE-OFDM signals of interest.62) ≈ NQ error probability is approximated as P (symbol error) ≈ A minimum distance signal error results in one data symbols error. .n (k1 )| ∈ {1. (4.j (K) = i d=1 Jii. . ω(i) ≡ πt TB D d=1 id kd result in ω(i) = 0 have no contribution.  d2  min 2N0 (4. (4. i = 1.d [2K∆m.n (K) for M = 2.49). and from (4. one symbol error corresponds to one bit error. (4.11(b) plots all unique ρm.D ]. . K d2 the probability of signal error is approximated as  P (signal error) ≈ Kd2 Q  min min = N . there are N other signals with D = 1: therefore. Note that ρm. Notice that the largest correlation function is associated with D = 1. . Figure 4. For any given signal. This result is the same for DST modulation except ψ(i i ) = 0.11(a) plots tion [580. N = 8 DCT subcarrier modulation..n (kd )] cos[ψ(ii )]. Index values that ρi. 2. p. ρm. (4. so (4. Also plotted is the envelope of the 0th-order Bessel func- Figure 4. 2. For DFT modulation.

40 0.2 K 0.n (K) p 1/πK 0 −0.n (K).1 0.5 0 1 2 K 3 4 5 (a) D = 1.5 (b) All unique ρm.76 1 0.4 0. . 1 J0 (2K) 0.n (K) for M = 2.8 ρm.n (K) 0.11: Correlation functions ρ m. Figure 4.5 ρm. N = 8 DCT modulation.3 0.6 0.

46) with λ = ρmax = J0 (2K): 1 P (bit error) ≤ √ 2π ∞ −∞ The bit error probability is bounded by noting that P (bit error) ≤ P (signal error).5(log 2 M + 1) P (symbol error) log2 M 0.77 error results in 1 log2 M log2 M i i = 0. N = 8) . The analytical approximation (4.  N0 10−1 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 Approx (4.5(log 2 M + 1) bit errors. Two values of modulation index are plotted: 2πh = 0. 1 − [1 − Q(y)]M N −1 × (4.12 shows simulation results of the optimum receiver for M = 2 and N = 8.64) and using (4.35.7 which corresponds to K = 0.15 and K = 0.64) Bound (4.5(log 2 M + 1) ≈ Q Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 .65) Simulation 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 18 21 Figure 4.65) Figure 4.3 10−4 10−6 0 3 6 9 12 15 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.12: CE-OFDM optimum receiver performance.65) is shown to be within 3 dB of the simulated results for high SNR.3 and 2πh = 0. 100    1 exp − y −  2 2  2Es [1 − J0 (2K)]   dy. The number of correlators at the receiver is therefore 2 8 = 256. (M = 2. Thus P (bit error) ≈ 0.64) is shown to be very accurate. log2 M (4. The upperbound (4.7 10−5 2πh 0.

29).2. πK the envelope of the 0th-order Bessel function. the space is transformed into a M N -dimensional space (due to the linear independence of the signal set [421.14 shows simulation results for the phase demodulator receiver with N = 64 and for various modulation index values 2πh and modulation order M . N = 4 DCT modulation. 1 0. The functions are shown to be bounded by 1 . the OFDM signal space is described by 2N dimensions (2 per subcarrier).3 Phase Demodulator Receiver versus Optimum Figure 4. The simulation .66) (4. Therefore. However. a M N -dimensional orthogonal space.2 Asymptotic Properties In Figure (4. (4.n (K) ≤ ρmax (K) ≤ d2 (K) ≥ d2 (K) ≥ 2Es m.67) Notice that as K → ∞ the CE-OFDM signals become orthogonal.13) each correlation function is plotted for M = 2. At the output of the phase modulator. the bandwidth tends to infinity as 2πh → ∞. and as the modulation index becomes very large. The phase modulator thus drastically alters the signal space. Prior to the phase demodulator.5 0 1 2 K 3 4 5 Figure 4. 4.n min 1− 1 πK . N = 4 DCT modulation.78 4.5 ρm.13: All unique ρm.n (K) p 1/πK 0 −0.n (K) for M = 2. 164]). ρm. from (3. p.

01.8 16.68) 2 where σn = Bn N0 is the power of the noise signal n(t). For this to be true. Figure 4. 268] ∞ pξ (x) = 0 y y 2 + A2 − 2yA cos x exp − dy. 0.64). The SNR per bit is E b /N0 = 30 dB.35) and the optimum receiver approximation (4.35) Approx (4. . This implies that the phase demodulator receiver is nearly optimum. 0. As shown by (4.3 4. the phase demodulator must perfectly invert the phase modulation done at the transmitter. is comprised of the transmitted message signal plus an AWGN corrupting signal. 2πh 8. 1. p. φ(t) + ξ(t). 0.2 10−4 2.2 16.64) Simulation 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 M . The probability density function of ξ(t) samples is represented by the well-known form [421.15 compares (4.14: Phase demodulator receiver versus optimum. 0.79 100 Approx (4. and near optimum performance of the phase demodulator receiver is expected. All curves are shown to be essentially identical for BER < 0.68) to the Gaussian probability density function. and the noise at the output of the phase demodulator must be “white” and Gaussian. ξ(t) is approximately “white”. 2 2 2πσn 2σn (4. (N = 64) results are compared to the analytical approximation (4. This shows that ξ(t) is well approximated as Gaussian. Eb /N0 (dB) 35 40 Figure 4.2 10−5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. the OFDM demodulator is optimum given that the input.26). That is.

5 1 1.80 100 pξ (x) Gaussian Probability density function. and for 2πh > 1. p(x) 10−5 10−10 10−15 10−20 −1. For CE-OFDM . the expression is equal to the to operate in the region 2πh > 1.0. The oversampling factor is J = 8 for M = 2. Notice that for M ≥ 4 and 2πh > 1.2. and 0.4 Spectral Efficiency versus Performance In the previous sections. 8 and 16. The viewable range is such that CNR ≥ 5 dB. It is first demonstrated that CE-OFDM with modulation index 2πh > 1 can outperform the underlying M -PAM subcarrier modulation. The results are compared to channel capacity. since for 2πh = 1. it is shown that the performance of CE-OFDM is determined by the modulation index.0. which. it is better than M -PAM.2 cycles per sample for M = 2.35). (E b /N0 = 30 dB) 4. The FIR filter has length Lfir = 11 and a normalized cutoff frequency 0. also controls the signal bandwidth. In this section.3 cycles per sample for M = 8. the spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz) versus performance (E b /N0 to achieve a target bit error rate) is plotted for a variety of CE-OFDM signals. Figure 4. the carrier-to-noise ratio must be above threshold. 4 and 16. The bit error rate is plotted against the SNR per bit on the bottom x-axis and the carrier-to-noise ratio on the top x-axis.15: Noise samples PDF versus Gaussian PDF. 4.5 Figure 4. CE-OFDM outperforms M -PAM.5 0 x 0. as shown in Section 3. 7 performance of M -PAM.5 −1 −0. and J = 16 for M = 16. 4 and 8.16 shows simulation results7 for M = 2. This is predicted by (4.

0. †=leftmost curve. (d) M = 16.5† . . . . 0. . . (N = 64.0. .81 5 10−1 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 15 Simulation (4. Eb /N0 (dB) (a) M = 2. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.35) 16-PAM 5 10−1 10 35 5 10−1 10 40 10−3 10−3 10−4 2πh ∈ {1. . .35) 8-PAM 10−2 Bit error rate Bit error rate 10−2 (b) M = 4.2. 0.0† . . ‡=rightmost curve) . .1‡ } 10−5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. .5.0† . Eb /N0 (dB) (c) M = 8.9. 0.1‡ } 10−5 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. .35) 20 5 10−1 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 15 20 25 Simulation (4. 0. 1. Figure 4.35) 4-PAM 10−2 Bit error rate Bit error rate 2πh ∈ {0. 1. 1. .1‡ } 10−4 2πh ∈ {2.4. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 15 20 25 30 35 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 1.16: Performance of M -PAM CE-OFDM. 1. .1. 0.5† . . Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 15 20 25 30 35 Simulation (4. 0.9.2.1‡ } 10−2 10−3 10−3 10−4 10−4 2πh ∈ {1. . Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 15 20 25 30 Simulation (4.

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

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

Figure 4.17 shows result for M = 2, 4, 8 and 16. The target bit error rate is 0.0001. For reference the channel capacity is also plotted, which is expressed as [421, p. 387] C = B log 2 1 + or equivalently, Eb 2C/B − 1 = . N0 C/B
10 M =2 M =4 M =8 M = 16 Capacity M = 16: 2πh = 2.0, 1.8, . . . , 0.6 M = 8: 2πh = 1.4, 1.2, . . . , 0.4

C Eb B N0

,

(4.71)

(4.72)

7 6 5 Spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz) 4 3

2 M = 4: 2πh = 1.0, 0.8, . . . , 0.2

1 M = 2: 2πh = 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.2

0.5-1.6

0

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

25

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

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

4.5

CE-OFDM versus OFDM

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

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

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

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

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

85

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

(a) PA efficiency.

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

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

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

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

8

10

(c) Spectral containment.

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

15). the channel is frequency nonselective. The lowpass equivalent representation of the received signal is r(t) = αejφ0 s(t) + n(t) (5. αe jφ0 δ(τ ). and n(t) is the complex Gaussian noise term represented in (4. In the frequency domain. no fading) was considered. the channel is H(f ) = F{h(τ )}(f ) = αe jφ0 .2) 86 . is commonly referred to as flat fading.e. In this chapter the channel amplitude is treated as a random quantity. respectively.1) where s(t) is the CE-OFDM signal according to (3.2). and is thus constant at all frequencies—that In the previous chapter only the simple case of α = 1 (i. performance analysis of the phase demodulator receiver is extended to fading channels. α and φ 0 is the channel amplitude and phase. N0 (5. since it’s frequency nonselective.4)]. Such a channel model.Chapter 5 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Nonselective Fading Channels In this chapter. ∞ −∞ h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t) [see (1. where the channel impulse response is h(τ ) = is.11). The received signal can be written as r(t) = (2. The signal-to-noise ratio per bit for a given α is γ = α2 Eb .

817] γ = E{γ} = E α2 ¯ Eb . the conditional BER is averaged over the distribution of γ [421. (5. assume 6 log 2 M/(M 2 − 1). p.4). For the moment. and KR = ρ2 2 2σ0 (5.6) To obtain BER(¯ ). is [483.3) It is desired to calculate the bit error rate at a given γ . 102] pγ (x) = (1 + KR )x (1 + KR )e−KR exp − I0 2 γ ¯ γ ¯ KR (1 + KR )x .9) If this were true. where c1 = 2(M − 1)/(M log 2 M ) and c2 = 2πh √ BER(x) = c1 Q(c2 x).8) system is above threshold. p. described by (5. (5.1 it is shown that √ BER(x) ≈ c1 Q c2 x . This ¯ γ quantity depends on the statistical distribution of γ. ρ → 0 and γ is Rayleigh 1 x exp − γ ¯ γ ¯ pγ (x) = . p. (5. p. 102] BERRice (¯ ) = γ c1 π π/2 0 (1 + KR ) sin2 θ × (1 + KR ) sin2 θ + c2 γ /2 2¯ KR c2 γ /2 2¯ dθ. (5. γ ¯ x ≥ 0. p. N0 (5.4) where I0 (·) is the 0th-order modified Bessel function of the first kind. denoted here as BER(¯ ). x ≥ 0. distributed [483. so long as the for all x ≥ 0. exp − (1 + KR ) sin2 θ + c2 γ /2 2¯ (5. the bit error rate for the Ricean channel. 40]. p. the probability density function of γ is [483. γ 817]: BER(¯ ) = γ 0 ∞ BER(x)pγ (x)dx.10) .87 and the average SNR per bit is [421.1.5) 2 is the Rice factor: ρ2 and 2σ0 represent the power of the LOS and scatter component. (5.7) In Section 4. For channels without a line-of-sight. 101]: respectively [401. For channels with a line-of-sight (LOS) component.

6 the simulation result closely matches (5.10) is overly optimistic since the system is ¯ ¯ more likely to experience channel fades which take the system below threshold—in which case the bit error rate isn’t accurately represented by the Q-function.8 example. as described by (5.10) 10−1 10−1 100 Simulation Approx (5. γ (dB) ¯ (a) M = 8.2 0. (5. (5.1(a) compares simulation results 1 to (5.1: Performance of CE-OFDM in flat fading channels. 100 Simulation Approx (5. and so forth—are the same as those used for the result shown in Figure 4.1.3.8 0. Lfir .10) for γ > 15 dB. For 2πh = 0.16 (see the footnote in on page 80). (b) M = 4. N = 64 system in the Ricean channel with KR = 10 dB. as discussed in Section 4. For the 2πh = 1.6). the bit error rate of CE-OFDM.6 Bit error rate 10−2 2πh 10−3 1.11) are not generally accurate. For lower values of γ . as a result of the threshold effect. p. (5.10) and (5.4 10−4 10−4 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit. Figure 5. the simulation parameters—J.11) Bit error rate 10−2 2πh 10−3 1. [483. that is.4. Ricean KR = 10 dB. γ (dB) ¯ 10−5 0 10 20 30 40 50 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit. for example). (N = 64) Unless otherwise stated. Consequently (5. This is due to the inaccuracy of the Q-function for large modulation index ¯ cases (see Figure 4.10) for an M = 8.88 and for the Rayleigh channel. isn’t simply expressed by the Q-function for all values of SNR. Rayleigh. normalized cutoff frequency. Figure 5.9) is false. (5.11) However. 1 . 101] BERRay (¯ ) = γ c1 2 1− c2 γ /2 2¯ 1 + c2 γ /2 2¯ .10) is overly optimistic by at least 3 dB for all values of γ .

that is.1(b) further illustrates the inaccuracy of assuming (5. For the low modulation index case of 2πh = 0.89 Figure 5. is not accurately described by the Q-function at low SNR and/or for large modulation index.16) the following observation can be made: above a certain SNR. for the large modulation index case of 2πh = 1.] Consequently. x0 x0 0 ≈ BER(x)pγ (x)dx + 0 √ (5. N = 64 system is simulated in the Rayleigh channel.2: below x 0 the BER is 1/2.7) can be approximated as x0 ∞ BER(¯ ) = γ 0 x0 BER(x)pγ (x)dx + x0 ∞ BER(x)pγ (x)dx c1 Q(c2 x)pγ (x)dx. (5. at low SNR the bit error rate is roughly 1/2.11) is that the conditional bit error rate. the conditional bit error rate closely matches the Q-function. An M = 4. . say x 0 .13) is not generally accurate. However.6.10) and (5. As observed γ in Section 4. then BER(¯ ) ≈ γ 1 2 x0 ∞ pγ (x)dx + 0 x0 √ c1 Q(c2 x)pγ (x)dx.3 [see Figure 4.13) This simplified model. and dealing with BER(x)pγ (x)dx in (5. referred to as a two-region model since the conditional BER is split into two regions.8) holds. (5. (5. BER(x). Assume for the moment that BER(x) = 1/2 for x ≤ x 0 .9). (5. the values shown in Figure 4.1. A Semi-Analytical Approach The problem with (5. Also shown is the observed simulation result. Therefore (5.12) Determining x0 for a given M and 2πh. otherwise the BER is equal to the Q-function.12) are the problems that remain to obtain an accurate approximation of BER(¯ ).2. For a limited range of 2πh (for example.4. [For more examples of the transition region. is illustrated in Figure 5.11) is somewhat accurate. (5. Notice that the two-region model doesn’t account for the transition region in which BER(x) ≈ 1/2 √ to where BER(x) ≈ c1 Q(c2 x). and a more elaborate approach is required which accounts for the transition region. see Figure 4.6(a)].11) is shown to be off by 5–7 dB.

90

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

0.1

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

0.01

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

Figure 5.2: A simplified two-region model. (M = 8, N = 64, 2πh = 0.6) This is done by splitting the SNR region 0 ≤ x ≤ x 0 into n sub-regions:
x0 γ1

BER(x)pγ (x)dx =
0 γ0 γ2

BER(x)pγ (x)dx+
γn

(5.14) BER(x)pγ (x)dx,

BER(x)pγ (x)dx + . . . +
γ1 γn−1

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

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

BER(¯ ) ≈ γ

BERi pγ (x)dx +
i=0 γi γn

(5.15)

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

91
1 BER0 = 1/2 BER1 BER3 BER2 Conditional bit error rate, BER(x) BER4 . . . BERn−2

BERn−1

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

0.01

← γ0 = −∞

γ1

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

γn−1

γn

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

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

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

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

92

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

(a) M = 2, 2πh = 0.2 Bit error rate

100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(b) M = 2, 2πh = 0.6

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

50

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

50

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

(c) M = 4, 2πh = 0.4 Bit error rate

100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(d) M = 4, 2πh = 1.2

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

50

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

50

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

(e) M = 8, 2πh = 0.6 Bit error rate

100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(f) M = 8, 2πh = 1.8

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

50

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

50

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

(g) M = 16, 2πh = 0.8 Bit error rate

100 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 0

(h) M = 16, 2πh = 2.4

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

50

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

50

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

93
100 Rayleigh simulation Rayleigh approximation (5.11) Ricean (KR = 3 dB) simulation Ricean (KR = 3 dB) approximation (5.10) Ricean (KR = 10 dB) simulation Ricean (KR = 10 dB) approximation (5.10) Semi-analytical technique (5.15)

10−1

Bit error rate

10−2

10−3

10−4

10−5 0

10

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

40

50

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

where τmax is the channel’s maximum propagation delay. (6. with a block period.15).1. h(τ ) = 0 for τ > τ max . TB . A guard interval of duration Tg ≥ τmax is inserted between successive CE-OFDM blocks to avoid interblock interference. .1) where s(t) is the CE-OFDM signal according to (3. the processed samples are Nc −1 rp [i] = r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i]. the guard time samples are discarded and the block time samples are processed.11) and n(t) is the complex Gaussian noise term represented by (4. CE-OFDM has the same block structure as conventional OFDM. . . The received signal is ∞ r(t) = = 0 −∞ τmax h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t) h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t). p.Chapter 6 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Selective Channels In this chapter the performance of CE-OFDM in frequency-selective channels is studied. 245]: h(τ ) = 0 for τ < 0. At the receiver. r(t) is sampled at the rate f sa = 1/Tsa samp/s. Using the discrete-time model outlined in Section 2. (6. . NB − 1.2) . by definition of the maximum propagation delay. The lower bound of integration in (6. The channel is time dispersive having an impulse response h(τ ) that can be non-zero over 0 ≤ τ ≤ τmax .2. 94 i = 0.1) is due to the law of causality [401. designed to be much longer than τmax . The upperbound is τ max since.

The MMSE criterion (6. . a but amplifies the noise by a factor of 1000.3) where {H[k]} is the DFT of {h[i]} and {S[k]} is the DFT of {s[i]}.4) tion terms. . which corrects the channel . . The FDE output is s[i] = ˆ 1 NDFT NDFT −1 Rp [k]C[k]ej2πik/NDFT . the ZF frequency-domain equalizer perfectly reverses the effect of the channel. NB − 1. . NB − 1. . followed by an IDFT. Thus rp [i] = 1 NDFT NDFT −1 H[k]S[k]ej2πik/NDFT .5) H ∗ [k] |H[k]|2 + (Eb /N0 )−1 (6. For example. and C[k] = (6. Therefore. . .5) is s[i] = ˆ 1 NDFT 1 NDFT 1 NDFT NDFT −1 H[k]S[k]C[k]ej2πik/NDFT k=0 NDFT −1 = H[k]S[k] k=0 NDFT −1 k=0 1 j2πik/NDFT e H[k] (6. (6. When noise can’t be ignored. Transmitting a cyclic prefix during i=−N the guard interval makes the linear convolution with the channel equivalent to circular convolution. the output of the frequency-domain equalizer using (6. k=0 i = 0. k=0 i = 0. .6) takes into account fade of −30 dB results in a correction term with gain +30 dB. (6. . Ignoring noise (n[i] = 0).6) for the minimum mean-square error (MMSE) criterion. NB − 1. the ZF suffers from noise enhancement.95 Note that the discarded samples are {r[i]} −1 g . .7) = S[k]ej2πik/NDFT i = 0. The effect of the channel can be reversed with the frequency-domain equalizer: a DFT followed by a multiplier bank. . which are computed as [463] where {Rp [k]} is the DFT of the processed samples and {C[k]} are the equalizer correc1 H[k] C[k] = for the zero-forcing (ZF) criterion. = s[i]. .

System performance is generated then used to calculate the received samples (6. CE-OFDM Modulator s(t) h(τ ) n(t) r(t) r[i] Remove CP rp [i] FDE CE-OFDM Demodulator estimated by way of computer simulation.1. 6.96 the signal-to-noise ratio.1.2) which are then processed by the FDE and the demodulator. The guard period is Tg = 10 µs. resulting in a transmission efficiency η t = 128/138 ≈ 0. Notice that the MMSE and ZF are equivalent at high SNR: lim C[k]|MMSE = H ∗ [k] 1 = = C[k]|ZF . The simulation uses an performance is evaluated for frequency-selective fading channels. the performance of the MMSE and ZF equalizers are compared over various frequency-selective channels.1: CE-OFDM system with frequency-selective channel. {s[i]} and {n[i]} are Figure 6. 2 |H[k]| H[k] (6. 10 µs].8) Eb /N0 →∞ The system under consideration is shown in Figure 6.75 The channel samples {h[i]}.1 MMSE versus ZF Equalization In this section.93. In Section 6. therefore the sampling rate is f sa = JN/TB = 4 Msamp/s. over the corresponding guard interval [0. making an optimum trade between channel inversion and noise enhancement.5 Hz and the mainlobe bandwidth is W = N/TB = 500 kHz.1 Channel Description shown in Table 6. the performance of CE-OFDM using the MMSE and ZF frequencydomain equalizers is compared over six frequency-selective channels. oversampling factor J = 8. and the sampling period is Tsa = 1/fsa = 0. are . in which case {h[i]} is 6. The study is separated into two parts.1.25 µs. The subcarrier spacing is 1/T B = 7812. with a block period of TB = 128 µs. In both sections an N = 64 CE-OFDM system is considered. The samples {h[i]}. For Channels A–C the maximum propagation delay is τ max = 0. described statistically.1. In Section 6.2.

02e−j1.08e+j1.01e−j3.00 7.11 0.55 0.10 0.13e−j0.50 7.43 0.18e+j1.01e+j2.03e+j0.01e−j0.14e+j1.97 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel C h[i] 0.08e+j1.96 0.00 2.24e+j0.58 0.05 0.82 0.01e−j0.11 0.0 Channel A h[i] 0.14 0.13 0.25 8.01e−j0.11 0.14e−j2.02e+j1.91 0.04 0.01e+j0.89 0.01e−j2.10 0.23e+j1.04e−j1.05e+j1.13e+j2.02e+j2.93 0.49 0.30 0.01e+j2.75 2.08 0.01e−j3.48 0.06e−j1.11e+j1.88 0.50 4.67 0.33 0.77 0.05 0.89 0.75 7.87 0.51e−j0.01e−j2.00 0.15 0.02e−j2.90 0 0.23 0.00 6.75 6.47e−j0.00 5.20e+j2.01 0.01 – – – – – Channel E h[i] 0.07e−j2.09e+j0.12e+j1.71e−j0.80e−j2.98 0.17e+j0.28 0.92 0.02e−j0.19e+j0.01e−j1.42 0.39 0.01e−j0.75 10.12e−j0.64 0.50 3.36 0.05e+j0.56e−j0.14 0.01e+j0.72 0.00 3. i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Delay (µs) τi = iTsa 0.01e−j1.30 0.95 0.03 0.12 0.02e+j2.00 0 0.18 0.11 0.27e+j1.00 1.00 0.42e−j0.25 9.01 0.01e+j0.07e−j0.00 0.38 0.07 0.25 1.13e+j0.08e−j2.69 0.47e−j1.97 0.56 0.50 1.05e−j1.82 0.02e+j3.58 0.13 0.12e−j0.13e+j2.57 0.42 0.03e−j1.05e−j2.76 0.68 0.92 0.04e−j1.22 0 0.50 8.97 Table 6.19 0.33e+j2.06 0.40 0.60 0.50 9.01e+j2.00 9.14 0.20 0.36 0.81 0.98 0.05e+j0.09e−j1.01e−j1.25e−j1.22 0.34 0.01e−j1.05e+j2.02e+j2.41 0.22e+j0.01e−j2.54 0.99 0.53 0.96 0.00 0.54 0.05e+j1.01 0.09 0.29 0.04e+j3.76 0.01e−j0.01e−j0.75 5.03e+j2.01e−j0.03e+j2.83 0.25 6.99 0.21e−j1.56 0.59e+j3.00 4.50 5.00 8.01e+j2.21e−j2.10e−j0.01 0.40 0.49 0.25 4.02e−j1.93e−j1.36 0.07e+j0.25 2.09e+j0.1: Channel samples of frequency-selective channels.20 0.25e−j1.01e+j1.30e−j2.20 0.02e+j2.15e+j0.02e+j0.75 4.70e+j2.93 0.75 3.24e+j1.98 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel D h[i] 0.03e+j0.37 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel B h[i] 0.75 8.92 0.17 0.26 0.01e+j3.50 6.12e+j1.42 0.01e+j1.01e+j0.06e−j0.50 2.01e+j0.25 5.17 0.16e−j0.25 0.86 0.01e+j2.08e−j0.29 0.75 9.75 1.01e−j2.25 7.91 0.02e+j0.93 0.93 0.03e+j0.50 0.00 0.33 0.10e+j1.18 0.25 3.11 – – – – – Channel F h[i] 0.01e−j1.67 – – – – – .02e−j2.02e−j1.16e−j2.96 0.62e+j0.61e+j0.01e+j2.

. 16].9) Channels A–C are single realizations of an approximation to the maritime channel model in [350]. . k = 2 1 (6. . p. Nc −1 H[k] = i=0 h[i]e−j2πik/NDFT .75/0. The x-axis is scaled as [422.25 + 1 = 36. (6. 256] Nc −1 H(f ) = i=0 h[i]e−j2πf i . 1. −250 kHz ≤ f ≤ 250 kHz. the channel is frequency selective. k = 0.5 dB range. (6. NDFT . p.11) where f is the normalized frequency variable having units cycles/samp [422. . . NDFT − 1. . . p.10) is the Fourier transform of h[i]. NDFT − 1.10) is related to the discrete Fourier transform. which results in Nc = τmax /Tsa + 1 = 0. . . Channels D–F are single realizations of a stochastic model which has an exponential delay power density spectrum 1 .14) Stochastic models are discussed in the next section.2 shows Channel D in the time and frequency domains. is plotted. In subfigure (b).75 µs.13) where the discrete set of frequencies {f k } are defined as   k  k = 0. |H(f )|2 is plotted.12) as H[k] = H(fk ). . .25 + 1 = 4 samples [see (2. Notice that over the signal’s mainlobe frequency range. . 24] f = f fsa Hz. NDFT . .19)]. the power of the time samples. 2 fk ≡  k NDFT  + 1. Figure 6. . (6. (6. NDFT − 1. −2. NDFT − 1. that is. τmax = 8. The magnitude response fluctuates over a 8. For Channels D–F. 1. The Fourier transform (6.75/0.98 µs. (6. . thus Nc = 8. In subfigure (a). k = 0. The channels are normalized such that Nc −1 i=0 |h[i]|2 = 1. . .5 dB ≤ |H(f )|2 ≤ 6 dB. |h[i]|2 . where [422.

Figure 6. MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 10 20 )|2 ZF dB dB dB 5 0 −5 −200 −100 0 Frequency.99 0.2: Channel D.25 |h[i]|2 0.35 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Propagation delay.2 0.15 0.3 0. . 10 Magnitude response (dB) Channel D response. Equalizer response.1 0. f = f fsa (kHz) 100 200 (b) Frequency domain.4 0. |H(f Equalizer response. iTsa (µs) 7 8 9 (a) Time domain.

6.1.2. 0. 0. Channel A is the most mild in terms of its frequency-domain response.3 and 0. . . . TB k = 0. The modulation order is M = 2. 10. The frequency response of this channel is more severely varying than Channel A. |h[i]| 2 is plotted in subfigure (a). Over the signal bandwidth. (6. The equalizers are shown to able from the simple AWGN curves. and 20 dB. is shown for Eb /N0 = 0. The results for Channel A are shown in Figure 6. Results are plotted for 2πh = 0.2(b) is the response of the MMSE and ZF equalizers. For each case. the simulation results are compared against the simple AWGN channel.5). are selected.4 and 0. ..6 example for Eb /N0 < 10 dB). For this particular channel the MMSE and ZF are shown to be equivalent for Eb /N0 ≥ 20 dB. the ZF result is shown to be slightly worse than the MMSE result. which is to be expected from (6. NDFT − 1. the 2πh = 0. the MMSE is shown to slightly outperform the ZF at low SNR (i. and different values of the modulation index. The ZF response.8). but the two equalizers have essentially the same performance at the effectively correct the channel: the BER curves in Figure 6. h. .1. is simply the inverse of the channel. 6. . . NDFT . As with the previous example. . the channel and equalizer frequency-domain responses are plotted in subfigure (b). 0. .3–6. The magnitude response |H(f )|2 spans a 3 dB region in a nearly linearly manner. Due to the channel normalization (6. (6. their frequency response become the same at high E b /N0 .1.3(b).3. Included in Figure 6.100 Using a DFT size NDFT = JN = NB and noting (6. This is to be expected since.6 over Channel B are shown in Figure 6.4.11).6). Notice that at high SNR the MMSE approaches the ZF equalizer. Results for 2πh = 0. Of the six test channels. for higher values of SNR the performance of the two equalizers becomes nearly identical.3(c) are nearly indistinguish- . The MMSE response. JN TB = fk = fk fsa = fk k TB  − fsa . The results are shown in Figures 6. 1. as illustrated in Figure 6.9).2 Simulation Results The N = 64 CE-OFDM system is simulated over Channels A–F. . the frequency samples {H[k]} correspond to the frequencies  k  . |H(f )|2 spans a 6 dB range.e. and the bit error rate performance results are shown in subfigure (c). For the 2πh = 0. .8.15) + 1. .6 example at the lower SNR values E b /N0 < 10 dB. 2 k= NDFT 2 (6.

2 0.101 0.3 0. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.7 0.3 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.6 0. Figure 6.6 0. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.4 0.3: Channel A results.1 0 Magnitude response (dB) 2 0 |h[i]|2 −2 Channel A ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB −4 −6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. . Eb /N0 (dB) 30 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4.35).5 0.

ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.4 0.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.102 0.4: Channel B results.3 0.2 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4.8 Magnitude response (dB) 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.6 0.5 0. . iTsa (µs) 8 9 4 2 0 −2 Channel B ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB −4 10 dB 20 dB 30 dB −6 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.9 0.4 0.35).7 0. Figure 6.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.6 |h[i]|2 0.2 0. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.

having a 50 dB attenuation at 185 kHz. As stated earlier.1 example. B and D. The degree that the each channel varies over the signal bandwidth progresses from Channel D to Channel F. At the bit error rate 0. Clearly. 6. and is only 2 dB worse than the performance over the simple AWGN channel. For channels with a relatively mild frequency response— Channels A. These results show that frequency selective channels having deep fades in the signal bandwidth impact performance greatly. several observations can be made. the two are equivalent only for E b /N0 > 35 dB. An 18 dB loss. the magnitude response varies over a 20 dB range. is slightly less than 1 dB. It is also shown that very high SNR is required for the MMSE response to approach the ZF response. is the most harsh of the test channels. the large amount of frequency selectivity of this channel results in a large performance degradation when compared to the AWGN results.5(b).001.6–6. when compared to the simple AWGN result. the performance of the equalized CE-OFDM systems studied depends on the amount of frequency selectivity over the signal bandwidth. the MMSE outperforms the ZF by 7 dB.1 and 0. For BER ≤ 0. the degradation is 10 dB for the 2πh = 0. A 40 dB loss is suffered for the 2πh = 0. The results in Figure 6. for example—the performance degradation is minor. the three channels are three different realizations of a stochastic model with an exponential delay power density spectrum. Channel F.001. First. is experienced for the 2πh = 0.5(c): for the 2πh = 0.8 show the results for Channels D–F.1.001 the degradation caused by the frequency selective Channel C has the most frequency-selective response of the three maritime channel realizations. MMSE example at the bit error rate 0. The noise enhancement that results from equalizing channels with severe frequency responses— . compared to the AWGN performance.5.6.3 cases.103 higher SNR values. This equivalence is also demonstrated in Figure 6. channel. As shown in Figure 6.8(c) show the dramatic performance degradation as a consequence of the severe frequency selectivity. for example. the ZF case degrades more than 20 dB further.1 case.001. The improvement of the MMSE is pronounced for 2πh = 0. Figures 6. Over the frequency range −250 kHz ≤ f fsa ≤ −200 kHz. At the bit error rate 0.3 Discussion and Observations At this point. the ZF performance gradually approaches the MMSE performance at these high SNR values.

5 Magnitude response (dB) 0.1 0 20 10 Channel C ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB 30 dB 35 dB 0 −10 −20 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.104 0.3 0.5 0. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.2 0. Figure 6.35). Eb /N0 (dB) 35 40 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain.6 0.4 |h[i]|2 0.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.5: Channel C results. .

. f = f fsa (kHz) Channel D ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB 200 (a) Time domain.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.1 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 35 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. iTsa (µs) 8 9 Magnitude response (dB) 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 −6 −8 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.4 0.35 0.15 0.105 0. Figure 6.6 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.2 0.3 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.6: Channel D results.25 |h[i]|2 0. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.35).2 0.

1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. Eb /N0 (dB) 35 40 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4.3 0. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency. Figure 6.25 0.15 0.7: Channel E results.35).106 0. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain.1 0.2 0. .05 Magnitude response (dB) 10 MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 10 20 30 Channel E ZF dB dB dB dB 5 |h[i]|2 0 −5 −10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.35 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.6 0.

Eb /N0 (dB) 60 65 70 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. . 10−1 (b) Frequency domain. Figure 6.2 0. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 0. iTsa (µs) 8 9 Magnitude response (dB) 40 Channel F ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB 30 dB 20 0 −20 −40 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.35 0.25 |h[i]|2 0.3 0.15 0.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.3 0.6 2πh 0.1 0.8: Channel F results.4 0.107 0.35).1 0.3 0. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.6 0.

5 case for Channel C illustrates this point. the MMSE equalizer offers significant improvement over the ZF equalizer when averaging performance over many channel realizations of a stochastic channel model. which were deterministic as defined in Table 6. (6. In the study here. the MMSE performs much better.2 Performance Over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels In contrast to the test channels used in the previous section. the complexity of the frequency-domain equalizers is determined by the DFT size. p.108 Channels C. with a focus on the various aspects of simulation.1.16) . the widely used assumption of WSSUS (wide-sense stationary uncorrelated scattering) is applied. This assumption is based on the Parsons and Bajwa ellipse model for describing multipath channel geometry [401. The channel’s impulse response is L−1 h(τ ) = l=0 al δ(τ − τl ). provides a a excellent treatment of the topic. it is assumed that the channel is composed of discrete paths. The mathematical foundation for stochastic time-variant linear channels was pioneered by Bello [50]. Second. In other cases. the MMSE equalizer is more complicated than the ZF equalizer since the SNR this added complexity doesn’t always translate into improved performance. not by the number of non-zero channel terms h[i]. and thus estimating Eb /N0 pays substantial dividends—the 2πh = 0. for example. Mobile Fading Channels [401]. more recently P¨tzold’s text. the channels used in this section are described statistically. each having an associated gain and discrete propagation delay. The results of this study show that cases in Channel B. 6. Eb /N0 . must be estimated at the receiver.4 per bit. As demonstrated in the following section. Also. Last. This is in contrast to conventional time-domain equalizers which have a complexity that depends on the number of paths in the multipath channel. That is. E and F—degrades performance dramatically. 244]. the ZF performance is the same as the MMSE performance for many cases—the 2πh ≤ 0.

this distinction isn’t stressed here (which results in a slightly different notation for the expressed formulas in his text). 269]. . 2. . The gain is complex valued.22) The phrase “delay power spectral density” is also commonly referred to as “power delay profile” (PDP) or “multipath intensity profile” (MIP). . (6. • Delay power spectral density: L−1 delay power spectral density and the delay spread 2 . p. the channels are normalized L−1 2 σal = 1. such that 267]. 2 . time correlation function and coherence time (see [401.19) Both the real and imaginary parts of the path gains are Gaussian distributed [401. “delay power spectral density” is used here. . . . the total number of paths is represented by L. L − 1. . The relevant formulas are expressed Sτ τ (τ ) = l=0 2 σal δ(τ − τl ). . . For the sake of simplicity. (6. and “deterministic” channel models which are generated in software or hardware for simulation purposes. l = 0. l=0 (6. (6. has a zero mean and a variance 2 σal = E |al |2 . (6. such as the below. a clear distinction is made between stochastic channel a models. p. τl and L determine a (6. For each simulation trial. The propagation delay differences are ∆τl = τl − τl−1 ≡ Tsa . pp.109 where al is the complex channel gain and τl is discrete propagation delay of the lth path. which provide the theoretical and mathematical foundations. L − 1. Also. thus τl = lTsa .20) the fundamental characteristic functions and quantities of the channel models. . 1. 276–279) the parameters σ al . delay of the 0th path is defined as τ0 ≡ 0.17) That is. . the Doppler power spectral density. In P¨tzold’s text. Also. 277–279]) are not discussed. since only time-invariant channels are considered in this thesis.21) • Average delay: (1) Bτ τ = L−1 2 σ al τ l . thus the envelope |al |2 is Rayleigh distributed. For the sake of being consistent with [401]. they are set equal to the sampling period of the simulation [401. l=0 2 As outlined in P¨tzold’s text (pp.18) l = 1. L − 1. the set of path gains {a l }L−1 are generated randomly. . Each l=0 l = 0. 1.

path).e.. • Coherence bandwidth: The coherence bandwidth is the smallest positive value alent to BC which fulfils |rτ τ (BC )| = 0.25) Notice that BC is the 3 dB bandwidth of rτ τ (v ).C =  0.75 µs. 3 .24). the power of the Channel Cf has an exponential delay power spectral density:   CC e−τl /2µs .110 • Delay spread: (2) Bτ τ L−1 = l=0 (σal τl )2 − Bτ τ (1) 2 (6. 6. i. Channel Bf has a stronger secondary path (one-half. the power of the primary (6. 35 Channel Af has a weak secondary path (one-tenth.5|rτ τ (0)|. due to (6.20) and (6. primary path).1 Channel Models CE-OFDM is simulated over four frequency-selective fading channel models. Note that the maximum propagation delay is 8. . . the channel model labels in this section have the subscript “f” (“fading”).1188 .2 defines the parameters {σal } and {τl }.24) The variable v is referred to as the frequency separation variable [401. (6. p.75 µs. 278].2. Table 2 6. Both have a secondary path with a 5 µs propagation delay. −3 dB.23) • Frequency correlation function: L−1 rτ τ (v ) = l=0 2 σal e−j2πv τl (6.27) is the normalizing constant used to guarantee (6. otherwise. To avoid notational ambiguities. i.. 2 (6. is equivL−1 l=0 2 σal e−j2πBC τl − 1 = 0.20).26) where C Cf = 1 l=0 exp(−τl /2e-6) = 0. f 2 σal . −10 dB. which.e. Channel Af and Bf are similar to the maritime channel models in [350]3 . 0 ≤ τl ≤ 8.

25 4.92e-3 1.85e-2 3.25 7.41e-2 1.75 10.65e-2 2.16e-2 7.75 7.00 3.75 1.61e-2 4.00 0.50 9.37e-2 3.50 7.75 5.82e-2 1.25 9.75e-3 8.50 1.00e-2 2.D 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 1/36 0 0 0 0 0 .18e-1 1.25e-2 1.75 2.79e-3 2.04e-1 9.00 4.60e-2 1.25 8.59e-3 6.22e-3 4.C 1.75 8.00 6.A 10/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Bf 2 σal .69e-3 1.00 2.75 6.16e-3 2.20e-2 6.00 5.25e-2 8.00 8.25 0.50 6.60e-3 4.58e-3 3.06e-3 3.75 3.00 1.36e-2 5.50 0. Path no.75 9.17e-3 1.06e-2 1.B 2/3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1/3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Cf 2 σal .25 6.50 4.00 9.25 3.95e-2 4.111 Table 6.25 2.70e-3 5.46e-3 2.75 4.2: Channel model parameters.91e-3 5.50 2.49e-3 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Df 2 σal .33e-2 2.50 8.60e-3 7. l 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Delay (µs) τl = lTsa 0.10e-2 9.40e-2 3.00 7.50 5.0 Channel Af 2 σal .25 1.25 5.50 3.

B C = 67 kHz.28) where the normalizing constant is (6. This performance difference is attributed to the severity of the channel’s frequency response.23) and coherence bandwidth (6. This corresponds to many thousands of channel realizations5 . Some channel realizations result in very poor performance (for example. f 2 σal . on average.000 bit errors. resulting in degraded performance. Channel Df . has a uniform delay power density spectrum:   CD . The likelihood of a deep channel fade depends on the number of independent ˛ ˛ 10 1 For Channel Af . The performance also depends on the gain of the channel realization.22).000. 4 9 11 1 2 > ≈ −3 dB. 6.29) In Figure 6. 0 ≤ τl ≤ 8. For Channel Af the coherence bandwidth isn’t finite since. This is done by randomly generating {a l }—which. delay spread (6. .75 µs. while others result in a bit error rates not much worse than that of the simple AWGN channel.000 bits are transmitted. drawn from the Gaussian distribution. then processing the samples with the frequency-domain equalizer and the CE-OFDM demodulator. see Figure 6. or until 100.2.112 The last model.8). CDf = 1/36.21) and the frequency correlation function (6.9 the delay power density spectrum (6. the simulation runs for at least 20. whichever happens first. |rτ τ (v )| > −3 dB for all frequency separation values 4 .20) the channel gain.2).25) for each model is labeled. Notice that Channel Df has the smallest coherence bandwidth.2 Simulation Procedure and Preliminary Discussion The average performance of various CE-OFDM systems is evaluated over the four above. otherwise. are complex-valued quantities. as shown in subfigure (b). is normalized to unity. however. as observed with the several examples in Section 6. for a given trial. Due to (6. min |rτ τ (v )| = min ˛ 11 + 11 exp(−j2πv 5 µs)˛ = 5 Example simulation code can be found in Appendix C. At each average Eb /N0 considered.24) are plotted for each of the four models. The corresponding average delay (6. as stated 2 mean and variance {σal }—computing the received samples (6.1. (6. with zero stochastic channel models. the channel may be fading such that the gain is less than unity.D =  0.

78 µs (2) Bτ τ (1) (f) Frequency correlation function. Channel Cf 0 −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 = 1. Channel Bf 0 −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 = 2. .44 µs (2) (1) (b) Frequency correlation function. v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay.38 µs = 2. τ (µs) 9 10 (e) Delay power spectral density.36 µs −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 74 150 300 Frequency separation.45 µs Bτ τ = 1. Channel Bf 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 Bτ τ = 1. v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay. Channel Df 0 = 4. Channel Df 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 (1) Bτ τ (2) Bτ τ (h) Frequency correlation function.9: Fundamental characteristic functions and quantities [(6. τ (µs) 9 10 (g) Delay power spectral density.113 (a) Delay power spectral density.21)–(6.75 µs −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 140 300 Frequency separation. Channel Af 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 Bτ τ = 0. τ (µs) 9 10 (c) Delay power spectral density.60 µs −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 67 150 300 Frequency separation. Channel Af 0 −3 −6 −9 BC → ∞ −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 150 300 Frequency separation.67 µs (2) Bτ τ (1) (d) Frequency correlation function. Channel Cf 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 Bτ τ = 1. τ (µs) 9 10 Figure 6. v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay. v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay.25)] of the four channel models considered.

N = 64.] In the results that follow. the performance of the system over the simple AWGN channel is plotted (with dash-dot lines) along with the performance over the Rayleigh frequency-nonselective fading channel (represented by the thick solid line). over Channel C f .10. For reference. and thus these diversity—and its frequency-domain dual frequency diversity—on CE-OFDM systems is 6. and Figure 6. as determined by {σ al }. In Figure 6. an equal contribution. Of the four models considered in this study. with fixed modulation order M and modulation index h.2.11 compares the performance of a CE-OFDM system with fixed M but varying h over Channel C f . 2πh = 1.114 propagation paths [the WSSUS assumption makes each path in (6. The simulation results over the multipath channel models A f –Df are labeled with circles and triangles. [It is worth noting that the frequency-nonselective channel models considered in Chapter 5 channels have no multipath diversity. Figure 6. It is unlikely that multiple paths fade simultaneously. while the ZF equalized results use dashed lines.12 compares the performance of constant envelope and conventional OFDM systems. the number of subcarriers is N = 64. on average.0 CE-OFDM system are plotted. For each case. Channel Af can be said to have the least amount of multipath diversity: over 90% of the channel gain depends on a single path. each having. the impact of multipath studied. 2 have L = 1 path of which 100% of the channel gain depends (σ a1 = 1).10 compares the performance of a CE-OFDM system. These results show the significant performance improvement . That is. For this reason. performance results of an M = 4. the MMSE equalized results have solid lines connecting the points. over the four channel models. channels characterized by multiple propagation paths possess a type of diversity known at multipath diversity— which can be exploited by the receiver.16) independent].3 Simulation Results The simulation results of this study are presented over three figures: Figure 6. Channel Df can be said to have the most multipath diversity: the gain of a given realization depends on 36 independent paths. the multipath diversity depends not only on the number of independent paths but also 2 on the way in which the power is distributed over the paths. Channel B f has more multipath diversity than Channel Af since the gain is distributed more equally between the two paths. in the presence of power amplifier nonlinearities.

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

that is. it is best to view the problem in the frequency domain. is the normalized . As identified in Section 1. 0 ≤ t < T B .1 Consider a CE-OFDM waveform with an OFDM message signal composed of N = 2 orthogonal 6 Note that OFDM systems typically employ channel coding and frequency-domain interleaving. since this thesis only deals with uncoded systems. . OFDM message signal. So long as the duration of the guard interval is greater than or equal to the channel’s maximum propagation delay.30) 2 0 ≤ t < TB . Example 6.1.2. .2. It can be said that OFDM lacks frequency diversity as well. the performance of OFDM in a time-dispersive channel is equivalent to flat fading performance. The frequency domain dual to multipath diversity is frequency diversity. (3.2.1. .24)]: s(t) = A 1 + jσφ m(t) − 2 σφ 2 m2 (t) − j 3 σφ 6 m3 (t) + .116 by (2. however.9). has the ability to exploit the frequency diversity of the channel since the phase modulator. which can be taken advantage of by the receiver to obtain performance better than flat fading—is not exploited by the OFDM receiver. However. CE-OFDM. (6. To understand why CE-OFDM has improved performance over multipath fading channels (compared to single path fading channels) while OFDM doesn’t. these topics are beyond its scope—and are topics for further research. spreads the data symbol energy in the frequency domain. the wideband frequency-selective fading channel is converted into N contiguous frequency-nonselective fading channels. results in a frequency spreading of the data symbols. The higher-order terms m n (t). and a cyclic prefix is transmitted during the guard interval. This property is best demonstrated by way of a simple example. σφ = (2πh)2 is the phase signal variance. In the context here. this property was considered beneficial since ISI is avoided. in contrast. this property is considered a weakness since the multipath diversity of the channel isn’t leveraged6 . over the signal bandwidth the frequency response of the channel varies. Therefore any frequency diversity inherent to the channel—that is. in effect. In the context of Section 2. T g ≥ τmax . which offers diversity. and m(t) = CN N k=1 Ik qk (t). the multipath fading performance is the same as single path fading performance. CN = 6/N (M 2 − 1). This can be seen by viewing the CE-OFDM waveform by the Taylor series expansion [see Section 3.1. In other words. where A is the signal amplitude. n ≥ 2.

For small values of modulation index. m2 (t) and m3 (t) is shown.33) (6.3.5I1 + 0. k = 1. for m(t). .30).25I2 c6 . I2 and {cos 2πkt/TB }. . This isn’t necessarily the case. 2.25I1 + 0. 2. This task requires some algebra. Referring to the tones as frequency bins. 1.5I1 + 0.5I2 c0 + (I1 I2 ) c1 + 0. is such that the higher-order terms m2 (t) and m3 (t) contribute to the make up of s(t) according to (6.5I2 c2 3 2 2 + 0.75I1 I2 c4 2 3 + 0. however.5I2 c4 .25I1 I2 + 0.35) The expansions above are represented in Table 6. For the second-order term. The phase modulator mixes and spreads—albeit in a nonlinear and exceedingly complicated manner—the data symbols in frequency. (6. . which gives the CE-OFDM system the potential to exploit the frequency diversity in the channel. The simple example above shows how the data symbols spread across multiple frequency bins.31) is written as m(t) = I1 c1 + I2 c2 .5I1 I2 c1 + 1.75I1 + 1.31) where Ik ∈ {±1}. For notational simplicity.5I2 c4 (I1 c1 + I2 c2 ) 2 3 2 3 2 = 0. . 1.75I1 I2 c5 + 0. it can be said that for m(t) the two data symbols are simply contained in the k = 1 and k = 2 frequency bins.75I1 I2 c3 + 0. . Assume that the modulation index. The data symbol contribution at each tone cos 2πkt/TB . For m3 (t). m2 (t). Thus. 3. 6 frequency bins. It is desired to but is simply done. k = 0. . In general.34) and the third-order term as m3 (t) = 2 2 2 0.5I2 c0 + (I1 I2 ) c1 + 0. (6. ck ≡ cos 2πkt/TB .32) (6.5I1 c2 2 + (I1 I2 ) c3 + 0. . (6. 6. (6.5I1 c2 + (I1 I2 ) c3 + 0. The second-order term is calculated as m2 (t) = (I1 c1 + I2 c2 )(I1 c1 + I2 c2 ) 2 2 2 2 = 0. the data symbols mix across the k = 0. the data symbols mix across the k = 0. and 4 frequency bins.117 cosine subcarriers modulated with binary data symbols (M = 2): 2 m(t) = k=1 Ik cos 2πkt/TB . let’s define write m2 (t) and m3 (t) in terms of I1 . h. . .75I1 I2 c0 + 0. 1. 0 ≤ t < TB . it can be said that the N data symbols that constitute the constant envelope OFDM signal are not simply confined to N frequency bins—as is the case with conventional OFDM.

5I1 . In the final figure.75I1 I2 m(t) m2 (t) m3 (t) 1 I1 I1 I2 3 0.001 the multipath performance is over 10 dB better than the single path performance. jσφ m(t). 2πh = 3.3: Data symbol contribution per tone for m n (t).25I2 I1 I2 3 0. For the OFDM system. To demonstrate that CE-OFDM with a small modulation index lacks frequency diversity.1 are shown. the CE-OFDM signal is essentially equivalent to a conventional OFDM signal. Notice that the single path and multipath performance is essentially the same.36) the CE-OFDM signal doesn’t have the frequency spreading given by the higher-order terms.11. The advantage of the CE-OFDM systems is twofold.9. (plus a relatively large DC term. 2 1. the multipath performance is significantly better than the single path performance. Three different CE-OFDM systems are tested: M = 4. 0 – 2 0.1. N = 64 CE-OFDM system are shown. Second. By contrast.5I2 2 0. s(t) ≈ A [1 + jσφ m(t)] . The x-axis is adjusted to account for the negative impact of input power backoff. For example. Simply put. First.25I1 . CE-OFDM has frequency diversity when the modulation index is large and doesn’t have frequency diversity when the modulation index is small. M = 8. A) and therefore doesn’t have the ability to exploit the frequency diversity of the channel. that is. results for 2πh = 0. (6. 2 0.75I1 . The systems are simulated over Channel Cf .5I2 5 – – 2 0.75I1 I2 where only the first two terms in (6.118 Table 6. QPSK data symbols are used. n =1.0. the CE-OFDM systems exploit .75I1 I2 2 0. and 3.0. Simulation results of an M = 4. Figure 6. at the bit error rate 0. cos 2πkt/TB 2 3 4 I2 – – 2 0. The system is simulated over the single path Rayleigh flat fading channel and over the multipath fading model Channel C f . In this case. 2πh = 0.5I1 I2 kth tone.3) is used at various input backoff levels. The SSPA model (see Section 2. and M = 16.5I2 2 0. 2 0. the CE-OFDM systems operate with IBO = 0 dB. 2.5I1 2 1. for the large modulation index example 2πh = 1. 3 0.12. This property is demonstrated in Figure 6.30) contribute. the performance of constant envelope OFDM is compared to conventional OFDM in the presence of power amplifier nonlinearities.25I1 I2 .75I1 I2 6 – – 3 0. 2πh = 2.

11: Single path versus multipath.0 respectively) which results in spectral broadening.9 CEOFDM system. Even so. which. Roughly speaking. the OFDM system performs better than the CE-OFDM system. Eb /N0 (dB) 45 50 Figure 6.119 100 Multipath Single path 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 2πh 1. The M = 8 and M = 16 systems have spectral efficiencies of 1.001 the CE-OFDM systems outperform the OFDM system by at least 10 dB. N = 64. the spectral efficiency of the QPSK/OFDM system is 2 b/s/Hz.0 and 2πh = 3. The results in Figure 6. is about the same as the M = 4. Over the region 0 dB it should be noted that the M = 8 and M = 16 CE-OFDM systems shown have large modulation index values (2πh = 2. (M = 4. At this bit error rate.3). the OFDM system has essentially the same performance with backoff levels of 6 and 10 dB. Also. At the bit error rate 0. according to (4. IBO = 6 dB is preferred since the performance is the same but the power efficiency is higher (see Figure 2. Channel C f . Making a direct comparison between CE-OFDM and conventional OFDM is difficult ≤ Eb /N0 ≤ 10 dB.14). Notice that the OFDM system with IBO = 0 dB results in an irreducible error floor just below the bit error rate 0.70). .3 b/s/Hz.12 also highlight the poor performance of CE-OFDM at low SNR due to the threshold effect (as studied in Section 4. therefore.1. MMSE) the frequency diversity inherent to the channel.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit.5 and 1.1. respectively. the 6 dB backoff required by the OFDM system is still far less desirable as the 0 dB backoff used by the CE-OFDM system. 2πh = 0.1 0.

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

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

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

Also. considering different equalization techniques.123 For example. using CPM with a cyclic prefix is an interesting idea. The goal of the prototype is to offer a second low-power mode for the existing JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System) wideband component which uses OFDM. Such research will help provide insight into good designs for future wireless digital communication systems that require power efficiency and high data rates. Research challenges that remain include evaluating CE-OFDM with many subcarriers (in this thesis. . a channel characterized by a two-path model with a weak secondary path. CPM systems in the other hand require high quality coherent channels. However. developing synchronization schemes and studying the impact of channel coding and the effects of time-varying channels. 574]. OH). CE-OFDM might provide acceptable performance without equalization. 463. A study is needed to compare these modulation techniques to CE-OFDM taking into account the effects of the PA at various backoff levels. spectral efficiency. only 64 subcarriers are used). Additional future work includes comparing CE-OFDM with other block modulation technique in terms of PAPR. most single carrier modulations have a non-constant envelope due to pulse shaping and multilevel QAM symbol constellations. In the near term a CE-OFDM prototype is being developed by Nova Engineering (Cincinnati. performance and complexity. 460. This work is being funded by the United States Office of Naval Research under an STTR (small business technology transfer) initiative with UCSD being the university partner. power amplifier efficiency. Comparing the complexity and spectral efficiency of such a technique with CE-OFDM would be interesting. There has been an increasing amount of attention given to conventional single carrier modulation with the addition of a cyclic prefix which allows for frequencydomain equalization [107. 154.

{X k }N −1 are the data symbols and TB is the k=0 sequence. 124 (A. X1 . . This can be done by taking a DFT of a conjugate symmetric vector.2) which is the inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) of the vector X = [X0 . The spectral efficiency of the real-valued OFDM signal is the same as the spectral efficiency of the complex-valued OFDM signal. 0 ≤ t < TB . XN −1 ].1 Signal Description The baseband OFDM signal is typically written as N −1 x(t) = k=0 Xk ej2πkt/TB .3) . . . (A. . i = 0. Sampling x(t) at N equally spaced intervals over 0 ≤ t < T B yields the N −1 x[i] = x(t)|t=iTB /N = k=0 Xk ej2πki/N . a real-valued OFDM signal is required. 1.1) where N is the number of subcarriers. block period. . (A. A. .Appendix A Generating Real-Valued OFDM Signals with the Discrete Fourier Transform For some applications. . N − 1. .

. N − 1. But since ej2π(N/2+k)i/N = ej2π(N/2+k)i/N e−j2πN i/N = ej2π(−N/2+k)i/N = e−j2π(N/2−k)i/N .6) = i = 0. . 1. N/2−1 x[i] = 2 k=1 {Xk } cos(2πki/N ) − {Xk } sin(2πki/N ). =2   k=1 (A. N − 1.125 The sequence is complex-valued in general. . . (A. . k=1 (A.9) And since {AB} = {A} {B} − {A} {B}. .6) can be written as N/2−1 (A. 1. .4) and X0 = XN/2 = 0.5) x[i] = k=1 Xk ej2πki/N N/2−1 = k=1 N/2−1 XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N + XN/2+k ej2π(N/2+k)i/N ∗ XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N + XN/2−k ej2π(N/2+k)i/N . However it can be made real-valued by making X conjugate symmetric: ∗ XN/2+k = XN/2−k (A.7) x[i] = k=1 ∗ XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N + XN/2−k e−j2π(N/2−k)i/N . . . (A. The IDFT is then N −1 (A.   N/2−1  XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N x[i] = 2   k=1   N/2−1  Xk ej2πki/N . 1. .8) i = 0. N − 1.10) . . (A. . Using the identity A + A ∗ = 2 {A}. i = 0.

. . x[i] is real. (N/2) − 1. therefore the spectral efficiency is S1 = Bits per second (b/s) N log2 M/TB = log2 M b/s/Hz. mod- . N − 1. processing M 2 -QAM data with the IDFT. . . [(N/2) − 1]/TB Hz.126 i = 0.12) In other words. ±(M − 1)}. The effective bandwidth of assumed to be selected from a M -ary constellation). 2/TB . modulate cosine subcarriers centered at ulate sine subcarriers at the same frequencies. k = 1. . centered at a carrier frequency fc Hz. . . . . x(t) is shifted to the right by f c Hz. = Bandwidth (Hz) N/TB (A.11) has the same spectral efficiency as the complex-valued signal. . The transmitted signal is represented as s1 (t) = x(t)ej2πfc t . 1/TB . (A. 2. Passing the sequence through a D/A converter yields the continuous-time real-valued OFDM signal: N/2−1 x(t) = 2 k=1 {Xk } cos(2πkt/TB ) − {Xk } sin(2πkt/TB ). . .11) is a real-valued M -PAM OFDM signal. for all k.2 Spectral Efficiency Complex-valued baseband signals are transmitted as bandpass signals. (A. . . they are The real-valued OFDM signal in (A. Xk = {Xk } + j {Xk }. {Xk } ∈ {±1. k = 1. suppose the data symbols are derived from a M 2 -QAM (quadrature-amplitude modulation) constellation.13) (A. The effective bandwidth of the signal is {Xk }. fc + (N − 1)/TB Hz. fc + 1/TB . the real and imaginary components are derived from M -PAM (pulseamplitude modulation) constellations. (N/2) − 1. . A. so long as it is transmitted at baseband. . (A. 2. . Transmitting the {Xk }. . that is. Each data symbol represents log 2 M bits (i. Therefore. Thus. and likewise. where {Xk }. This is the case for the complex-valued signal in (A. .e. and the subcarriers are centered at fc . ±3. fc + 2/TB .14) In the frequency domain.11) Now. . 1. (A.1).15) the signal is therefore N/TB Hz. signal as-is..

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

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

[9. 552]. OFDM is being applied to indoor wireless local area networks under the IEEE 802. Now. contributed to this work. phase noise. and other miscellaneous papers that have. Channel estimation and synchronization techniques are of interest. 264. 95–97. continuous phase modulation. In terms of digital broadcasting. 604]. task. And as mentioned in Chapter 1. computer simulation techniques. Kalet and Zervos compare OFDM to single carrier with decision feedback equalization [248. Conducting a 100% thorough literature review in this field. OFDM is widely deployed for this consumer electronics application. is a formidable. M. In the US. The bibliography of this thesis does provide a somewhat current snapshot of the OFDM literature. Cioffi et al. Also included in the bibliography are papers dealing with general digital communications. The acceptance of OFDM into xDSL standards was lead primarily by Stanford University’s J.11 and the ETSI HYPERLAN/2 standards [552]. over the course of a PhD. carrier frequency offsets. so a detail discussion of it here would be overly ambitious. along with techniques to address the PAPR problem. cellular systems. OFDM is being developed for ultra-wideband systems. in some way. 160. wireless metropolitan area networks.129 to mobile systems. 446]. 61. OFDM is being used for IBOC broadcasting [221. 614]. and for power line communication [119. if impossible. The major focus in the OFDM literature includes OFDM’s sensitivity to Doppler. FM analog communications. . 105. Some statistics of the current author’s attempt are displayed below. power amplifiers. In the late 80’s and early 90’s OFDM received wide interest for the applications of DSL and for wireless digital broadcasting. and nonlinearities. Literature Survey Statistics The OFDM literature is immense. Active OFDM research continues. 392]. 477. OFDM has been accepted for the European DAB and DVB standards [162.

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

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

4 shows a histogram of the filed papers’ publication year. according to Figure B. Figure B. Say 350 papers are read per year (which. leaving the remaining 250 papers to be from the past. 50 papers per year from 1960–1980. assume that 100 are current-year. One unknown is the true papers-ofinterest count. isn’t entirely unreasonable). of which roughly 3700 have yet to be filed.132 8 Papers read per day (log scale) 4 2 1 Oct 2004 Jan 2005 Running average Apr 2005 Jul 2005 Daily points Oct 2005 Figure B. It would therefore take 3700/250 = 14.5. . A simple model might be: 20 papers per year from 1920–1960. Of these 350 papers. A histogram of this projected goal in relation to the current progress is shown in Figure B.8 years to “kill the pile”. 4300 papers are of interest.3. According to the model. and 100 papers per year from 1980 to present.3 shows the running average of papers read per day.3: Running average of papers read per day. and Figure B.

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

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

taumax=9e-6. Ndft=512. 1 1 0. 0 1 0. 1 0 1. Fsa=J*N/TB. 1 0 0 0]. % bit mapping 0 0 0. % bit mapping 0 0. 1 1 1 0. % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % index offset signal amplitude modulation order modulation index number of subcarriers block time oversampling factor sampling rate sampling period guard time frame time samples per guard interval samples per symbol samples per frame processing indices DFT size (for equalizer) maximum delay spread of channel (sec) number of channel taps number of received samples blocks/channel realization (vectorize) %% Bit and symbol mappings (depends on modulation order) if M==2 SymMap=[-1. 0 0 1 1. 0 1 0 1. 0 1 1 1. end varI=sum(SymMap. 0 1. N=64. NF=TF*Fsa. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[... .1].. Nr=Nc+NF-1.. % bit mapping end if M==4 SymMap=[-3. 1]. Ng=Tg*Fsa.^2)/M. 1 0 1 1. M=4. . modh=1. Nc=taumax*Fsa. 1 1. Tg=10e-6. NB=TB*Fsa.. end if M==8 SymMap=[-7:2:7]’. % variance of data .. % bit mapping 0 0 0 0. TB=128e-6. TF=Tg+TB. 1 1 1 1. 1 0 0].. A=1. 1 0]. 0 0 1 0. end if M==16 SymMap=(-15:2:15)’. 1 0 1 0.0/(2*pi).1.. 0 1 0 0. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[0. 0 0 0 1.3]. L=8. J=8. 1 1 1. 1 1 0 0.135 io=1.-1. 1 0 0 1. 1 1 0 1. 0 0 1.. 0 1 1. 0 1 1 0. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[.. ip=[Ng:NF-1]+io. Tsa=1/Fsa. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[.

% time vector p=1/tauRms*exp(-t/2e-6). % desired. % initialize for i=1:Mf % compute coefficients if n1(i)==((Mf-1)/2) h1(i)=wc/pi. % delay n2=(d+1):(d+NB). sines and cosines W(:. % windowed filter coefficients %% Channel delay power spectral density (exponential) t=[0:Nc-1]’*Tsa. % initialize BER vector EbN0_dB=0. end %% Design FIR filter: improves performance of phase demodulator %% See Proakis’s DSP text for design details Mf=11.Mf). % normalizing constant %% Subcarrier matrix t=0:Tsa:(TB-Tsa). % normalized cutoff frequency (rad/samp) h1=zeros(1. % initialize unitary matrix for k=1:N/2 % W is a set of orth. % filter sample index d=(Mf-1)/2.*w1.. (Error_num<=Error_min & Trans_num<=Trans_max) . % filter length n1=0:(Mf-1). % delay PDS % ------. % normalized cutoff frequency (cyc/samp) wc=2*pi*fc. else h1(i)=sin(wc*(n1(i)-(Mf-1)/2))/(pi*(n1(i)-(Mf-1)/2)). delayed indices fc=0. % initialize while Trans_num<=Trans_min | . % time vector W=zeros(NB. % Hamming window hf=h1. % SNR step size iSNR=1.54-0.. Trans_num=0. end for k=(N/2+1):N W(:. % initialize SNR vector dx=2.5.136 CN=sqrt(2/(N*varI)).Simulation ----------------------------------------------BER=0.k)=cos(2*pi*k*t/TB)’.N). % SNR counter go=1.k)=sin(2*pi*(k-N/2)*t/TB)’. end end w1=0.46*cos(2*pi*n1/(Mf-1)). % initialize loop while go % run until max SNR condition Error_num=0.2.

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

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

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

0 set style line 3 lt 1 lw 1 pt 7 ps 1. set xlabel ’[t]{Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit.0 set style line 11 lt 3 lw 1 pt 9 ps 1.\ "results/AWGN" t ’AWGN’ w l ls 6.\ "results/ZF/ChB/" t ’B’ w lp ls 22.5e-1 output "p_ber" # Define line styles.\ "results/flat" t ’Rayleigh.5 height 1 box lw 0.4.140 set set set set set set ticscale 0. plot.\ "results/ZF/ChA/" t ’ZF: Channel A’ w lp ls 11.0 set style line 33 lt 3 lw 1 pt 7 ps 1.0 set style line 4 lt 1 lw 1 pt 8 ps 1.1 41.\ "results/ZF/ChC/" t ’C’ w lp ls 33.5 grid size 1. set style line 1 lt 1 lw 1 pt 9 ps 1.0.1.\ "results/MMSE/ChD" t ’D’ w lp ls 4.\ $\mathcal{E}_\text{b}/N_0$ (dB)}’ set ylabel ’Bit error rate’ # Now.\ "results/approx" t ’AWGN approx \eqref{eqn:approx}’ w l ls 7 .4 key width -23.5 border 31 linewidth 0.\ "results/MMSE/ChB" t ’B’ w lp ls 2.1.0 set style line 22 lt 3 lw 1 pt 6 ps 1. (The data files are in a make-believe # directory called ‘results’ plot [5:44][1e-4:2e-1]\ "results/MMSE/ChA" t ’MMSE: Channel A’ w lp ls 1.0 set style line 44 lt 3 lw 1 pt 8 ps 1.\ "results/ZF/ChD/" t ’D’ w lp ls 44.0 set style line 5 lt 1 lw 3 set style line 6 lt 5 lw 3 set style line 7 lt 5 lw 1 # Define labels.0 set style line 2 lt 1 lw 1 pt 6 ps 1.\ "results/MMSE/ChC" t ’C’ w lp ls 3. $\mathcal{L}=1$’ w l ls 5.

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

000.000 s) .142 kHz LAN LMMSE LMS LOS M -PSK M -PAM M -QAM MAN Mb/s Msamp MHz ML OFDM P/S PA PAM PAPR PLC PSK QAM QPSK RLS RMS s S/P samp SC-FDE SER SDR SNR SSPA STTR SVD TWTA UWB W WSSUS µs kilohertz (1 thousand cycles/s) local area network linear minimum mean-squared error least-mean-square line-of-signal M -ary phase-shift keying M -ary pulse-amplitude modulation M -ary quadrature-amplitude modulation metropolitan area network megabits per second (1 million b/s) megasample (1 million samples) megahertz (1 million cycles/s) maximum-likelihood orthogonal frequency division multiplexing parallel-to-serial conversion power amplifier pulse-amplitude modulation peak-to-average power ratio power line communication phase-shift keying quadrature-amplitude modulation quadrature phase-shift keying recursive least-square root-mean-square second serial-to-parallel conversion sample single carrier frequency-domain equalizer symbol error rate software defined radio signal-to-noise ratio solid-state power amplifier small business technology transfer singular value decomposition traveling-wave tube amplifier ultra-wideband Watts wide-sense stationary uncorrelated scattering microsecond (1/1.

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

infinity definite integral indefinite integral multiple product multiple sum factorial x approaches a x convolved with y absolute value complex conjugate ceiling function floor function equal equal by definition not equal approximately equal less than or equal to greater than or equal to strictly less than strictly greater than much less than much greater than Power Amplifier Amax Asat g0 G(·) p αφ . .144 x(t) x[i] δ(·) π ∞ b a (·)dx (·)dx N n=1 N n=1 n! x→a x∗y |·| (·)∗ · · = ≡ = ≈ ≤ ≥ < > x as a function of t discrete-time samples of x at the ith index delta function 3.14159265358979. β φ ηA K Φ(·) maximum input level input saturation level gain AM/AM conversions sharpness parameter for the SSPA model AM/PM parameters for the TWTA model efficiency of Class-A power amplifier backoff ratio AM/PM conversions . .

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

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

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

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

Andreoli. Banelli. “Advances in Constant Envelope Coded Modulation.” IEEE Trans. 1880–1889. Anderson and J. Commun. no. 1997. M. vol. Rydbeck. “Adjacent Channel and Cochannel Interferences in CPFSK Systems with Nonlinear Transmitters and Limiter-Discriminator Detection. 52. “A General Method for Calculating Error Probabilities Over Fading Channels. and N. G.” IEEE J. Mag. no.” IEEE Trans. 39. . Bhargava. pp. T. and V.. 381–384. Berlin. pp. 3.” IEEE Commun. Tech. 3. Select. com-33. vol. vol. “On the Spectral Efficiency of CPM Systems over Real Channel in the Presence of Adjacent Channel and Cochannel Interference: A Comparison Between Partial and Full Response Systems. Immovilli. no. Ardakani. McClure. W. May 2002.. Esmailian. Andrisano and N. Mar. 1165–1189. vol. “On the Availability of Multilevel CPFSK Systems with Modulation Pulse Shaping During Multipath Propagation. pp. B. vol.. [22] A. 1451–1458. no.” IEEE Trans. 37. Sept. [18] S. and P.. pp.-E. Kschischang. 5.. 1985. vol. 44. T.149 [11] S. 1. Mar. no. “Power-Bandwidth Performance of Smoothed Phase Modulation Codes. W. Nov. 1976. “Pulse and Spectrum Manipulation in the Minimum (Frequency) Shift Keying (MSK) Format. pp.” IEEE Trans. vol. R. Salz. B. Areas Commun. May 1990. Sundberg. 36–45. Dec. May 2005. 294–303. pp. pp.” in Proc. 1998. Anderson. 29. 89–100. 36... Sundberg. K. Commun. Aulin. Commun. Tellambura. Amoroso. Oct. Aulin. [17] R.” Bell Syst. J. 2004. R. pp. New [15] J. Anderson. vol. Padua. 16. Broadcast. 5. Alm´si and D. 12–19. Annamalai.-E. [19] O. vol.” IEEE Trans. Alamouti. no. May 1988. 975–985. G. vol. 544–552. no. pp.. no. Technol. 841–852. [21] O. Commun. [23] M. vol. Commun. “MaJIC: Compiling MATLAB for Speed and a Responsiveness. “Digital Linearizer for RF Amplifiers. C. Sundberg. 1981. [16] J. 5. and F. “Near-Capacity Coding in Multicarrier Modulation Systems. 1986. Anderson and C. Commun. 43.-E. Digital Phase Modulation. Veh. [14] J. T. “A Simple Transmit Diversity Technique for Wireless Communications. AMC SIGPLAN Conf. pp. no. 1991. [20] ——. York: Plenum Press.” IEEE Trans. [12] G. Mar. 9. “Spectra of Digital FM. and C. 2. 1965. 8. com-24.” IEEE Trans. Andrisano. pp.. Corazza. Ladisa. 11. 53. and G.. pp. R. H... 187–195. July–Aug. [13] F. no. C.” IEEE Trans.

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

May 1988. P. Midwest Symp. [42] P. 9. and J. Barbieri. 1996. 2. Multi-Carrier Digital Communications: Theory and Applications of OFDM. [48] R. [38] A. [45] S. 5. “Effects of HPA Non Linearity on Frequency Multiplexed OFDM Signals.. Saltzberg. Barbarossa and R. 3. 20. 5. vol. [49] N. (Shitz). [39] A.” IEE Electr.. B. 367–368. pp. pp. . no.” IEEE Commun. 1995. 14. Sept. vol. vol. Sys. W. Banelli. vol. [41] P. R. 2. 47. 430–441.” IEEE Trans. Lett. and S. “Nonlinear Models of TWT Revisited for OFDM Systems. vol. Commun. 34.. Vangelista. June 2002. and M. Singh. and B. W. Broadcast. Banelli and S. Banelli. Beaulieu. Wireless Commun. Salt Lake City. no. Torti. Nov. Baum and K.” IEEE J.. pp. 52. “Theoretical Analysis and Performance of OFDM Signals in Nonlinear Fading Channels. 9. 2004. vol. Inform. 32. S. H. 522–525. “On Information Transfer by Envelope-Constrained Signals over the AWGN Channel. “Reducing the peak-to-average a power ratio of multicarrier modulation by selected mapping. 1. C. 1477–1479. Goldsmith. no. 2377–2380. Cacopardi. pp. “Pulse Shaping for Wireless Communication Over Time.” IEEE Trans. C. “A Multicarrier Transmission Scheme for Wireless Local Communications. “Theoretical Analysis and Performance of OFDM Signals in Nonlinear AWGN Channels. C. New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers. vol. no. Theory. [44] ——. 4.. Circ. Commun. F.” in Proc. Bahai. “On the Rice Model of Noise in FM Receiver. 371–379. no. vol. [40] P. [46] A. no. S. no. Damen. J. 1406–1419. G. “A “Better Than” Nyquist Pulse. June 2001. Aug. pp. Saltzberg. B¨uml. 2003. M. no. Areas Commun. Inform. pp. 3. “Chirped-OFDM For Transmissions over Time-Varying Channels with Linear Delay/Doppler Spreading. pp. 2001. R. pp.” IEEE Trans. Cariolaro. no. 3. pp. vol. Apr. Theory. Areas Commun. Select. S. no.” IEEE Trans. May 2001. Fischer. Lett. Conner. vol.” IEEE Trans.or Frequency-Selective Channels. [47] C. R. 2000. 284–293.. pp. Mar.” in Proc. Baruffa. 2056–2057. Tan.” IEEE J. pp. 1988.. pp. 6. [43] I. 1996. G. 123–136. Bar-David and S. Select. Bahai and B. 1037–1046. 521–529. Huber. 2. R. 34.151 [37] ——. 48. R. IEEE ICASSP. Oct. “A New Approach for Evaluating Clipping Distortion in Multicarrier Systems. vol... 1999. and L. vol. A. Cacopardi. 22. Mar.” IEEE Trans. Sept. O.

1988. C. 42–51. 1990. Benedetto and P. Chouly. May 1990. Berberidis and J.” IEEE J. 5–14. Select. pp. P. “Analysis and Compensation of Nonlinearities in Digital Transmission Systems. 1018–1022. vol. Theory. no.. pp.” IEEE Commun.. Catena. Loubaton. vol. [61] J. no. Amea. “Multicarrier Modulation for Data Transmission: An Idea Whose Time Has Come. vol. 620–625. San Francisco. Mar. Areas Commun. and F.” IEEE Trans.-G.” IEEE Trans. [57] E. 1995.” in Proc.” IEE Electr. 11. 5. Biglieri and M. S. Jan. 1909–1914.. [56] P. 947–955. “On the Comparison Between OFDM and Single Carrier Modulation With a DFE Using a Frequency-Domain Feedforward Filter. Bilgekul and H.” IEEE Trans. 1965. Bianchi. Biglieri. Commun. IEEE Globecom. Inform.. [63] A. 22.. [53] M. vol. Boyd. 1986. 35. pp.” IEEE Trans... no. 32. Select. Nov. 1. [52] P. vol. 6. 38. vol. A. [62] S. “The Effect of Frequency Selective Fading on Intermodulation Distortion and Subcarrier Phase Stability in Frequency Modulation Systems. D. 3. Biglieri. June 2002. Oct. M. Benvenuto and S. 1996. Dec. Lopresti. vol. “Selective Fading Limitations of the Kathryn Modem and Some System Design Considerations. Tomasin. pp.. pp. Commun. vol. Brajal and A.” IEEE Trans. 10. 267–269. “Multitone Signals with Low Crest Factor. 3. no. no. “A Frequency-Domain Decision Feedback Equalizer for Multipath Echo Cancellation. no. [51] ——. [59] E. . pp. 1. 320–333. no. 3. and L. “A Simple Derivation of the Power Spectrum of Full-Response CPM and Some of its Properties. 2051–2053. 50. Bingham. Commun. pp. IEEE Globecom. May 1989. pp. “On the Blind Estimation of the Parameters of Continuous Phase Modulated Signals. Bello. Palicot. A. 360–393. D. pp. Elia. Sirven. “The Optimal Linear Receiving Filter for Digital Transmission Over Nonlinear Channels. 1417–1420. 6. [55] K.” IEEE J. 1964. pp. Mar. pp. Mag. “Characterization of Randomly Time-Variant Linear Channels. “An Application of MMSE Predistortion to OFDM System. pp. Circuits Syst. 98–102. Visintin. Nov. pp. no. [54] N. May 2005. Commun. and M. 1996.” in Proc.” IEEE Trans... Nov. Sept.152 [50] P. 23. Commun. “Compensation of nonlinear distortions for orthogonal multicarrier schemes using predistortion. vol. Singapore.” IEEE Trans. Areas Commun. Mandarini. A. 944–962.” IEEE Trans. 33. vol. 44. “Multicarrier transmission using quadrature frequency/phase modulation. Bello and B. [60] H. 1963. Barberis. Nelin. 87–101. Oct.. 1994. [58] E. pp. Commun. Lett.

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

4. 5. IEEE Globecom. pp. 2. 7. 1775–1796. cheol Lee.” IEEE Commun. Oct. San Francisco. Ottawa.” Bell Syst. 3080–3084.-M. Gibby. jin Kang. Caswell. Cherubini. Chung. no. 2001. “A 20 Mbits/s OFDM Demodulator at 5 GHz: System Design. Chang and Y. Jones. [88] H. Chang and R. filed Nov. 1295–1299. 607–610. [84] R. H. Dec. 721–732. no. “Synthesis of band-limited orthogonal signals for multichannel data transmission. J. 5. Chang. Chen and A. 1996. 4. [85] S. 45. vol. “Performance Analysis of Viterbi Decoder Using Channel State Information in COFDM System..” IEE Electr. vol. O. vol. [87] H. vol. IEEE VTC.445. 2002. A. 1966. [89] W. Ol¸er. pp. “A Compensation Scheme for Nonlinear Distortion in OFDM Systems. July 2003. “An Orthogonal Projection-Based Approach for PAR Reduction in OFDM.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc. Cendrillion and M. no. Park. 488–496. K. no. 736–740.” in Proc. bae Kim.488. Castle and A. 5. [81] M. vol. 14. vol. [79] A. Commun. Chang and E. Oct. 1970. vol. Powers. pp. W. 32. Kuala Lumpur.. Su. Nov. May 1998. 2001.” IEEE Trans. [86] S.. J. June 2002. [82] R. 2. W. E. “Multicarrier transmission in a mobile radio channel. M.” in Proc. San Antonio. Implementation and Experimental Results. Tech. 529–540. 1. pp. Aug.” IEEE J. pp. 1966. Aug. “A Theoretical Study of Performance of an Orthogonal Multiplexing Data Transmission Scheme. . T. pp. pp. 1962–1963. 1968. pp. vol. no.-X. Wireless Commun. Areas Commun.. “Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. Moonen. [83] ——. issued Jan. pp. Powers. Technol. [80] R. “Filtered Multitone Modulation for Very High-Speed Digital Subscriber Lines.. “A Simplified Predistorter for Compensation of Nonlinear Distortion in OFDM Systems. May 2002. E.” IEEE Commun. 21. C. 6. “Iterative Estimation and Cancellation of Clipping Noise for OFDM Signals. 1016–1028. and J. vol. pp. 44. IEEE Globecom. 20. vol. Lett. ¨ c [90] C. Dec.. no. 169–171. “Performance Analysis of Equalized OFDM Systems in Rayleigh Fading. 7.. 4. Chang. vol. “Efficient Equalizers for Single and Multi-Carrier Environments with Known Symbol Padding. Lett. vol. J. 305–307.154 [78] R.” US patent 3. 1998.. Broadcast. and S. Eleftheriou. Pottie. Haimovich. Select. and K.” in Proc. no. pp. Nov. 2. Lett. pp.” IEEE Trans. com-16. 2000. 6. Chen and G. J. IEEE ISSPA.

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

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

“Peak-to-mean Power Control in OFDM. “Peak-to-mean power control and error correction for OFDM transmission using Golay sequences and Reed-Muller codes. and M. no. “Tamed Frequency Modulation. Sept. 6. Areas Commun. V. “Advanced Signal Processing for Power Line Communications.. Goldberg. 9. Select. Loubaton. no. 1755–1764. Oct. pp. Mengali.” IEE Electr. Nov. pp. 286–323.” IEEE Trans. V. Nov. vol. 8.. 2000. vol. B. J. no.. 1396–1408. [122] ——. Padua. 2397–2417. 2004. P. [119] H. Prog. de Veciana and A. no. 43.. A. Davis and J. 534–542. 52. May 2003. pp. “Techniques for the Translation of MATLAB Programs into Fortran 90. vol. Dai and H.157 [118] R. Commun. 40. no. no. De Rose and D. N. vol. pp. vol. no. [130] M. pp. 5. Zokhor. pp./Mar. Jedwab.. 1997. vol. 267–268. Theory. 44. “Frequency Detectors for CPM Signals. 33. Lang.” IEEE Trans. 10. 1470–1482.” IEEE Commun. Dekker.” IEEE Trans. [120] A. Debbah. 1828–1837. “Inherent Limitations in Data-Aided Time Synchronization of Continuous Phase-Modulation Signals Over Time-Selective Fading Channels. Reggiannini.” IEEE Trans. 50. and Reed-Muller Codes. [127] F. 1996. Commun. pp. 5. no. Feb. Aug. June 2002. V. “A Theoretical Characterization of Nonlinear Distortion Effects in OFDM Systems. A Novel Method to Achieve Spectrum Economy in Digital Transmission. May 1978. 1709–1721. and H. 837–843. 1992. pp. no. de Courville. 2. no. 1999. “RF Power Amplifier Linearization Through Amplitude and Phase Distortion. [125] J. 5. Golay Complementary Sequences. 100–107. “High-Speed Indoor Wireless Communications at 60 GHz with Coded OFDM.” IEEE Trans. Messer.” IEEE Trans. no. “Neural Net-Based Continuous Phase Modulation Receivers. de Jager and C. Nov.” IEEE Trans. Dabora. no. May 2001. 1477–1484. 41. Commun. 11. Mar.. 1444–1448. 48.” IEEE J. Lett.” IEEE Trans. “Asymptotic Performance of Successive Interference Cancellation in the Context of Linear Precoded OFDM Systems. 1999. vol. Lottici. [123] D. vol. 4..” IEEE Trans. and U. . [126] ——. 7. Inform. Commun.. 47. 49. vol. vol. 1995. pp. 2/3/4. Mag. Commun. Dardari and V.. 1999. pp. [121] A. Poor. [128] L. D’Andrea. [124] D. 21. and Syst. pp.. 11. N. vol. 26. pp. 45. vol./Apr. Signal Processing. Ginesi. Commun. “Nonlinear Predistortion of OFDM Signals over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels. vol. Dardari. Vaccari. D’Andrea.. pp. [129] G. Feb. A. Commun. no. Tralli.” ACM Trans. and R. Tralli. and A.

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

“Broadband Wireless Using Single Carrier and Frequency Domain Equalization. 20–31. Oct. A. Apr. K.” IEEE Trans. 47. Cox. pp. “A Multicarrier Architecture Based Upon the Affine Fourier Transform. Springer-Verlag New York. [148] ——. 37. vol. L.” IEEE Trans. Mar.. and B.” in Proc. pp. Elnoubi. Sadjadpour. 2003. Ariyavisitakul. Commun. Broadcast. vol. Mag. Clock and Timing Errors. Sharaf. Erseghe. II–200—II–203. Laurenti. Commun. Technol. pp. pp. D. no. 1996. Mar. pp. Benyamin-Seeyar. [152] T. [155] B. 2641–2645. and L. pp. 5. “Predetection Filtering Effect on the Probability of Error of GMSK with Discriminator Detection in Mobile Radio Channels. vol. [147] M. pp.” IEEE Commun. 88–94. no.” IEEE Trans.” in The 2002 45th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems. M. pp. S. and H. June 1988. Eetvelt. 2001. 21. vol. and H. Leuschel. Broadcast.” IEEE Commun. El-Tanany. 1. “Application of Capacity-Approaching Coding techniques to Digital Subscriber Lines. 104–107. “ARCTAN Differentiated Digital Demodulator for FM/FSK Digital Receivers. S. 2002. Apr. 27–36. Inc. M. ¨ c [149] E. 2. no. Veh. 344–363. IEEE Symp. [156] C. Oct. no. [154] D. 2.159 [145] P. W. 3–19. Falconer and S. 47. pp.” IEEE Trans.” IEE Electr. 1. vol. Syst. 554–562. Mar. Commun. “OFDM Uplink for Interactive Broadband Wireless: Analysis and Simulation in the Presence of Carrier. “Design Methods for Time-Domain Equalizers in DMT Transceivers. 3. 2004. “Analytical Modeling and Simulation of a Phase Noise Interference in OFDM-Based Digital Television Terrestrial Broadcasting Systems. “Partial evaluation of matlab. 2001.. Tomlinson.. vol. Farrow. G.. 58–66. IEEE Wireless Pers. Eleftheriou. vol. Y. and S. no. [153] D. Wade. Finland. 853–862. Ragaie. Ding.” in GPCE ’03: Proceedings of the second international conference on Generative programming and component engineering. vol. [151] D. Multi. Elphick... Eidson. Espoo. Wu. 3. . [146] H. 2001. Aug.” IEEE Trans. V.. Cellini. 53. [150] S. Ariyavisitakul. L. “Frequency Domain Equalization for Single-Carrier Broadband Wireless Systems. 1963–1964. Eissa. pp. May 2005... S. H´zy.. 1. Ol¸er. vol. Circuits. “Peak to average power reduction for OFDM schemes by selective scrambling. 32. and M. 2002.” in Proc. N. no. “A Continuously Variable Digital Delay Element. and V. pp. Lett. pp. Farhang-Boroujeny and M. 2002. May 1988. Mag. M. 49.. Falconer.

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

F. 1049–1050.. [183] J. vol. 1991. IEEE Globecom. 12. p. [180] I. Kleider. pp. IEEE Milcom. no. pp. no.” IEEE Commun. Swami. P´ez-Barrello. “Phaselock Loop Cycle Slipping Caused by Excessive Angle Modulation. 2. 44.. 8. vol.. no. 1989.” IEEE J.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Trans. vol. pp. Nov. A. Sydney. Circuits Syst. 2. “A Model of Intermodulation Distortion in Non-Linear Multicarrier Systems.” IEE Electr. no. 1. “Bit Error Rate Performance and Power Spectral Density of a Noncoherent Hybrid Frequency-Phase Modulation System. 1994. “On “The Optimal Linear Receiving Filter for Digital Transmission Over Nonlinear Channels”. [181] M. F. Inform. Cyclostationarity in Communications and Signal Processing. M. no. J. [178] W. Feb. 2002. Gifford. no. Inform. vol. 2002. Ed. D. 343–345. vol. [182] M. 219.” IEEE Trans. II. vol. no. 3. . pp. Garcia. 6. 1. Lett. and S. Gibson. 10. Apr. Feb. 37. Gardner. “On the degradation of OFDM-signals due to peak-clipping in optimally predistorted power amplifiers.” IEEE Trans. Areas Commun. 46. pp. [177] F. 42. [173] ——. Macmillan. Gardner and J.-G.” in Proc. 1978. June 2000. Ghosh. 8. 1994. 276–284.” in Proc. pp. 621–630. pp. “Blind Frequency-Offset Estimator for OFDM Systems Transmitting Constant-Modulus Symbols. 42. “Analysis of the Effect of Impulse Noise on Multicarrier and Single Carrier QAM Systems. M. 7. 13. Aug. Commun. 36. 1216–1222.161 [172] ——. “Pilot patters for channel a estimation in OFDM. Frigo. J. vol. Gardner. Oct. 1998. 1307–1309. no. vol. Jan. and J. vol. A. Ghareeb. 1995. Oct.. Commun. Principles of Digital and Analog Communications. no.” IEEE Trans. pp. vol. 2000. Commun. Chuprun. 591–595.. [175] I. [179] W. vol. Zazo. Aug. “On the Achievable Information Rate with Peak-Power-Limited Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing. New York: IEEE. Theory. Heck. J. S.. Nov. Galton. 145–147. Ghogho and A. com-26. Theory. Select. 1995. 2. [174] N. “Analog-Input Digital Phase-Locked Loops for Precise Frequency and Phase Demodulation. pp. pp. 939–944. Lett. 2579–2587.” IEEE Trans.. “OFDM Transmitter Power Amplifier and PAR Reduction Performance: Measurement and Simulation. 1996. New York: [184] S. [176] M.

and A. [Online]. no. 631–635. Commun. “Coded Modulation with Non-Standard Signal Sets for Wireless OFDM Systems. vol. Concei¸ao. J. Lyandres. Goeckel. no. Kleider. Mittelbach.. 51. pp. [188] GNU Octave. Gifford. Picart. 2. . 2001. IEEE ICC. Milstein./Mar. Veeneman. 1729–1733. and S. Gimlin and C..” IEEE Trans. Chuprun. R..gnuplot. May 2000. “SNR and Spectral Properties for a Clipped DMT ADSL Signal. D. May 1998.org/ [189] Gnuplot. 843–847.. [187] A. no. vol. [186] D. “On Minimizing the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of the Sum of N Sinusoids. [198] E.” IEEE Trans. Commun. IEEE ICC. vol. Wulich. pp. 791–795. Dinis. Oct. IEEE Milcom.. J. 134–136. 2. 41./Apr. 42. Lett. van Nee. 1993. 1994. vol. June 1999. R. Haas and S. 2. Addison-Wesley. “Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing with BFSK Modulation in Frequency Selective Rayleigh and Rician Fading Channels. vol. 180–184. 50. 51. “Two-Dimensional Differential Demodulation for OFDM. Kaiser. Esteves. A [192] M.” IEEE Trans. 2. vol. Esteves. Grant and R.” in Proc. [195] N. Gusm˜o. 1029–1033. Gusm˜o. Nov. no. “Minimum BER Power Loading for OFDM in Fading Channel. vol. vol. J. The L TEXCompanion.” IEEE Trans. IEEE ICC. pp. Vancouver. 2/3/4. 7. 1300–1305. 1919–1928. and N. “Efficient Maximum-Likelihood Decoding of Q-ary Modulated Reed–Muller Codes. 1. Guo and L. Tokyo. “Broadband OFDM Using 16-bit Precision on a SDR Platform. Apr.” in Proc. Patisaul. 5. [197] A. and N.” in Proc. pp. BC Canada. [Online]. New Orleans. no. pp. Feb.” in Proc. R. 580–586. Available: http://www. P. IEEE VTC. and D. pp. June 2000.” IEEE Commun. pp. [191] L. Goldfeld. 2. no. [194] R. pp. 2002. vol. pp. E. Cochet. Commun. Dinis.162 [185] S. R. and A. Apr. Goossens. Commun.” in Proc. [196] A. 11. pp. Samarin. Commun. May 1994. “The Impact of Nonlinear Amplification of Multi-Code CDMA Systems. Gross and D.info/ [190] D. 2. 2003. 1034–1038. Available: http://www. V. F. L. Y. B. 1994.. “Comparison of Two a c˜ Modulation Choices for Broadband Wireless Communications. 4. vol. Glavieux.octave. vol. “On Frequency Domain Equalization and a Diversity Combining for Broadband Wireless Communications. pp. July 2003. Boston: [193] A. New Orleans.” IEEE Trans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Rohrs. 23. 1354–1355. 1999.” IEEE Trans. Mazo and J. 1662–1672. vol.. Dec.” in Proc. T.. P. 15. Ottawa. and T. 4.” IEEE Trans. no.” in Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Domain-Specific Languages. 53–65.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc. no. no. J.. Salz. no.. pp. pp. June 2001. pp. 9. 29. 5. “Impulse Response Shortening for Discrete Multitone Transceivers. pp. R. 1. Melsa. Martone. Theory. Broadcast. Feb. [327] E. no. 911–918. [334] P. 1088–1091. Morelli. vol. “Performance Analysis of Viterbi Decoding for 64-DAPSK and 64-QAM Modulated OFDM Signals. 182–190. Armada. [337] S. Rohling. “Spectral Properties of Single-Sideband Angle Modulation. vol. [332] J. pp. Younce. “A Case for Source-Level Transformations in MATLAB. 1998. Merch´n. H. pp. Dittmer.” IEEE Trans. and V. L. and B. no. Technol. [333] J. [Online]. Engels. G. 49. . 46. Commun. [326] T. 44. 418–419. Sept. no.” IEEE Trans. Spruyt.” IEEE Trans.. 3. J. Mengali and M. 1996. Theory. Commun. and C. Inform. pp.. 12. vol. “A Multicarrier System Based on the Fractional Fourier Transform for Time–Frequency-Selective Channels. 41. 1265–1275. 33. vol. Available: http://www. 1977.com/ [329] A. Nonlinearity. pp. [328] Mathematica. no. Commun. 1999. pp. “Reducing the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in OFDM Radio Transmission Systems. IEEE PIMRC. 2. Mattsson. G.. Mar. Mestdagh. Mendenhall. no. A. E. Feb. Inform. vol. 5. 1. [335] U. vol. no. Sept. Pingali. 16.172 [325] M. [330] T. Masry. May and H. 1998.wolfram.” IEE Electr. vol. M. vol. Menon and K. Commun. Wilkinson.” IEEE Trans. 52–62. “Digitally Phase Modulated (DPM) Signal. “Comparison of Computational Complexity of Adaptive Equalization and OFDM for Indoor Wireless Networks. 582–591. Rohling. [338] D. [336] V. [331] T. 45. “Decomposition of M -ary CPM Signals into PAM Waveforms. Broadcast. Commun. pp. Oct. 1985. P. Sept. Austin. July 1993.” IEEE Trans. “Distortionless Demodulation of Narrow-Band Single-Sideband Angle Modulated Signals. vol. E.” IEEE Trans. G. pp. A. May. W. 1995. Biran.. “Effect of Amplitude Clipping in DMT-ADSL Transceivers. “Comments on: “Reduction of peak-to-average power ratio of OFDM system using a companding technique”. 44. C. 1996. M. May 1998. 2774–2478. IEEE VTC. 3. Garc´ “OFDM Performance in Amplifier a ıa. 1968. E. Dec. 1011–1020. Maseng. and J. Lett. pp. pp. vol. vol. McDonnell and T. 106–114.

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

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

[372] A. Ochiai. “A Novel Trellis-Shaping Design With Both Peak and Average Power Reduction for OFDM Systems. Lidsheim. “Error Probabilities for Equicorrelated M -ary Signals Under Phase-Coherent and Phase-Incoherent Reception. vol. J. pp. 22. [369] Y. G. 1998.” IEEE Trans. [373] A. “Performance Analysis of Peak Power and Band-Limited OFDM System With Linear Scaling. 11. P. 1194–1200.. K. pp. [374] H. IEEE VTC. Lett. 1999.” IEEE Trans. vol. and R..” IEEE Trans. C.. [367] S. vol. K.” IRE Trans. vol. Grant.” in Conference Record of the Asilomar Conference on Signals. “Performance of Optimal and Suboptimal Detection for Uncoded OFDM System with Deliberate Clipping and Filtering. “Random Phase Updating Algorithm for OFDM Transmission With Low PAPR. Lett. H. Nikookar and K.” IEEE Trans. 1055–1065. [375] ——. 226–228. Noga and T. 9. Jamali. pp. and M. 899–903. “On the Performance of OFDM Systems Over a Cartesian Clipping Channel: A Theoretical Approach. 47.” in Proc. 2004. Consumer Electron.” in Proc. and H. 8. 1618–1622. 2003. Neugebauer. Nov. Sept. pp. 5.” IEEE Trans. Inform. Lett. “Analysis of PCC-OFDM Systems for General Time-Varying Channel.175 [366] R. Ford. Systems and Computers. Ready. vol. P.” IEEE Trans. 123–128. 48. [371] H. no. no. M. “Pilot Tone Selection for Channel Estimation in a Mobile OFDM System.. Oct. no. [370] H. pp. “Characterization of Multipath-Distorted and Frequency-Discriminated CPM Signals. vol. 2003.” IEEE Commun. H. [376] ——. CA. Wireless Commun. . 8. [378] H. pp. Theory. Ng. pp. [377] ——. Dubey. 394–396. 52. Aug. Stirling-Gallacher. no. July 1962. July 2000. no. 5. vol.” IEEE Commun.. [368] W. A. “A Discrete-Time Method of Demodulating Large Deviation FM Signals. Sarkar. Cioffi. 2002. pp. Nov. vol. Broadcast.. Imai. no. 6. 2047–2048. Commun. 3. Negi and J. “On Decoding of Block Codes with Peak-Power Reduction in OFDM Systems. 32. 44. June 2002. 819–822. IEEE Globecom. 3. pp. M. 2. Pacific Grove. Ochiai. no. Commun. no. vol. S.. vol. 2000. Nikopour and S. Ng and V. “Carrier tracking technique for OFDM signal transmission. pp. 2083–2096. 1916–1926. 305–314. pp.. 1996. Dec. pp. Nuttall.. “Power Efficiency Comparison of OFDM and Single-Carrier Signals. vol. 4.” IEE Electr. Aug. May 2005. Wireless Commun. 2. 7. T. 2004. H. vol. Fossorier. 2. 3. Sept. 1122–1128. no. 2. pp. vol.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mag. Inform. M. Commun. “Robust Frequency and Timing Synchronization for OFDM.. Schwartz. 2002. Fazel. Communication Systems and Techniques.” IEEE Trans. 1997. R.” IEEE Trans. Italy. pp. Tirrenia Int’l Workshop on Dig. Aug. vol. 12. vol.” IEEE Trans. 6. 2001. [472] M. [468] T. [470] K. 49.” IEE Electr. 328–339. 113–114. [469] ——.182 [462] ——. 1966. 8.” in Proc.” IEEE Trans. pp. [473] M. no. pp.” Journal of L TEXFiles. Dec. pp. vol. pp.” IEEE J. vol. 2002. Lett.” IEEE Commun. Stein. Sharif. 6.. “On Multicarrier Signals Where the PMEPR of a Random Codeword is Asymptotically log n. “Amplitude and Sign Adjustment for Peak-to-Average-Power Reduction. 31. iv–566–iv–569. 895–903. Sharif. May 2001. no. Commun. 1884–1888. 1.” IEEE Trans. 1–22. and B. 1993. IEEE ICASSP. “Probability of Error Calculation of OFDM Systems With Frequency Offset. vol. no. 313–315. M.. no. H... and S. no. vol. 45. Inform. 2002... 2. 72–78. [474] M. Areas Commun. H. 1970. Aug. vol.. Florens. Nov. Bennett. no. 1993. Theory. “Coding to Reduce Both PAR and PICR of an OFDM Signal. “Forward Error Correction Codes to Reduce Intercarrier Interference in OFDM. 11. Commun. McGraw-Hill. no. 316–318. “Blind synchronisation for OFDM. 2003. [467] ——. Aug. Tellambura. Theory. Hassibi. Khalaj. M. pp. Sydney. Cox. “Efficient Simulation of Multicarrier Digital Communication Systems in Nonlinear Channel Environments. pp. vol. Select. no. Sharif and B. Jan. vol.” IEEE Commun. Lett. Gharavi-Alkhansari. R. W. Lett. “Channel equalization and carrier synchronization in OFDM systems. Tirrenia. C. Apr.. [463] ——. 1997. 191–202. Jan. Schmidl and D. Sathananthan and C. “On the Peak-to-Average Power of OFDM Signals Based on Oversampling. A A [476] M. pp. 100–109. “Transmission Techniques for Digital Terrestrial TV Broadcasting. Nov. 4. 1243–1247. 85–89. pp. 5. 1613–1621. Shell. Feb. pp. [464] K. 3. 11.” IEEE Commun.” IEEE Trans. [465] ——. 8. pp. pp. 2005. “Synthesis of Low-Peak-Factor Signals and Binary Sequences With Low Autocorrelation. C. Commun. “Partial Transmit Sequence and Selected Mapping Schemes to Reduce ICI in OFDM Systems. Sept. 33. Tranter. vol. “How to Use the IEEEtran L TEXClass. no.. .” in Proc. no. 1995. May 2004. 53. W. [466] ——. 11. Jan. [471] M. 8. vol. Schneider and W. Hassibi. and B. Schroeder. [475] M. Commun. pp. pp. 1. 50.

3. “Rayleigh Fading Channels in Mobile Digital Communication System. 1993..183 [477] P.. “Efficient Data Detection Algorithms in o Signal. 1848–1851. K. W. iii–2737–iii–2740. Eevelt. Barton.” in Proc. Shi. 3. pp. K. [486] C. [481] T.-S.-H. no. Shepherd. no. S. J. vol. no.” IEEE Commun.” in Proc. IEEE VTC. Song and S. July 1997. Bar-David.” IEEE Commun. 3.” IEEE Trans. Shelswell. and S. vol. V.-S.” IEEE Trans.. May 2002. Simon and M. Lett. pp. and Y. Shanghai.. Jan. “Performance of Multicarrier MFSK in Fading Channels. Jan. Lett. 4. “Rayleigh Fading Channels in Mobile Digital Communication System. 90–98. vol. and S. 2001. Inc. (Shitz) and I. 42.-K. 623–627. Barton. pp. vol.” IEEE Trans. Yates. “The COFDM modulation system: the heart of digital audio broadcasting. pp. no. pp. Sklar.-H. Part I: Characterization. [480] Q. 41. “On the Capacity Penalty Due to Input-Bandwidth Restrictions with an Application to Rate-Limited Binary Signaling. Shi. pp. “Asymptotic Limits in Peak Envelope Power Reduction by Redundant Coding in Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplex Modulation. vol. Song. May 2005. 429–432.-H.. 3. Y. Leung. Inform. June 2004. July 1995. no. D. 90–100. Sinn. and M.” IEEE Trans. vol. You. no.” IEEE Commun. 102–109. Alouini. June 1995. 1. . Paik. [489] H.. Commun. “OFDM in Bandpass Nonlinearity. vol. 2000. J. Mag. Mar. [482] S. [484] M. 253–258. V. [483] M. July 1997. 3.. [488] ——. S. Digital Communication over Fading Channels. Oct.” IEEE Commun. pp. W. Sinha and R. IEEE ICASSP. Haardi. pp. “Frequency-Offset Synchronization and Channel Estimation for OFDM-Based Transmission.” IEE Electr. 31. Commun. G¨tze. pp. Mag. IEEE CAS Symp. 2000. [487] B. Simon and D. J. J. C. vol. 127–136. Shepherd. Consumer Electron. “Capacity of Single Carrier Systems With Frequency-Domain Equalization. Lett. K. pp. Orriss.. May 1990. [490] R.and Multi-Carrier Systems without the Necessity of a Guard Period. 2.. J. vol.. “A Novel OFDM Receiver with Second Order Polynomial Nyquist Window Function. [478] S. 1. Atlantic City. 46. [485] R. 36. no. Aug. Theory. [479] S. 14.” IEEE Electron. 5. Eng. Tao. 1998. Wyatt-Millington. “Maximum-Likelihood Block Detection of Noncoherent Continuous Phase Modulation. 1996. Cho. J.” in Proc. 95–97. 5–10. Zhou. 9. and T. 1131–1132. pp. Commun. vol. Divalar. “Simple coding scheme to reduce peak factor in QPSK multicarrier modulation.. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Part II: Mitigation. P. pp. 391–393. pp.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dec. 12. vol. pp. 52. [614] N. [608] ——. July 1998. Yu and A. [610] K. vol.. Su. Kobayashi. Yip and T. Jan. 1998. 21. Zervos and I. Ng.” in Proc. “Linear Models and Capacity Bounds for Continuous Phase Modulation. pp. M. Yang.” IEEE Commun. 15. “Data-Driven Echo Cancellation For a Multitone Modulation System. H. July 1962.. pp. Lewis. “Analysis and Simulation of Multipath Interference of FM Subcarrier Digital Signals. Commun. pp. W. . R. “Modulation and Coding for Satellite and Space Communications. 11. 2. [611] J. pp. no. pp. May 2002. 43. 4. 78. Simon. 640–646. Commun..-G. IEEE ICC. Chen. S. IEEE ICC. 2005. Areas Commun. K. D. “Pilot-Assisted Maximum-Likelihood Frequency-Offset Estimation for OFDM Systems. “Optimized Decision Feedback Equalization Versus Optimized Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing for High-Speed Transmission Over the Local Cable Network.” IEEE Trans. Apr. May 1997. 5. June 1989. vol.” IEEE J. 2004. Inform. Zeger. it-8. vol. Select. Miller. [607] ——.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc. T. 3. Theory. P. 42. H.. 1080–1085. Yuen. H¨ggman. vol. Commun. no. 1250–1266. Kalet.-S. June 2003. vol. “Sensitivity to Doppler Shift and Carrier Frequency a Errors in OFDM Systems—The Consequences and Solutions. Morakis. 4. 5. A. IEEE. Yu and Y. [616] Y. [612] M. Zakai. vol. C. 1996.192 [604] H.” in Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computers and Communications. 2134–2144. IEEE VTC. Divsalar. 7. no. Areas Commun. July 1990. [609] J. Roy. Zhao and S. Apr. Nov. and J. 323–325. Pollara. 1564–1568. Athens. 46. J. F. no. Mag. no. 53–60.” Proc. vol. C. 4.” IEEE Trans. H.” IEEE Trans. [605] J. pp. no. 2907–2913. and H. vol. vol. pp. no.-W. “Karhunen–Lo´ve Expansion of the WSSUS Channel and Its Application e to Efficient Simulation. Ryan. “Space–Time Code Design with Continuous Phase Modulation. [613] L. [615] X. 441–445. 1995. 783–792. pp. “A Road to Future Broadband Wireless Access: MIMO-OFDM-Based Air Interface. “The Representation of Narrow-Band Processes.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE J. no. May 1994. 35–41. Select. P.. “Matched Filter Bound for Multipath Rician-Fading Channels. pp. Fitz. Goldsmith. “Efficient Simulation of Digital Transmission over WSSUS Channels. and N. Yang. Commun. [606] K. 1997–2008... 722–726.” in Proc. pp. pp. Zhang and M. pp.

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful