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

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

. .3 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 4. . . . . . .3 Channel Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 MMSE versus ZF Equalization . . .2 Channel Description . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 4. . .2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 The Optimum Receiver . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 The Phase Demodulator Receiver . . 103 Performance Over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels . . . . 32 System Range and PA Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4. . . . . . . . . 96 6. . 43 3. . . . .2 6. . . . . . . . . 65 Carrier-to-Noise Ratio and Thresholding Effects . . . . . . . . 78 Spectral Efficiency versus Performance . . . . . . . . 108 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Simulation Procedure and Preliminary Discussion . . 94 6. . . . 66 FIR Filter Design . . . 62 Effect of Channel Phase Offset . .1 6. 71 4. . . .5 5 6 Phase Demodulator Receiver versus Optimum .2 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2. . . . . . . .2 2. . . . . . . . . . . . .5 3 Spectral Leakage . .1. .4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Performance Degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Selective Channels . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . . 80 CE-OFDM versus OFDM . . . . 37 Constant Envelope OFDM . . .1 6.1.2 Performance Analysis .2. . . . . . .2 Performance Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . 72 Asymptotic Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Simulation Results . . . . 114 vi . . . 112 Simulation Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 4. . . . . . . . . .1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . .1 4. . . . . . .2. . . . . . . . . . .2.3 2. . . . . . . . . 46 Spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 4. . .3 4. . . . . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1. . . . . . .4. . . . . . . .4 4. . . . . . . . . . . . .2 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 2. . . . . . . . . . 35 PAPR Mitigation Techniques . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 4 Performance of Constant Envelope OFDM in AWGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Signal Definition . . . 83 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Nonselective Fading Channels . . 100 Discussion and Observations . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

. . . 40 2. . (2πh = 0. . . . . . N = 64. 62 Performance with and without phase offsets. . N = 64. . . .8 3. . . . . 77 ix . .10 The optimum receiver. . . . . . . . . . .17 PAPR CCDF of clipped OFDM signal for various γ clip (dB). (M = 2. (N = 64. . various 2πh. . . . . . .6 4. . 60 Discrete-time phase demodulator. System 1 (S1) has phase offsets {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0. . . . . . . . . J = 8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4. . . . .3 4. . . . . . . . . .1 3. . . . . . . . . . . . 76 4. .6 3. . . .5 and Eb /N0 = 10 dB) . .5 4. . . . .6) . . (N = 64) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 3. (N = 64) . . . . . . . . 72 4. . . . . . . .8 4. . . . .2 4. . . . . . . . . . and System 2 (S2) doesn’t (θ i + φ0 = 0). 52 Double-sided bandwidth as a function of modulation index. . . . . . . . N = 64.6) . .4 Phase demodulator receiver. . . . . 50 Estimated fractional out-of-band power. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 CE-OFDM versus OFDM. (M = 8. . . . . .11 CE-OFDM versus OFDM with nonlinear PA. . . . . . . . . . . 69 Magnitude response of various Hamming FIR filters. . .11 Correlation functions ρm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples. .5 3. . . . . . . . N = 64. . . . . . . .7) . . . . . . . . . . . (N = 64) . . . . . . . 70 CE-OFDM performance with and without FIR filter. . . . .12 CE-OFDM optimum receiver performance. J = 8] . 2πh = 0. . . . . on the complex plane. . . . . . .5) . . . . . . . (M = 2. . 54 Fractional out-of-band power. . . (N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [N = 64] . . . . . . . fcut /W . . . . . . [M = 2. 2πh = 0. . . . J = 8. . . . . . . 43 Instantaneous signal power. . . . . . . . 2πh = 0. . . . . . .1 4. . . . . 2π)}.n (K). . . . (M = 8.2 3. . 41 3. . . . . . . . 71 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Phase discontinuities. . . . . . 44 Basic concept of CE-OFDM. 68 Threshold effect at low CNR. . . .2.19 A comparison of the total degradation curves of clipped and unclipped M -PSK/OFDM systems. . . .18 PAPR of clipped signal as a function of the clipping ratio. . . 58 Bandpass to baseband conversion. . . . . . N = 8) . . J = 8. (N = 64) . . 2πh = 0. 53 Power density spectrum. . .9 The CE-OFDM waveform mapping. . . . . 68 Performance for various filter parameters L fir . . . . . . . .7 4. . . . . . . . (M = 2. . . . 40 2. . . J = 8) . . (N = 64) . . . . . 56 3. .3 3. . . 55 3. . . . N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 4. . . . . . . . . .4 3. . . . . . . . . over L blocks. . 66 Threshold effect at low CNR. . . . . . . . . . (N = 64) . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Channel D results. . . . . . . . . . . 88 A simplified two-region model. . . . . . . .2 Papers.4 Performance of CE-OFDM in flat fading channels. 80 4. . .1 “OFDM” search on IEEE Xplore [222]. the Rayleigh. (M = 8. (5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 6. . . . . . 130 B.4. . . (M = 4. . . . . . . . . . Channel C f . . . . . . . . . (Circle=Rayleigh. 131 x . 101 Channel B results. .17 Spectral efficiency versus performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N = 64. . . . . .4 6. . 93 CE-OFDM system with frequency-selective channel. . . . . . . . . . .0) . . .5 6. .8 6. . . . . . L = 1 result is that of the frequency-nonselective channel model. . . . . . . . .10 Performance results. . . . . . . . . . (Multipath results are labeled with circle and triangle points. . . . . . . . 115 6. . . . square=Rice. . . . MMSE) . 99 Channel A results.14 Phase demodulator receiver versus optimum. . (N = 64) . .3 5. . N = 64. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ‡=rightmost curve) .11 Single path versus multipath. . . . . . . . . . . points=simulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N = 64. . . . . . . .1 5. . . . . .13 All unique ρm. . . . . . . . .n (K) for M = 2. . . . . . . triangle=Rice. . . . . . . . . 79 4. . . . . . 106 Channel F results. . . . . . . . (SSPA model. . . . . . . . . N = 64) . . .16 Performance of M -PAM CE-OFDM. . . . . . . . . .21)–(6. . . 78 4. . . 2πh = 1. . . . . . K = 10 dB. 91 Performance of CE-OFDM in flat fading channels. . . . . .6 6. . . . .2) . . . . . . . .5 6. . . . . . Channel C f . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 5. . . . . . . . . . . . .10) and (5. . . . . . N = 64. . 2πh = 1. . . . .18 A comparison of CE-OFDM and conventional OFDM. . . . . . . . 102 Channel C results. . .3 6. . . . . . . . . . . . .7 6.1 6. . . . . (E b /N0 = 30 dB) . . 85 5. . . . N = 64) . . . . . . . . . . .15 Noise samples PDF versus Gaussian PDF. . . . . . K = 3 dB.2 6. . N = 64. . . (M = 8. . . . . 96 Channel D. †=leftmost curve. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N = 64. . 2πh = 0. (M = 4. . . (N = 64) . . . .15). . . . . . . . 107 Fundamental characteristic functions and quantities [(6. . .12 CE-OFDM versus QPSK/OFDM. 81 4. .15) with (5.11). . . . . . . . . . filed and piled. . . . .6) . . . . 2πh = 0. . . 82 4. (N = 64. 105 Channel E results. . . . . . . . .9 6. . .6) . . . Solid line=Semianalytical curve. . . . . . . . . . 120 B. (M = 2. . . . M = 4. . . . . 92 Comparison of semi-analytical technique (5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 A (n + 1)-region model. . . N = 4 DCT modulation. . .2 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25)] of the four channel models considered. . . MMSE) . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

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

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

and g(t) ¢£ point A Propagation paths 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 12 14 -30 −1 −0. such as the 4-path example in where t is the time variable.1: Representation of a wireless channel with multipath. {Ii } are the data symbols. In a conventional single carrier system. ¡  ¡       point B (1. Ii g(t − iTs ). Each path has its own associated delay and power.01 0 2 4 6 8 10 Time (µs) (a) Time domain.2: A wireless channel in time and frequency. a digital communication system maps bits to k b -bit data symbols. f − fc (MHz) 1 (b) Frequency domain. Ts is the symbol period. The dispersion in the time domain leads to frequency-selectivity in the frequency domain. 1 Channel power (dB) Path power 0.5 Frequency.2(a). In general.5 0 0. An example profile of the channel in Figure 1. The first path arrives at the receiver 0.1 is shown in Figure 1.5 µs after the signal is transmitted.1 0. Figure 1. Notice that the channel power fluctuates by 30 dB (a factor of 1000) over the frequency range. The channel is viewed over a 2 MHz range centered at the center frequency f c . the symbols are then transmitted serially.2(b). the last path arrives with a 14 µs delay. The Fourier transform of the profile yields the frequency-domain representation shown in Figure 1.2 Figure 1. For time-dispersive channels.1) . The signal waveform of such a system is s(t) = i is a transmit pulse shape.

There are many types.2) the time-dispersive channel is shown to smear symbol 1 into symbol 2.3 spans less than one symbol. t). τmax . The signal bandwidth is roughly proportional to the symbol rate 1/Ts Hz. the ISI in Figure 1..) Such severe ISI must be corrected at the receiver in order to provide reliable communication. Therefore making s(t) a 2 MHz signal. Since the maximum propagation delay of the channel is τ max = 14 µs. t)s(t − τ )dτ + n(t). Nonlinear decision feedback equalizers (DFEs) have similar complexity as the linear type and have better performance.2. t) + n(t) ∞ = −∞ h(τ.5 µs) = 28 symbols. Consider transmitting the signal in (1. interference is caused from symbol to symbol. The severity of the ISI depends on the symbol period relative to the channel’s maximum propagation delay. (1. .5 µs. This intersymbol interference (ISI) is illustrated in Figure 1. The effect of s(t) . The channel is represented by its time-variant impulse response h(τ. 0 symbol 1 symbol 2 Ts 2Ts . (For comparison. Linear equalizers are much simpler. ranging in complexity and in effectiveness.3: Intersymbol interference.. 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. having a complexity which grows roughly linearly with ISI length. The received signal is expressed mathematically as [387. For simplicity. τmax /Ts = (14 µs) / (0.2.3. The optimum maximum-likelihood (ML) receiver is the most effective but is typically impractical due to its high complexity.3 Figure 1.1) over the 2 MHz channel in Figure 1. p.. T s = (2 × 106 )−1 = 0. g(t) is rectangular. The traditional approach to combating intersymbol interference is with time-domain equalizers [421]. 97] r(t) = s(t) ∗ h(τ. therefore creating intersymbol interference. t)| r(t) ISI τ 0 Ts 2Ts t Figure 1. the ISI spans . which grows exponentially with the ISI length. but perform much worse than the optimum receiver. t |h(τ.

on the other hand. 264. converges quickly. but has higher complexity and can be unstable. has become exceedingly popular. in wireless broadcast applications such as digital audio and video broadcasting (DAB and DVB) and in-band on-channel (IBOC) broadcasting [392]. Instead of transmitting symbols serially. especially for time-varying channels.1 ISI-Free Operation OFDM’s main appeal is that it supports high data rate links without requiring conventional equalization techniques.16 (WiMax) standard. Using a QPSK (quadrature phase-shift keying) signal constellation. Training times become long and convergence of the channel estimator is problematic. each having its own complexity. The recursive least-square (RLS or Kalman) algorithm. One approach. conventional equalization becomes difficult. OFDM . OFDM has been implemented in wireline applications such as digital subscriber lines (DSL) [95]. cellular systems. OFDM is being developed for ultra-wideband (UWB) systems.4 All of these techniques require knowledge of the channel. wireless metropolitan area networks (MANs). There are various algorithms available for the estimation process. which maps kb = 2 bits per symbol. the bit rate is 4 Mb/s. but suffers from a slow convergence rate. 604]. It has been used in wireless local area networks (LANs) under the IEEE 802.1. 1. Then by comparing the received signal to what was transmitted. orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. 1. 160.11 and the ETSI HYPERLAN/2 standards [552]. which is estimated by transmitting a training sequence which is known at the receiver. For scenarios like the example above with an ISI spanning 28 symbols. 2×10 6 symbols/s are transmitted. Such a bit rate is desired in current wireless systems. and in many cases demand for many tens of Mb/s is common. alternative techniques have been considered. t) is made. and for other wireline systems such as power line communication (PLC) [119. under the IEEE 802. In the example. and stability. an estimate of h(τ.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. convergence rate.

is typically rectangular:   1.3). The guard interval and cyclic prefix is discussed in Chapter 2. Continuing the example above. Therefore. t)| TB OFDM block t τ r(t) ISI-free block t Figure 1. (1. g(t) =  0. ISI is avoided by inserting a guard interval between period is TB = N Ts = 300 × 0. which is more than 10 times the duration successive blocks during which a cyclic prefix is transmitted. The OFDM block period. the guard interval is excluded from the signal definition in (1. T B . The interval duration. 1.1. with a small reduction in efficiency. the block of the channel’s impulse response.4: OFDM with cyclic prefix (CP).3) set of complex sinusoids {exp (j2πf k t)}N −1 are referred to as subcarriers. (1.2 A Multicarrier Modulation The OFDM signal can be expressed as1 N −1 s(t) = i k=0 Ii. The center k=0 1 Notice that the N data symbols {Ii. The pulse shape.4) . The k=0 For simplicity. and choosing N = 300. otherwise.k }N −1 are transmitted during the ith block. 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.k ej2πfk t g(t − iTB ).91. This is illustrated in the figure below.5 sends N symbols as a block. T g . ISI s(t) Tg CP |h(τ. g(t).5 µs = 150 µs. and the OFDM block is uncorrupted.2 results in a transmission efficiency is eliminated. ηt = TB /(TB + Tg ) = 150/165 ≈ 0. is thus N times longer than the symbol period. 0 ≤ t < TB .

while tightly packed (which improves spectral efficiency). 151] x(t) = s(t)ej2πfc t .1). In general.k ) g(t − iTB ). as opposed to a single carrier modulation like the signal in (1. (1. (1.6 frequency of the kth subcarrier is f k = k/TB and the subcarrier spacing. (1. For single carrier. Notice that at the kth have zero-crossings. otherwise. 0 ≤ t < TB .11) . sinc(x) =  sin πx  .10) while for multicarrier. The subcarrier orthogonality can also be viewed in the frequency domain. N −1 xmc (t) = i k=0 |Ii. Figure 1.k | cos 2π fc + k TB t + arg(Ii. s(t) = k=0 I0. πx x = 0.6) The frequency-domain representation is N −1 S(f ) = F {s(t)} (f ) = TB e −j2πf TB /2 k=0 I0. k/TB . xsc (t) = i |Ii | cos [2πfc t + arg(Ii )] g(t − iTs ). expressed mathematically as 1 TB TB 0 ∗ ej2πfk1 t ej2πfk2 t dt = = 1 TB   1.e. makes the subcarriers orthogonal over the block interval.k sinc f− k TB TB . the subcarriers. (1. k 1 = k2 .5 plots |S(f )/TB | for N = 16 subcarriers and data symbols with normalized amplitudes.7) Figure 1. 1/TB Hz.9) subcarrier frequency. p. orthogonal). The individual subcarrier spectra are also plotted.5 also demonstrates that OFDM is a multicarrier modulation.8) where fc is the carrier frequency. (1. (1. TB 0 ej2π(fk2 −fk1 )t dt (1.k ej2πfk t . are non-interfering (i. a transmitted bandpass signal is [421. the kth subcarrier has a peak and all the other subcarriers where F{·}(f ) is the Fourier transform and   1. where (·)∗ represents the complex conjugate operation. Consider the 0th OFDM block: N −1  0.5) k 1 = k2 . Therefore.

. For OFDM. . Frequency selectivity is the frequency-domain dual of intersymbol interference. By properly designing the subcarrier spacing. This technique. bit loading is more common in wireline systems and stationary wireless systems than in wireless systems with high mobility.2 0 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 Normalized frequency. 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. Transmitting the single carrier signal over the 2 MHz channel results in a frequency-selective response.2(b). .6 0.6 shows 18 bins in the range Notice that the channel gain per bin varies over a 15 dB range. f TB 12 14 16 18 Figure 1. each frequency bin is made frequencynonselective. −0. the overall channel is frequency-selective but for each bin the chan[−0. For this reason. Notice that the multicarrier signal transmits the N data symbols in parallel over multiple carriers each centered at (fc + k/TB ) Hz. requires a fairly stable channel. .2 Subcarrier Overall Spectrum magnitude. (N = 16. known as bit loading.7 1. for all k) For single carrier each symbol occupies the entire signal bandwidth. |I 0.9. one that can be accurately measured. k = 0. 1. The wideband frequency-selective channel is converted into N contiguous narrowband frequency-nonselective bins. N − 1.4 0. Figure 1.8 0.5: Subcarrier and overall spectrum.k | = 1. |S(f )/TB | 1 0. .78] MHz for the N = 300 OFDM system over the channel in Figure 1. while for multicarrier the bandwidth is split into many frequency bands (also referred to as frequency bins).

13) which is the discrete Fourier transform (DFT) performed on the time-domain samples. 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).85 Frequency. .N −1 ].k ej2πki/N .1. N − 1.k = 1 N N −1 y[i]e−j2πkn/N . (1. . two of OFDM’s primary advantages have been discussed: the elimination of ISI and the ability to optimize the modulation with bit loading.9 Frequency bins −0. Therefore. i=0 k = 0.6 illustrates a frequency-domain interpretation of how OFDM avoids intersymbol interference. . . the symbols are demodulated at the receiver with an analog-to-digital (A/D) converter followed by a DFT.k }k=0 can be expressed as I0. s(t) is generated at the transmitter with an IDFT folN −1 lowed by a digital-to-analog (D/A) converter.6) at N equally spaced time instances: N −1 y[i] ≡ s(t)|t=iTB /N = I0. Figure 1. . .8 5 Channel power (dB) 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 −0. respectively. Consequently. nel is frequency non-selective and thus ISI is avoided. 1. k=0 i = 0. . f − fc (MHz) −0. I0. . This is seen by sampling s(t) in (1. 1.3 Discrete-Time Signal Processing Thus far.0 .6: OFDM converts wideband channel to N narrowband frequency bins.8 Figure 1. .12) which is the inverse discrete Fourier transform (IDFT) of the symbol vector I 0 = [I0. I0. .1 . N − 1. (1. Therefore. The frequency-domain symbols {I 0.

N − 1. the N − 1 neighboring subcarriers interfere with the demodulation of the kth subcarrier. f TB k+1 Figure 1.5 < fo < 0. the subcarriers are Hz rather than at the ideal k/TB Hz.7: Frequency offset causes ICI. The intercarrier interference causes ISI—and potentially high irreducible error floors. if the frequency synthesizer at the receiver is misaligned by. ( fo = 0.25) . the signal processing can be performed in software. The second problem with OFDM is that the signal has large amplitude fluctuations caused by the summation of the complex sinusoids. where −0. . 1. making OFDM suitable for software defined radios (SDRs) [185]. Doing so is much simpler than performing the modulation/demodulation in the continuous-time domain with N orthogonally tuned oscillators.2 0. This sensitivity arises from the close subcarrier spacing.5.04 k−1 k + fo k Normalized frequency. say. fo /TB not orthogonal and therefore interfering with one another.5 shows that the subcarriers are properly orthogonal at f = k/TB . Figure 1. . This intercarrier interference (ICI) is illustrated in Figure 1. The first is sensitivity to imperfect frequency synchronization which is common for mobile applications.2 Problems with OFDM OFDM has two primary drawbacks. .7: assuming that the receiver is tuned to (k + fo )/TB Hz. However. Moreover.9 The IDFT/DFT is performed efficiently with IFFT/FFT algorithms. k = 0. . The real and imaginary part of the Spectrum magnitude. 1. |S(f )/TB | 1 0.

6 Normalized time.5 dB). Notice that each sinusoids has a constant amplitude. t/TB 0. The ratio between the peak (a) Signal amplitude.k } sin (2πkt/TB ) + {I0.2 0. 12 10 8 6 Signal amplitude 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0 0.10 OFDM signal is N −1 {s(t)} = and {s(t)} = k=0 {I0. |s(t)|2 = power and the average power is 144/16 = 9 (or in decibels. Otherwise.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)}.5 dB. the circuitry .k } cos (2πkt/TB ) .k } cos (2πkt/TB ) − {I0. is plotted in Figure 1. Figure 1.14) N −1 k=0 {I0.k } sin (2πkt/TB ) .15) respectively.2 0. but when summing the sinusoids the resulting OFDM signal fluctuates over a large range. (1.8 1 0 0 0.6 Normalized time. Also plotted are the individually modulated sinusoids. 10 log 10 9 ≈ 9. The PAPR is 9. (1.8(b). t/TB 0.4 0. Figure 1.4 0.8: A typical OFDM signal (N = 16).8(a) shows the real and imaginary parts of an example OFDM signal with N = 16 subcarriers. (b) Signal power. OFDM’s high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) requires system components with a large linear range capable of accommodating the signal. The instantaneous signal power.

One such nonlinear device is the transmitter’s power amplifier (PA) which is responsible for the system’s operational range [424].06 [374]. Max output Optimum Output power Linear region Saturation region Actual Backoff AM/AM curve Operating points Ideal AM/AM Input power Figure 1.5 dB. IBO of 9. Moreover. At this backoff the efficiency of a Class A power amplifier is less than 6%. The average input power is reduced and consequently this technique is called input power backoff (IBO).9 shows a representative input/output curve. Such an efficiency is detrimental to mobile battery-powered devices which have limited power resources.9: Power amplifier transfer function.11 distorts the waveform nonlinearly. but as the input power increases the PA saturates. Ideally the output of the PA is equal to the input times a gain factor.5/(109. In the linear region the curve matches the ideal. To keep the peak power of the input signal less than or equal to the saturation input level. Thus the required IBO for the OFDM signal in Figure 1. In reality the PA has a limited linear region.5/10 ) ≈ 0. the (theoretical) efficiency of a Class A amplifier is 0. the operational range of the system is reduced by a factor of nine2 . 2 .8 is 9. but for signals with large PAPR the operating point must shift to the left keeping the amplification linear.5/10 ≈ 9 times less signal power transmitted in channel. the IBO must be at least equal to the PAPR. The most efficient operating point is at the PA’s saturation point. known as the AM/AM conversion.5 dB corresponds to 109. Figure 1. beyond which it saturates to a maximum output level. and nonlinear distortion results in a loss of subcarrier orthogonality which degrades performance.

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 . For example. In practice. CPM uses memory to smooth φ(t). (1.9 is attainable. an effect known as adjacent channel interference. is rectangular. Constant envelope signals are thus ideal in terms of the practical considerations of the power amplifier. increases the complexity of the receiver. The baseband CE signal representation is s(t) = Aejφ(t) . maximizing average transmit power (good cause adjacent channel interference. 1. The later causes interference between neighboring systems. The question is how to embed digital information into φ(t) providing good performance. This type of modulation. and a broadening of the overall signal spectrum. Also CPM systems have difficulty operating over frequencyselective channels [118]. This intermodulation distortion causes interference among the subcarriers. The memory. the maximum theoretical efficiency of a linear Class A power amplifier is 50%. however. and high data rates over the wireless channel.12 Nonlinearities in the transmitter also cause the generation of new frequencies in the transmitted signal. The Consequently. Notice that the single carrier signal in (1.421]. however. The PA can therefore for range) and maximizing PA efficiency (good for battery life). Continuous phase modulation (CPM) is a class of signaling that has very low sidelobe power while maintaining the constant envelope property [14. operate at the optimum (saturation) point. which is a key disadvantage of CPM. non-rectangular pulse shapes are used . the PAPR is 0 dB and the required backoff is 0 dB.16) where A is the signal amplitude and φ(t) is the information bearing phase signal. spectral economy. Also. nonlinear PAs can be used which are generally more efficient and less expensive than linear PAs. has large spectral sidelobes which which result in a non-CE signal.3 Constant Envelope Waveforms Constant envelope (CE) waveforms are appealing since the optimum operating point in Figure 1. since the linearity requirement is reduced. while for a nonlinear Class E PA the maximum theoretical efficiency is 100% [424].

The CE-OFDM signal takes the form of (1.k } cos (2πkt/TB ) − {I0. Figure 1. Both are derived from the same baseband OFDM message signal. The high peak-to-average power ratio OFDM signal is transformed into a CE waveform. 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. the phase signal can be the real part of the OFDM signal: N −1 φ(t) = {sOFDM (t)} = k=0 {I0.6). this is accomplished since the CE-OFDM signal has the 0 dB PAPR property. .16) where the phase signal is an OFDM waveform.13 1. For example. The motivation for CE-OFDM is to eliminate the PAPR problem of the conventional OFDM system.  OFDM bandpass OFDM message R CE-OFDM bandpass Figure 1.4 Constant Envelope OFDM Constant envelope OFDM (CE-OFDM) combines OFDM and constant envelope signaling. (1.k } sin (2πkt/TB ) . Certainly.17) where sOFDM (t) is the signal in (1.10: Comparison of OFDM and CE-OFDM signals.10 compares a conventional OFDM bandpass signal with a bandpass CE-OFDM signal.

The performance aspects of CE-OFDM in the presence of additive noise are analyzed in Chapter 4.14 1.5 Thesis Overview In Chapter 2 the basics of OFDM is further studied. The effect of the nonlinear power amplification on OFDM is evaluated. In Chapter 3 the CE-OFDM modulation format is defined and the spectral properties are studied. Performance analysis is extended to frequency-nonselective fading channels in Chapter 5. . and multipath frequency-selective fading channels in Chapter 6.

4 the main functional blocks of the OFDM system are described.5. OFDM is studied in more detail.3. the various PAPR mitigation techniques found in the research literature are categorized in Section 2.2 the basic properties of OFDM are identified. and the equivalence of linear channel convolution and circular channel convolution is explained. Lastly.4.2).1).4. Then in Section 2. OFDM is considered a special case of the more general block modulation with cyclic prefix scheme. In light of this property. performance degradation (Section 2.4.1 and 1. 15 .4 the effect of nonlinear power amplification on OFDM systems is studied in terms of spectral leakage (Section 2. In Section 2.3. Section 2.1. and a technique called signal clipping is evaluated in terms of its effectiveness to improve system performance. the processing of the discrete-time samples is described.2 and power amplifier models used to evaluated system performance are described in Section 2. In Section 2. in Section 2. and system range and efficiency (Section 2.1.1.Chapter 2 OFDM In Sections 1.3).1 covers key properties of OFDM. The PAPR statistics are analyzed in Section 2.1. as discussed in Section 2.1. the cyclic prefix is studied.2. Finally. In this chapter.

(2. Thus the OFDM signal having a guard interval with cyclic prefix is simply N −1 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . This is true so long as a cyclic prefix is transmitted during the interval.2) −Tg ≤ t < 0. the waveform is N −1 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . N is the k=0 k=0 TB is the block period. the impulse response is referred to as simply h(τ ).1. This is demonstrated below and it is shown that ISI results if anything but the cyclic prefix is transmitted. 1 .1 it is claimed that the use of the guard interval results in ISI-free operation. To transmit a cyclic prefix. −Tg ≤ t < TB .16 2.1) total number of subcarriers. Notice that the above simplification is made due to the periodicity of the signal. the received signal is expressed in terms of the time-variant channel impulse response h(τ. 0 ≤ t < TB .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). If the channel is assumed to be time invariant. fk = k/TB is the center frequency of the kth subcarrier and where {Ik }N −1 are the data symbols. 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 .2).1. {exp(j2πfk t)}N −1 are the subcarriers. where Tg is the guard period. The guard interval is defined during −T g ≤ t < 0. t). (2. The bounds of integration are simplified since the channel is assumed causal [h(τ ) = 0 In (1. During the OFDM block interval.1 More OFDM Basics The Cyclic Prefix In Section 1.1 2.4) where h(τ ) is the time-invariant channel impulse response 1 and n(t) is additive noise. (2. (2.

where H[k0 ] = 0 τmax  0. (2. The received signal during the guard interval.6) simplifies to TB 0 TB 0 TB 0 N −1 0 τmax τmax N −1 TB 0 (see Figure 1.5) r(t)e−j2πfk0 t dt h(τ ) k=0 Ik ej2πfk (t−τ ) dτ e−j2πfk0 t dt + Nk0 TB 0 (2. (2. 1 TB TB 0 n(t)e−j2πfk0 t dt.4). −Tg ≤ t < 0. Therefore. (2. using the guard interval with cyclic prefix provides ISI-free operation.7) ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt = k = k0 . 0 ≤ t < TB . 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.8) ˆ Ik0 = Ik0 H[k0 ] + Nk0 .11) .6) 1 TB Ik k=0 0 h(τ )e−j2πfk τ dτ ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt + Nk0 .   1. (2. An estimate of the r(t) ej2πfk0 t ∗ dt. N −1 symbols {Ik }N −1 scaled by the complex-valued channel gains {H[k]} k=0 .17 for τ < 0] and to have a maximum propagation delay τ max [h(τ ) = 0 for τ > τmax ].10) which is the Fourier transform of h(τ ) evaluated at f = f k0 . s(t) =  N −1  Ik ej2πfk t . 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. (2. 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. k=0 (2. is ignored and r(t) during 0 ≤ t < T B is processed. Suppose that the transmitted signal is   b(t).9) h(τ )e−j2πfk0 τ dτ. k = k0 .

14) thus Ak0 is a non-zero offset term which is a function of b(t). 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 (2.2 in the context of imperfect frequency synchronization.18 where b(t) = N −1 j2πfk t . 1 = TB Ik k=0 0 h(τ )e−j2πfk τ dτ Due to the integration bounds for t. (2. where C1 = (TB − Tg )/TB . but has the advantage of being able to recover data symbols . the orthogonality condition in (2.15). (2.17) The interference is denoted as ICI. cyclic prefixed OFDM is compared to zero-padded OFDM [b(t) = 0].8) can’t be applied to (2. T g ] and [Tg .13) (2. and this results in ISI. The bounds of integration are separated into two segments.12) = A k0 + B k0 + N k0 . and when it does the data symbols interfere with one another resulting in 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. The estimated data symbol is expressed as ˆ Ik0 = Ik0 Hk0 C1 + Nk0 + ICI. and the interference terms is ICI = Ak0 + 1 TB TB (2.16) H[k] k=k0 Tg Ik ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt. This phenomenon was described in Section 1.15) ej2πt(fk −fk0 ) dt. For the second term. t − τ > 0. In [358]. The zero-padding causes ISI. 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. since the subcarriers are no longer orthogonal and interfere with one another. [0. intercarrier interference. Therefore. h(τ )s(t − τ )e−j2πfk0 t dτ dt. ICI can manifest itself in more than one way.

. 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. .19) Tsa Tsa is the sampling period. .1: Sampling instances. −Tg −Ng Tsa ··· Signal sampling ··· h(τ ) and r(t) at the sampling rate fsa = JN/TB samp/s. . . Consider sampling s(t). . and channel samples.9). (2. . and the channel samples are h[i] = h(τ )|τ =iTsa . . The sampling instances are shown in the figure below. i = 0. The number of guard samples. (2. 0. Ng ≥ Nc . Nc − 1.20) The received samples are expressed by the linear convolution sum Nc −1 r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i].18) where Tsa = 1/fsa and. Nc ≡ Tg Tsa ≤ Tg . a channel zeros at the kth subcarrier.2 Discrete-Time Model It is convenient to describe OFDM by a discrete-time model. Ng . NB − 1. . The signal samples are s[i] = s(t)|t=iTsa . H[k] = 0. 0. (2.22) . are defined as Ng ≡ and τmax τmax +1≤ + 1.21) i = −Ng . Nc . .1. (2. . factor. Tsa (2. . 2. NB − 1. . . The zero-padded system avoids this problem at the cost of increased receiver complexity due to equalization requirements. The number of samples per block is N B = JN . that is. by design. i = −Ng . This is in contrast with cyclic prefixed OFDM since. as shown in (2. . . . results in an estimated data symbol that consists entirely of noise. . . .19 located at channel zeros.

. The DFT NDFT > Ng . . Also shown is the inverse channel which is a DFT followed by a multiplier bank (1/H[k]) followed by an IDFT. (2. k = 0. . NDFT − 1. NDFT ≥ NB .20 where {n[i]} are samples of the noise signal n(t). . where IDFT{·} represents the inverse discrete Fourier transform. Thus the transmit samples s[i] can be reconstructed by passing the receive samples r[i] through the inverse channel. . The circular convolution can be performed by taking the IDFT of the product of two DFTs [422. . which is then followed by an IDFT. (2. The guard interval samples are ignored Nc −1 and the samples r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i]. . 415–420]. . Since Figure 2. .2 corrects the distortion caused by the channel in the frequency domain.23) are processed. .23) can be expressed as r[i] = IDFT {H[k]S[k]} = 1 NDFT NDFT −1 k=0 H[k]S[k]ej2πik/NDFT . NB − 1 (2. . . .3 Block Modulation with FDE The inverse channel structure in Figure 2. respectively. the channel samples are zero-padded: h[i] = 0 for i = N c . NDFT − 1 (2.24) i = 0. . i=0 k = 0. . . NB − 1. If NDFT > NB . Therefore. The linear convolution in (2. . i = 0. {s[i − m]} is periodic with period N B . in general. . pp.26) are the NDFT -point DFTs of the signal and channel samples. ignoring the noise samples. due to the cyclic prefix.25) and H[k] = NDFT −1 h[i]e−j2πik/NDFT . 2. The effect of the channel is simply a DFT followed by a multiplier bank (H[k]). .23) is equivalent to a circular convolution since.1.2 shows a block diagram representing the calculation of (2. and is therefore called a frequency-domain equalizer . the signal vector is zero-padded. . size is. NDFT − 1 (2.24). NDFT −1 S[k] = i=0 s[i]e−j2πik/NDFT .

2: Circular convolution with channel and the inverse channel. Frequency-domain equalizer Data {Ik } Modulator Channel DFT Multiplier bank IDFT Demodulator Data ˆ {Ik } Figure 2.21 Channel s[i] DFT H[k] IDFT r[i] Inverse channel r[i] DFT 1 H[k] IDFT s[i] Figure 2.3: Block modulation with cyclic prefix and FDE. . 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 2.4: OFDM is a special case.

388. 54. 132. The multiplier bank at the output of the DFT is often referred to as a one-tap equalizer. are passed through the digital-to-analog (D/A) converter to obtain the continuous-time OFDM signal s(t). one complex multiplication per frequency bin. the signal is amplified and transmitted. rather. 481. 565.5 shows a more detailed description of OFDM’s functional blocks. 463. [462] and suggests a more general modulation approach: block modulation with cyclic prefix and frequency-domain equalization. (The insertion of the cyclic prefix at the transmitter and removal at the receiver is implied but not included in the diagram for simplicity. 533. This observation was first identified by Sari et al.1. 461. Notice that the DFT and IDFT cancel each other and the resulting diagram depicts the conventional OFDM system. .4 System Diagram The block diagram in Figure 2. The encoded bits are then mapped to the data symbols I k . 116. 2. The encoder adds redundancy to the bit stream for error control. Such an equalizer can be used only when the effect of the channel is a circular convolution. the data symbols are complex numbers which result from mapping the bits to points on the complex plane. The cyclic prefix is added and the signal samples. 30. 197. but isn’t unique to OFDM since any modulation can use a cyclic prefix. OFDM converts the problem to the frequency domain. 245. Figure 2. the symbols are serial-to-parallel (S/P) converted and processed by the IDFT.4. OFDM doesn’t eliminate the equalization problem (associated with conventional single carrier modulation). In general.4 conceptually illustrates the OFDM system. 107. pointed out.22 (FDE). 142. 574]. s[i]. This is the case for OFDM. Next. Since Sari’s original paper. such as M -ary phase-shift keying (M -PSK) and M -ary quadrature-amplitude modulation (M -QAM). This operation is required for data symbols that rely on coherent demodulation. Finally. Figure 2.) For the special case of OFDM. As Sari et al. the modulation is a IDFT and the demodulation is a DFT as shown in Figure 2. 153. there has been a considerable number of publications focused on the block modulation technique using conventional single carrier modulations [8. 460. 196.3 shows a simplified block diagram of such a system. 154.

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

Consequently. the instantaneous signal power is chi-squared distributed with two degrees of freedom [421. 0 ≤ t < TB . the real and imaginary parts of . For large N . The Ps = 1 TB TB 0 |s(t)|2 dt = N. therefore |I k | = 1 for all k. some have a high PAPR. so the PAPR can be as high as N . 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. and more specifically. the likelihood that all the subcarriers align in phase is extremely low. t∈[0. while others have a relatively low PAPR. Since the average signal power is a constant.27) The signal during the guard interval is ignored since it has no impact on the PAPR average power of s(t) is distribution.24 2. as pointed out in [381]. (2. and thus M N unique OFDM waveforms per block. For any given block interval. 421]).TB ) (2. (2. Assuming that they’re selected randomly from a set of M complex k=0 s(t) = k=0 Ik ej2πfk t . the maximum s(t) are accurately modeled as Gaussian random processes (due to the application of the central limit theorem [394. and the complementary instantaneous power over 0 ≤ t < TB .29) Notice that the absolute maximum signal power is N 2 . 41].2 PAPR Statistics The peak-to-average power ratio of the OFDM signal is best viewed statistically. the randomness of the PAPR depends on the randomness of the instantaneous power |s(t)| 2 . M -PSK data symbols are assumed. the PAPR is a random quantity since it depends on the data numbers.7 million years. there are M N unique symbol sequences. Therefore. For example. Of these waveforms. However. The OFDM signal is N −1 symbols {Ik }N −1 . p. Thus it is more meaningful to describe the PAPR statistically rather than in absolute terms.28) The peak-to-average power ratio is defined as PAPRs = max |s(t)|2 Ps . it is desirable to understand the statistical distribution of this quantity.

0001 PAPR is shown to be at around 11. 1. Figure lower bound in (2. P |s(t)|2 /Ps > x CCDF. . (N = 64) Figure 2. This demonstrates the accuracy of the Gaussian approximation to the real and imaginary part of s(t). . 100 Simulation Approximation (2. (b) Peak-to-average power ratio. 2. (2.6(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.25 dB. and at this .6: Complementary cumulative distribution functions.6(a) compares a simulated instantaneous power CCDF with the approximation in (2.25 cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of the normalized instantaneous signal power is approximated as P |s(t)|2 >x Ps ≈ e−x . N −1} [173]. i = 0. The 0.30) A lower bound of the peak-to-average power ratio’s CCDF is [515] P (PAPRs > x) 1 − (1 − e−x )N .31).30) 100 Simulation Lower bound (2. .30). 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. Figure 2. The PAPR of the discrete-time sequence provides 10−1 ` ´ CCDF.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.31) {s(t)|t=iTB /N . (2.

and 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]. . Notice that essentially all OFDM blocks have a PAPR greater than 6 dB. For the results in Figure 2. power amplifier models must be defined.5 dB. 10. P (PAPRs > x) 10−2 10−3 10−4 4 5 6 7 8 x (dB) 9 10 11 12 Figure 2.31) over a range N = 32 to N = 1024. . They are described here and then used in Section 2.7: PAPR CCDF lower bound (2. I k ∈ {±1. . the number of subcarriers does.4 for performance evaluation. 10% have a PAPR greater than 8.6.7 shows the lower bound (2. For the N = 64 system. the PAPR is greater than 8 dB for roughly 10% of the time. 6. Figure 2. that is.5% have a PAPR greater than 10 dB. 100 symbols (4-ary PSK) are used. ±j}. Notice that the 0. 2.26 level the bound is tight.3 Power Amplifier Models To determine the impact of the PAPR on system performance. 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. . k = 5.31) for N = 2 k . however. . While the symbols constellation k 5 6 7 8 9 10 10−1 CCDF. For the N = 1024 system. the number of subcarriers is N = 64 and QPSK data has little impact on the PAPR statistics.

respectively. Asat is the input saturation level. and Φ(A) = . the output is sout (t) = G[A(t)] exp j{φ(t) + Φ[A(t)]} . Though widely known as the Rapp model [426]. is non-zero. if the PA input is sin (t) = A(t) exp[jφ(t)].27 In general. chap. For example. The TWTA model is therefore more nonlinear than the SSPA model. 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 × . modeling nonlinear power amplifiers is complicated (see [233. and Φ(A) = 0. Cann. and p controls the AM/AM sharpness of the saturation region. (2.33) (2. and therefore has a frequency-nonselective response.34) where g0 is the amplifier gain. (2. determined by the constants α φ and βφ . [(Asat /A)2p ]1/2p [(Asat /A)2p ]1/2p (2. 5]).36) Notice that the AM/PM conversion. published a decade earlier in the IEEE literature [71].35) =g0 1/2p which is precisely the nonlinearity presented in Cann’s paper. A common simplification is to assume that the PA is a memoryless nonlinearity. (2.34) should be credited to the original work by A. Saleh’s TWTA model is expressed as [110] G(A) = αφ A2 g0 A .32) where G(·) and Φ(·) are known as the AM/AM and AM/PM conversions. For this model the AM/PM conversion is assumed to be negligibly small. The SSPA model is expressed as G(A) = g0 A 1 + (A/Asat ) 2p 1/2p . J. 1 + β φ A2 1 + (A/Asat )2 (2. .

A2 sat .37) lently. EquivaPin = (2.40) is defined as the backoff ratio. given Asat and IBO. the peak power can be written as Pmax = PAPRin · Pin = where K= A2 PAPRin 2 Asat = sat . for the TWTA model.41) Figure 2. For example. Notice that for K > 1 the backoff is greater than the input signal’s PAPR. input power backoff (IBO) is required. IBO (2. α φ = π/12 and βφ = 1/4.38) thus. One the other hand. and thus the nonlinearity is severe. PAPR. K (2. Amax = max |A(t)|. For K = −10 dB the IBO is one-tenth the input signal is normalized to the maximum input level A max .28 To reduce nonlinear distortion in the amplified OFDM signal.8 shows the AM/AM (solid lines) and AM/PM (dashed lines) conversions For the SSPA model. the conversions are never as linear as the K = 3 dB curves (the PAPR is a always greater than 3 dB) and are more nonlinear . and the y-axis is normalized to the for the SSPA (thick lines) and TWTA (thin lines) models for various backoff ratios K. As stated than the SSPA model. assuming that the backoff is IBO = 6 dB. It is defined as [375] IBO = A2 sat . the non-zero AM/PM conversion of the TWTA model makes it more nonlinear Insight can be gained by comparing Figure 2. the input signal power can be scaled accordingly to satisfy Assuming that the PAPR of the input signal is PAPR in . IBO is ten times the input signal PAPR and the PA response is nearly linear.37) can be written as where Pin = E{|sin (t)|2 } = E{A2 (t)} is the average power of the input signal. can be written in terms of the backoff ratio and Amax = Asat Pmax = √ .39) IBO PAPRin (2. for K < 1 the backoff is less than the input PAPR. The x-axis maximum output level g0 Asat . IBO K (2. Pin (2. p = 2. (2. the maximum the input saturation level: value of the input.8.6(b) and Figure 2.38). for K = 10 dB the above. Now.

5 Normalized input value.8: AM/AM (solid) and AM/PM (dash) conversions (SSPA=thick.5 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 0 0 −0.5 0 0. G(A)/g0 Asat 1 0.5 0 0. G(A)/g0 Asat −0.5 −0.5 0.5 Normalized input value. A/Amax 1 (c) K = −3 dB (d) K = −10 dB Figure 2. A/Amax 1 (a) K = 10 dB (b) K = 3 dB 1 Normalized output value.5 0 0. G(A)/g0 Asat −0.5 Normalized input value. TWTA=thin) for various backoff ratios K.5 Normalized input value. G(A)/g0 Asat 1 0.5 −0. .5 0. A/Amax Normalized output value.29 1 Normalized output value. A/Amax Normalized output value.5 0 0 −0.5 −1 −1 1 −1 −1 −0.

reducing the average transmit power reduces the operational range of the system. The bandwidth of the undistorted OFDM signal is f = 1.5Ps f > 0. the PA can impose high nonlinear distortion 2. on the transmitted signal.1 Spectral Leakage The first problem considered is spectral leakage. In this section these various issues are studied. The result is used to calculate estimated fractional out-of-band power curves. the 99. Figure 2.42) ∞ ˆ −∞ Φs (f )df is the signal power. the degree of distortion for a given OFDM block is random (given a fixed IBO) since the PAPR for a given block is random.05 PAPR is 9 dB). 911–913]. the power density spectrum at the output of the power amplifier can be quickly estimated.07W . Also plotted is the FOBP curve for ideal linear amplification. however. By using the Welch method [422.36) at various backoff levels. pp. 2. the bandwidth of the nonlinearly amplified signal is the same. even with a large IBO of 6 dB.10 shows the 99. for IBO < 6 dB.5% bandwidth as a function of IBO. . since PA efficiency reduces with IBO. the bandwidth is shown to grow roughly linearly with IBO. Notice that the spectral leakage is roughly the same for the two amplifier models. These undesirable effects can be reduced with increase input backoff. For IBO = 1 dB.4 Effects of Nonlinear Power Amplification Power amplifier nonlinearities cause spectral leakage and performance degradation to OFDM systems. Figure 2. Also. (2. These results show that at least 6 dB backoff is required by the TWTA to avoid spectral broadening. Therefore. ˆ 0. 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 . Also.4.9 shows the curves for an N = 64 subcarrier OFDM signal amplified by the TWTA power amplifier according to (2. For sufficient backoff. However.5% bandwidth is 73% larger than the undistorted signal. This is an unsatisfactory solution.30 than the K = −3 dB curves for about 5% of the OFDM blocks (the 0.

6 1.31 100 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. (N = 64) .9: Fractional out-of-band power of OFDM with ideal PA and with TWTA model at various input power backoff. IBO (dB) 8 10 Figure 2.2 1. IBO in dB) 2. (N = 64.8 0 OFDM amplified with: TWTA PA SSPA PA ideal PA 2 4 6 Input power backoff.0 0.0 1.5 0.10: Spectral growth versus IBO.25 1.25 0.5% bandwidth. f /W 1. f /W 1.8 99.5 Figure 2.4 1.75 1 Normalized frequency.

r(t) = sout (t) + n(t).45) is satisfied and the noise sample Figure 2. where Eb = |sout (t)|2 dt Number of bits per block TB 0 (2. For the AWGN channel. (2.32 2. 158]   N0 .43) where sout (t) is the output of the PA from (2. the performance degradation caused by nonlinear amplification is considered. The noise spectrum is assumed to be constant over the effective bandwidth of the information bearing signal and is thus called “white”. 2 variance is σn = fsa N0 . (2. |f | > Bn /2.5) then passed to the detector which makes the final decision.45) The autocorrelation function of n(t) [the inverse Fourier transform of (2. |f | ≤ Bn /2. 242–247]. (2. n E {n[i1 ]n[i2 ]} =  0. Following the convention described in Section 2. i 1 = i 2 . The noise samples {n[i]} are Gaussian distributed and assumed independent:   2 σ . the discrete-time signal representation is used and the sampling rate fsa = JN/TB where J ≥ 1 is the oversampling factor.44) where Bn is the bandwidth of the noise signal.2 Performance Degradation Next. p. Φn (f ) =  0. The received signal is thus. that is. The performance is estimated by way of computer simulation.4.33) and n(t) is a complex-valued Gaussian additive noise signal having a power density spectrum [421.2. i 1 = i2 . and therefore no guard interval is used. pp. h(τ ) = δ(τ ).44)] has zerocrossings at τ = 1/Bn . The transmitted data symbols are estimated by the correlation in (2. (2.1. The OFDM signal is passed through a PA and then it is corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN). This decision is based on the maximum-likelihood (ML) criterion assuming a linear PA. Thus assuming Bn = fs . the nearest point in the symbol constellation [421.46) .11 shows bit error rate (BER) performance as a function of E b /N0 .

For M -PSK to 16 dB. 8 dB of backoff is required. 16 dB. IBO = 0. Eb /N0 (dB) (a) SSPA model. To avoid degradation. (b) TWTA model. 16 = best.47) is the Gaussian Q-function. . The TWTA results in Figure 2.11(a). 268].11(b) use IBO ranging from 0 dB of backoff is required—8 dB more than for the SSPA case. For the SSPA results in Figure 2. Notice the irreducible error floors for IBO ≤ 7 dB. BER = Q where Q(x) = √ ∞ −y 2 /2 e dy/ 2π x 2 Eb N0 . or simply the SNR. pp. Figure 2. 8 dB. the IBO ranges from 0 to 8 dB. QPSK data symbols are used. 8 = best. 4. The greater nonlinearity of the TWTA model is evident from the results in this figure. which is [421. and the oversampling factor is J = 4. To avoid degradation. At the 0. . 3. the IBO = 0 dB case suffers a 3 dB performance loss compared to ideal AWGN performance.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. 16 . 2.0001 BER level. . 1. 6. (2. . (N = 64) is the energy per bit. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 1. IBO = 0. 0 = worst. 0 = worst. Figure 2. The quantity E b /N0 is referred to as the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per bit.12 compares performance for higher-order PSK modulations. 10.11: Performance of QPSK/OFDM with nonlinear power amplifier with various input power backoff levels.

M − 1}. Using IBO = 6 dB for M = 8 results in 2 dB less degradation at the 0. the error floor for M = 16 drops to 2 × 10 −5 and the 0.12: Performance of M -PSK/OFDM with SSPA.001 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 4 Target BER = 0. Figure 2. For example. In Figure 2. .4. .001 bit error rate when compared to using IBO = 3 dB. 4 2 Ideal PA SSPA 10−4 M = 2. IBO (dB) 10 (a) BER performance. The number of bits per data symbols is log 2 M . This isn’t necessarily the case for nonlinear modulation formats as discussed in Section 4. 2 . .48) |sout (t)|2 dt . Eb /N0 (dB) 0 0 2 4 6 8 Input power backoff. 4 result at the same backoff shows only a 1 dB degradation. the M = 16 result for IBO = 3 dB has an irreducible error floor at 5 × 10 −3 .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. . (b) Total degradation. therefore the bit energy is Eb = TB 0 (2.12(a) BER results for the SSPA model are shown. 1. while the M = 2.) The higherorder modulations are shown to be more sensitive to the PA nonlinearity. m = 0. This is the case for linear modulation formats. (The results for M = 2 and M = 4 are very similar so only M = 2 is plotted. (N = 64) the data symbols are Ik ∈ {exp(j2πm/M ). N log2 M (2. When increasing the backoff to IBO = 6 dB.001 BER is about 2 dB worse than AWGN.49) Higher-order constellations are used for increased spectral efficiency at the price of BER performance2 .

7 dB at IBO opt = 6.3 System Range and PA Efficiency The total degradation is directly related to the system’s operational range. The true capability of the power amplifier is greatly underutilized. The M = 2 and M = 4 examples are shown to have the lowest degradation and are thus the more robust against nonlinear distortion. while having lower spectral efficiency than M = 16 (3 b/s/Hz vs. suffers less degradation and can operate with less backoff.14. as represented by the middle ring. This can be interpreted as follows: M = 8.35 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. occurs at IBO = 1 (0 dB). denote as IBOopt .5 dB. (2. Now assume that the system requires a 3 dB backoff: the range is reduced by one-half.50) where SNRAWGN is the required signal-to-noise ratio per bit to achieve a target bit error rate in AWGN. shown in Figure 2. can be used . TDmin = 5 dB at IBOopt = 3 dB. minimizes the total degradation. 2 IBO IBO ≥ 1. as represented by the innermost circle. The range is represented by the outermost ring in Figure 2.51) The target BER for the curves in Figure 2. the theoretical efficiency of a Class A power amplifier is used [374]: ηA = 1 1 × 100%. SNRPA (IBO) is the required SNR when taking into account the distortion caused by the power amplifier at a given backoff. The total degradation is defined as [121] TD(IBO) = SNRPA (IBO) − SNRAWGN + IBO.4. resulting in improved range and higher PA efficiency. The “optimum” IBO. (2. TD(IBOopt ) = TDmin = IBO≥0 dB min TD(IBO). The minimum TD for M = 16 is 7. To quantify the relationship between the PA efficiency and the power backoff. 4 b/s/Hz).001. 2. that is. Consider a transmitter operating at maximum transmit power.13. as shown in Figure 2. The efficiency curve. Thus the actual range of the system is far less than the potential range of the transmitter.12(b) is 0. Any degradation caused by the PA further reduces range. [in dB] (2. Clearly the modulation order influences the degradation. for M = 8.12(b). 50%.

the range is reduced further from nonlinear amplifier distortion. in conjunction with Figures 2. spectral containment. 6.12(b)]: however. and performance/range. results in no bandwidth expansion but the PA efficiency is reduced to 11%. the bandwidth expansion is 42% (Figure 2. 4 systems required minimal IBO for the SSPA.10) and the PA efficiency is ηA = 25% (Figure 2.5 dB. .14). ηA (%) 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Input power backoff. the optimum IBO in terms of total degradation for the 8-PSK SSPA example is IBO opt = 3 dB [Figure 2. The M = 2.36 Potential range Potential range w/ IBO Actual range Figure 2. but the bandwidth expands by 87%.10 and 2. The optimum IBO for the 16-PSK example. thus maximizing efficiency. 50 45 Class-A PA efficiency.13: The potential range of system is reduced with input backoff. For example. IBO (dB) 8 9 10 Figure 2.12(b) to gain insight to the various tradeoffs between PA efficiency.14: Power amplifier efficiency.

peak cancellation [330]. or 3. trellis-shaping [377]. 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). Parametric techniques. In [215. 290. 268. tone reservation [169. Transmitter enhancement techniques include PAPR reduction schemes and PA linearization schemes.439. see [227] and its references}. 138. in [259. receiver enhancement techniques. 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. In [85. 122. 250. have been suggested in [513]. and peak win- . receiver enhancement techniques. Non-distortionless dowing [403]. 382].508] and reference therein). 567] nonlinear polynomial models are used. In [230]. which design a predistorter based on a PA model. Finally. constellation extension [269]. and in [86] a Volterra-based model is suggested. in [395] a neural network learning technique is used. 512]. and in [87] (interference cancellation). Distortionless techniques include coding (see [126. This category includes constant envelope OFDM (as studied in the second half of this thesis) which uses a phase modulator as the transformer. schemes include signal clipping [27. The various schemes can be placed in one the following three categories: 1. signal transformation techniques. [376] (maximum-likelihood decoding). have been proposed. transmitter enhancement techniques. and multiple signal representation {aka selected mapping (SLM) or partial transmit sequences (PTS). 2.37 2. 453] (signal reconstruction). an LMS algorithm is applied for adaptive predistortion. 569–571] a companding transform is suggested. and applying the inverse transform at the receiver prior to demodulation.5 PAPR Mitigation Techniques There have been many schemes proposed in the research literature aimed at reducing the impact of the PAPR problem. The PAPR reduction schemes can be further divided into distortionless and non-distortionless techniques. the third category includes techniques that are based on transforming the OFDM signal prior to the PA. 329.

380. It is shown that clipping. has an impulse response h(τ ) = δ(τ ). 138. (This has been called “polar clipping” in the literature [276].27). 382.53) where ψ(t) = arg[s(t)]. if |s(t)| ≤ Amax . 391]. 371. 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. a common assumption is that the PA is linear [27. which has been claimed to be the “simplest” and “most effective” PAPR reduction scheme [27. while an effective PAPR reduction scheme. This result brings into question the usefulness of non-distortionless PAPR reduction techniques in general.38 Signal Clipping The remainder of this section focuses on the effectiveness of signal clipping.54)  Amax ejψ(t) . Ps (2. The system is evaluated with and without PAPR reduction.4. 391]. does not reduce TD min nor does clipping reduce IBOopt for an OFDM system. (2. When “off” the system is identical to the one studied in Section 2. The input to the clipping block is the OFDM signal s(t) from (2. 377. but by the more meaningful measures of TDmin and IBOopt reduction. The channel. However. It is argued here that the effectiveness of a PAPR reduction scheme must be measured not only by PAPR reduction. 290. The impact of “clipping noise”—the intercarrier interference caused by the clipping process—on system performance has been extensively analyzed [39. 87. the magnitude of the clipped signal does not exceed Amax and the phase of s(t) is preserved.15: Block diagram. 382]. the output is the clipped OFDM signal: sclip (t) =   s(t). 375. 124. 290. Therefore. When the switch is “on” the PAPR reducing signal clipper is used. . as before. defined as [375] Amax γclip = √ . 380. Therefore. if |s(t)| > Amax .15. the earlier unclipped results serve as a performance benchmark in which to compare the clipped results.2.) The clipping severity is measured by the clipping ratio. The system under consideration is shown in Figure 2. 382. 39.

0001 PAPR improvement. γclip = 4 dB.2 dB for γ clip = 5 dB and by 3. and 4 dB.18 shows PAPRclip as a function of the clipping ratio.16 shows a typical OFDM signal on the complex plane.17. the peak-to-average power ratio of the clipped signal is PAPR clip ≤ 10 compared to the unclipped signal.25 dB PAPR).2 dB for the the unclipped signal is 13 dB3 . and so forth. sclip (t) is unclipped.16: Unclipped OFDM signal (9. is 1. The rings have radius A max which correspond to various clipping ratios γ clip (dB). Figure 2. PAPRclip ≤ 8 dB. 2. The PAPR of sclip (t) is max |sclip (t)|2 t∈[0.39 20 γclip 4 OFDM signal Clip radius 2 10 0 Imaginary axis 0 −10 −20 −20 −10 0 Real axis 10 20 Figure 2.T ) . Figure 2.55) Clipping’s effectiveness at reducing PAPR is shown in Figure 2. Notice that for large γclip . 3 . The PAPR of γclip = 5 dB. thereThis figure is made by generating 2 × 104 consecutive OFDM blocks. For clipping ratio dB. TB 1 |sclip (t)|2 dt TB 0 PAPRclip = (2. for γclip = 4 dB. The PAPR of the overall block is 13 dB. The 0. The dark rings have radius Amax which correspond to clipping ratios γ clip = 0.

[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). γclip (dB) 6 8 10 Figure 2. (N = 64) .18: PAPR of clipped signal as a function of the clipping ratio.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.

19: A comparison of the total degradation curves of clipped and unclipped M -PSK/OFDM systems. the γclip = 4 dB result is nearly identical to the unclipped result. However. 4 2 Ideal PA Unclipped Clipped: γclip = 4 dB 3 dB 2 dB 0 0 2 4 6 Input power backoff. For M = 2.2 dB.41 fore PAPRclip = PAPRs . using the clipping ratio γclip = 3 dB for the M = 8 case increases the TD min by 0. PAPR clip ≈ γclip Ps /Ps = γclip . system results. 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. 10 M = 16 Total degradation (dB) 8 6 M =8 4 M = 2.12(b)] with the clipped system. Clipping is clearly an effective technique at reducing the PAPR. IBO (dB) 8 10 Figure 2. the clipping is mild so the average power is PAPRclip → 0 dB.19 compares the total degradation curves of the unclipped system [from Figure 2. Interestingly.2 dB. γclip = 3 dB increases the degradation by 1.2 dB. For M = 16. For example. does the PAPR reduction translate into reduced total degradation? Figure 2. The question is. For the region 3 dB < γclip < 6. and the TD curve associated with γclip = 2 dB is beyond the viewing range of the figure. the unclipped results are shown to provide a lower bound for the clipped. As γclip → 0. thus 2 peak power is A2 max = γclip Ps . therefore. using γclip = 2 dB increases TDmin by 1. 4 the PAPR reducing clipping yields nearly identical results as the unclipped system.5 dB. the peak and average powers converge. (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 . reduced PAPR.

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

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

y(t) can be viewed phase modulator prior to up-conversion. φ m (t) = 0 and y(t) is simply an amplitude modulated signal.6 Normalized time 0.4 0. That is.2: Instantaneous signal power. where Am (t) = |m(t)| and φm (t) = arg[m(t)].) For CE-OFDM.8 1 Figure 3.2 0. specifically. The baseband signal is s(t) = ejαm(t) . This is in contrast to conventional OFDM which amplitude modulates the carrier. For con- (3.3) . For real-valued m(t).k } are the data symbols and {qk (t)} are the orthogonal subcarriers. as an amplitude single-sideband modulation. m(t) is passed through a (3. The mapping is performed with an angle modulator.1) ventional OFDM the baseband signal is up-converted to bandpass as y(t) = m(t)ej2πfc t where {Ii. (For complex-valued m(t).2) = Am (t) cos [2πfc t + φm (t)] . consider the baseband OFDM waveform N m(t) = i k=1 Ii. a phase modulator. To see this.44 5 OFDM CE-OFDM 4 Instantaneous signal power 3 2 1 0 0 0.k qk (t − iTB ) (3. the OFDM signal is used to phase modulate the carrier.

In particular. [215. The companded signal has an increased average power and thus a lower peak-to-average power ratio than conventional OFDM. At the transmitter.3. Transmitter Transform OFDM modulator m(t) Phase modulator s(t) Power amplifier To channel (3.5) Receiver Inverse From channel Phase demodulator transform OFDM demodulator Figure 3. y(t) = cos [2πfc t + αm(t)] .5. The advantage of the phase modulator transform is that the resulting signal has the lowest achievable peak-to-average power ratio of 0 dB. other approaches based on signal transformation have been suggested.4) = e−αAm (t) sin φm (t) cos [2πfc t + αAm (t) cos φm (t)] . 329. the high PAPR OFDM signal is transformed into a low PAPR signal prior to the power amplifier. the inverse transformation is performed prior to demodulation. At the receiver.3: Basic concept of CE-OFDM. For real-valued m(t). The PAPR is still large relative to single carrier modulation. CE-OFDM can also be thought of as a transformation technique. 569–571] suggest a companding transform. As mentioned in Section 2.45 where α is a constant. 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. as shown in Figure 3. Therefore y(t) is a phase modulated signal. however. .

. These papers don’t consider the PAPR implications.46 The idea of transmitting OFDM by way of angle modulation isn’t entirely new. ±3. a principle engineer at Nova Engineering. suggest using a phase modulator prior to the power amplifier for PAPR mitigation—though intriguing. (3. First. . CE-OFDM requires a real-valued OFDM message signal. Transmitting OFDM with phase modulation raises several fundamental questions. . φm (t) = 0. or any other type of modulation suitable for the transmission of continuously varying [waveforms]” [202]. Using existing FM infrastructure for OFDM transmission has been suggested in [76.3)? How does the system perform in a frequency-selective fading channel? These questions.k ∈ {±1. on the other hand. suggested a low PAPR enhancement to OFDM by phase modulation. the CE-OFDM modulation is defined. OH). In fact. 575]. (Cincinnati. What is the power density spectrum of the modulation? How is the signal space affected? What is the optimum AWGN performance? What is the performance of a phase demodulator receiver (Figure 3. The subcarriers {q k (t)} must also . which is independent of the previous references. 77. and others. . stems from work done at the US Navy’s spawar Systems Center.1) are real-valued: Ii. 3. Two conference papers. are addressed here.1 Signal Definition As indicated by (3. The motivation is to reduce the 6 dB backoff used in the JTRS radio. Thus the data symbols are selected from an M -PAM set.4). these papers lack a solid theoretical foundation and ignore fundamental signal properties such as the signal’s power density spectrum. CA). which is the contractor of the OFDM component for JTRS (Joint Tactical Radio System). Therefore the data symbols in (3. [101] and [506]. that is. The origin of this work. (San Diego. Harmuth’s 1960 paper suggest transmitting information by orthogonal time functions with “amplitude or frequency modulation. Mike Geile. ±(M − 1)}. however.6) This one dimensional constellation is known as pulse-amplitude modulation (PAM).

47 be real-valued. qk (t) =  0. N σI (3. The normalizing constant. is set to CN ≡ 2 2.7) (3. .) The baseband CE-OFDM signal is s(t) = Aejφ(t) . otherwise. . (i+1)TB qk1 (t − iTB )qk2 (t − iTB )dt =  iTB 0. and θ i is a memory term (to be described below). 0 ≤ t < TB . . otherwise.   sin πkt/TB .7) can be computed with a discrete cosine transform (DCT). k ≤  B   qk (t) = sin 2π(k − N/2)t/TB . .9) k1 = k2 . The phase signal during the ith block is written as N φ(t) = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii.k qk (t − iTB ).  cos 2πkt/T .8) For each case. for k = 1. otherwise. k 1 = k2 . Three possibilities are considered: half-wave cosines. and full-wave cosines and sines.10) In terms of implementation. qk (t) =  0. .12) where h is referred to as the modulation index. or equivalently by taking a 2N -point DFT of a conjugate symmetric data vector (see Appendix A. k >     0.8) with a discrete sine transform (DST).  0 ≤ t < TB . and (3.   cos πkt/TB . (3. N . 0 ≤ t < TB . (3.9) by taking the real part of a discrete Fourier transform (DFT). 2. (3. (3. for k = 1. 2. N . iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB . . C N . .11) where A is the signal amplitude. (3.13) . (3. . 0 ≤ t < TB . half-wave sines. N 2. N 2. (3. the subcarrier orthogonality condition holds:   Eq . where Eq = TB /2.

that is. N log2 M N log 2 M (3.15) = 2 2 σI qk (t)dt = (2πh)2 .20) → 0.k Ab (k)] . At the ith signaling interval boundary. which is only a function of the modulation index.18) φ(iTB − ) = K and φ(iT + ) = K Ii−1.k | 1 = M = M2 M l=1 (2l − 1 − M )2 (3. Since qk (t) = 0 for t ∈ [0. P (I i. . for all i and k. ±3. . . TB ). Consequently. it follows that / N → 0. (3. The signal energy is (i+1)TB Es = and the bit energy is Eb = iTB |s(t)|2 dt = A2 TB . N ci = θi−1 − θi + K k=1 [Ii−1. 3 1). l = ±1. k=1 (3.k = l) = 1/M . the phase discontinuity is ci = φ(iTB − ) − φ(iTB + ). the phase signal variance is 2 σφ = E assuming equally likely signal points. Ab (k) = qk (0) and Ae (k) = qk (TB − ).19) Ii.17) The term θi is a memory component designed to make the modulation phase-continuous. Therefore.48 2 where σI is the data symbol variance: 2 σI 2 = E |Ii. (3. . .14) −1 .k Ae (k).16) Es A2 TB = .k Ab (k). ±(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 (3.21) where K ≡ 2πhCN . (3. k=1 N (3.k Ae (k) − Ii.

the memory term is set to N θi ≡ θi−1 + K k=1 [Ii. This is illustrated in Figure 3.5 −1 −0. the OFDM signal at the beginning of the ith block.5 0 Phase discontinuity. A second consequence of the memory terms is the entire unit circle is used for the CE-OFDM phase modulation.k Ae (k) 0.4: Phase discontinuities. therefore. In Figure 3. .5 0 (a) Without memory.k Ae (k).4(b) shows that the −0.22). 1. (3.2. The recursive relationship can be written as ∞ N θi = K l=0 k=1 [Ii−l. Figure 3. that is. and the OFDM signal at the end of the (i−1)th block.5 which plots continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples on the complex . N k=1 Ii−1.5 −1 10 20 30 40 Normalized time. ci 0.4 plots the phase discontinuities {c i } at the boundary times t = iTB . This property is studied further in Section 3. (3. ci is plotted for memoryless modulation. . . for all i. N k=1 Ii.23) Thus.49 To guarantee continuous phase. ci 10 20 30 40 Normalized time. i = N k=1 [Ii−1. θ i = 0. that is.k Ab (k) − Ii−1. Figure 3.k Ae (k)] .k Ab (k) − Ii−1−l. 1.5 1 0. Figure 3. 49. t/TB 50 −1. ci = K phase discontinuities are eliminated with the use of memory as defined in (3.4(a).5 0 −1. The benefit of continuous phase CE-OFDM is a more compact signal spectrum.5 0 − Ii.5 1 Phase discontinuity.22) Notice that θi depends on θi−1 . (b) With memory. . the memory term is a function of all data symbols during and prior to the ith block. c i = 0.k Ae (k)] .k Ab (k)]. t/TB 50 1.k Ab (k).

Figure 3. Using memory as defined by (3. pp. on the complex plane. The approach taken in [34]. and numerical integration algorithms (for example. those in [328. Viewing samples over L = 100 blocks. Figure 3. . .5(b) shows that the phase signal occupies the entire unit circle. [17]. The modulation index is 2πh = 0. over L blocks. where the phase signal occupies about one-half the unit circle. [421.7. 419]) fail to converge in a timely manner. This makes the integrand very jagged for all but trivial values of N .7) plane. other techniques are required to understand the CE-OFDM spectrum. ±3. The simplest is with the Taylor . The Fourier transform of the average autocorrelation function results in a two-dimensional definite integral. It can be shown that memoryless modulation (θ i = 0) results in spectral lines at the frequencies f k = k/TB . versus a single phase pulse as in CPM. Insight can be gained by taking this approach. (2πh = 0. k = 0. however.50 Unit circle Starting point (a) L = 1 (b) L = 100 Figure 3.22) eliminates these lines. ±1.5(a) shows signal samples over L = 1 block.2 Spectrum CE-OFDM is a complicated nonlinear modulation and a general closed-form expression for the power density spectrum is not available. The problem is there are N sinusoidal phase pulses in CE-OFDM. Since the Fourier transform approach isn’t computationally feasible.5: Continuous phase CE-OFDM signal samples. 3. . 207–217] to calculate the power spectrum of conventional CPM signals can be applied to CE-OFDM.

= Es /TB = A2 is the signal power. n! N (3. with θi = 0. as shown by the Taylor expansion in (3. Φs (f ) ≈ Φs (f ).6 shows that Brms accounts for at least 90% of the signal power.25) is the normalized OFDM message signal. defined as the twice the highest frequency subcarrier. As defined in (3. 340–343] [437]. the bandwidth of s(t) is at least W . The results in Figure 3. the n = 1 term is information bearing and has bandwidth W . for large N .24). due to the n = 1 term. Figure 3. The power density spectrum. the n = 2 term has a bandwidth 2W . is used to calculate the f 0 fractional out-of-band power. The CE-OFDM signal. FOBP(f ) = where Ps = ∞ −∞ Φs (f )df Φs (x)dx ≈ 0. the RMS bandwidth can be less than W . the OFDM waveform is well modeled as such (see Section 2.26) The bandwidth of s(t) is at least W : in (3.24) where m(t) = CN i k=1 Ii. the CE-OFDM bandwidth is at least W .51 expansion ex = ∞ n n=0 x /n!.28). Thus. A more suitable . 2TB TB (3. which assumes a Gaussian message signal. The dashed lines represent the RMS (3. and so on.27) fractional out-of-band power curves for N = 64 and various 2πh. 0. The effective double-sided bandwidth. Brms = σφ W = 2πhN/TB .k qk (t − iTB ) (3.2).5Ps (3. of m(t) is W =2× N N = . the n = 0 term contains no information and thus has zero bandwidth.28) The RMS (root-mean-square) bandwidth is obtained by borrowing a result from analog angle modulation [423. The result. pp.5Ps f 0 ˆ Φs (x)dx ˆ = FOBP(f ). can be easily estimated by the Welch method ˆ of periodogram averaging [526]. but.6 shows estimated constant CN these curves are valid for any M . Due to the normalizing bandwidth. Φs (f ).24). can be written as s(t) = Aejσφ m(t) ∞ =A n=0 (jσφ )n mn (t). and depending on the modulation index the effective bandwidth can be greater than W .

With 2πh = 0.52 100 ˆ FOBP(f ) Brms 10−1 2πh 10−2 Fractional out-of-band power 2.4 10−6 0.8 0. and compares it with the 90–99% bandwidths as determined by the Welch method.9).8% of the signal power (from Figure 3. (3. (3. non-continuous phase CE-OFDM is compared to continuous phase CEOFDM (the continuous phase examples are prefixed with “CP”). Notice that (3.4 10−4 1.5 2 Figure 3.29) is an accurate 90–92% bandwidth measure for 2πh ≥ 1.6 1.8) and (3.6: Estimated fractional out-of-band power.29) Figure 3. Memoryless.8 10−3 1.5 1 Normalized frequency. for example.0 1. f /W 1.29) accounts for 99.7 plots Bs versus 2πh.2 10−7 0 0. Figure 3.0 10−5 0. (N = 64) bandwidth is thus Bs = max(2πh.6.6). The estimates are also . B s is a conservative bandwidth.0.4. For small modulation index.7). The modulation index is 2πh = 0. 1)W.2 1.6 0. (3.8 compares spectral estimates for CE-OFDM signals with the three subcarrier modulations from (3.

(N = 64) compared to the Abramson spectrum [1]: ∞ ΦAb (f ) = A where an = and 2 n=0 2 an Un (f ). ∗ denotes the n . B/W 2.30) 2n e−σφ σφ n! .6 0.6 0. n = 1.4 Normalized double-sided bandwidth.8 1 1.2 0.31) n-fold convolution. 2πh 1.7: Double-sided bandwidth as a function of modulation index. ∞ n=0 an (3.2 2 1.2 1.8 2 Bs Welch: 90% 92% 95% 99% Figure 3.4 0.2 1 0.8 2. (3.6 2.4 1.8 1.    n  Φm (f ) ∗ Φm (f ).32) = 1.6 1.4 Modulation index. n = 0.6 1.2 0 0.53 3 2.     Un (f ) = Φm (f ). for example x(t) ∗ x(t) = x(t) ∗ x(t) ∗ x(t).8 0. (3.4 0. and Φm (f ) is the power The weighting factors {an } are Poisson distributed. and 3  δ(f ). n > 1.

25): Φm (f ) = where sinc(x) = TB 2N N sinc2 k=1 f− k 2TB   1.34) = 1. the nth term in (3. (3.33) x = 0. the carrier component accounts for e −0.2. For example. (N = 64. 2πh = 0.6) density spectrum of the message signal m(t) according to (3.7 are equal zero. for all n [1].) for 2πh = 0. . the carrier component. Therefore ∞ −∞ Un (f )df 4 e−σφ . has a fractional contribution of 2 The functions {Un (f )} have the property:  sin πx  .8: Power density spectrum. TB + sinc2 f+ k 2TB TB .2 ×100 ≈ 96% of the signal power. f /W 2 3 Figure 3.30) has an an × 100% contribution to the overall spectrum. Notice that 2 2 2 (This explains why the 90–92% curves at 2πh = 0. and so on.54 0 Welch estimate terms from (3.2 in Figure 3. represented as δ(f ). Φm (f ) ∗ Φm (f ) has a fractional contribution (e −σφ σφ )/2.30) 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. otherwise. πx (3.

For example.30). The continuous phase CE-OFDM signals are the most spectrally contained and are shown to have better than 99.99% containment at f /W = 1.9: Fractional out-of-band power. For reference.6) . and the resulting sum 4 ˆ ΦAb (f ) = A2 n=0 an Un (f ) ≈ ΦAb (f ).8. which isn’t phasecontinuous. 3. has a first derivative equal to zero at the boundary times t = iTB . 2. for all k] and has a lower out-of-band power than memoryless DFT.8.5 1 1.5 ≤ f /W ≤ 0. 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. N .8 plots the n = 1.5 2 Normalized frequency. Consequently. This 100 10−1 Fractional out-of-band power 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 DST |f /W | > 1. (N = 64.25. DST has a continuous phase [with or without memory since A b (k) = Ae (k) = 0.35) The Abramson spectrum is shown to match all estimates over the range |f /W | ≤ 1. 4 terms in (3. . 2πh = 0. otherwise] while DCT doesn’t [Ab (k) = Ae (k) = 1. and Ab (k) = Ae (k) = 1. the spectral height depends on the overall smoothness of the phase signal. Over the range 0. . for all k].5 is the same for each signal. Notice that the 99% spectral containment at f /W = 0.9 shows estimated fractional out-of-band power curves that correspond to the signals in Figure 3. . the CP-DCT is the most spectrally contained. unlike DST and CP-DFT. Figure 3.5 3 Figure 3. for k = N/2 + 1. (3. The smoothest phase results from CP-DCT which. . conventional OFDM is also plotted. For CE-OFDM OFDM Brms DCT DFT 10−6 10−7 CP-DFT CP-DCT 10−8 0 0.55 Figure 3. f /W 2.

(N = 64) .32) dominate. This is due to the fact that for a large modulation index. the system designer can trade performance for spectral containment. They are Gaussian shaped due to the multiple convolutions of (3.5 2 Figure 3. greater than OFDM over all frequencies.0 1. to conventional OFDM. with CP-DFT modulation over a large range of modulation index.0 10−5 0. Notice that the shape of the spectrum appears Gaussian shaped.0 example has a broad spectrum. Since the modulation index controls the CE-OFDM spectral containment.4 the fractional out-of-band power of CE-OFDM is always better than OFDM. otherwise CE-OFDM has more outof-band power for at least some frequencies f /W > 0. Therefore.10 compares CE-OFDM.5 1 Normalized frequency.10: CE-OFDM versus OFDM. 341. smaller h can be used if a tighter spectrum is required.2 1. 100 CE-OFDM OFDM 10−1 2πh 10−2 Fractional out-of-band power 2.6 1. and visa versa. The 2πh = 2.8 0.56 figure shows that the CE-OFDM spectrum has more out-of-band power than conventional OFDM. Figure 3.6 0. For 2πh ≤ 0.2 10−7 0 0. as will be discussed in the next chapter. the higher-order terms in (3.8 10−3 1. f /W 1. The tradeoff is that smaller h results in worse performance. 472].4 10−4 1. The shape of “wideband FM” signals is well covered in the classical works of [1. 437.4 10−6 0.33).5.

6 0.9) require > 6 dB backoff to avoid spectral broadening.5 0. f /W 1.7 10−5 0 0.4 0. Ideal CE-OFDM 10−1 IBO (dB) 0 2 4 6 Fractional out-of-band power 10−2 10−3 10−4 2πh 0.5 1 Normalized frequency. 100 OFDM.5 2 Figure 3.11 compares CE-OFDM and OFDM with nonlinear power amplification. TWTA OFDM.11: CE-OFDM versus OFDM with nonlinear PA. The OFDM curves (from Figure 2.57 Finally. Figure 3. The CE-OFDM signals have a bandwidth that depends only on the modulation index and are not effected by the PA nonlinearity. (N = 64) .

Chapter 4

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

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

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

rbp (t)

To detector

Figure 4.1: Phase demodulator receiver.

58

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

4.1

The Phase Demodulator Receiver

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

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

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

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

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

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

(4.9)

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

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

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

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

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

(4.16)

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

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

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

 0.19) 2 and therefore the sampling rate is f sa = Bn . 4. where s[i] = s(t)|t=iTsa and n[i] = n(t)|t=iTsa . n i1 = i2 .3.1. 416]. The finite impulse response (FIR) filter is optional. the unwrapper makes the receiver insensitive to phase offsets caused by the channel and/or by the memory terms. p.20) iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB .k qk (t − iTB ) + ξ(t). Although the receiver operates in the discrete-time domain. The output of the phase demodulator is processed by the OFDM demodulator which consists of the N correlators. This correlator bank is implemented in practice with the fast Fourier transform. (4. but has been found effective at improving performance. and the phase unwrapper is used to minimize the effect of phase ambiguities. arg(·) simply calculates the arctangent of its argument. The terms N (t) and Θ(t) in (4. i 1 = i2 . it is convenient to analyze it in the continuous-time domain. where ξ(t) = arctan is the corrupting noise [624. As will be shown. N (t) sin [Θ(t) − φ(t)] A + N (t) cos [Θ(t) − φ(t)] (4.1 Performance Analysis In this section a bit error rate approximation is derived for the phase demodulator receiver. The angle of the received signal is N arg[r(t)] = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii.2. one corresponding to each subcarrier. and σn = fsa N0 . (4. As discussed in Section 2.4.62 Phase demodulator r[i] FIR filter arg(·) Phase unwrapper To OFDM demodulator Figure 4.3: Discrete-time phase demodulator. The discrete-time phase demodulator studied in this thesis is shown in Figure 4.21) .21) are the envelope and phase of n(t). the noise samples {n[i]} are assumed independent: E {n[i1 ]n[i2 ]} =   2 σ .

with DST subcarrier modulation (3.k .k . W = N/TB is the effective bandwidth of φ(t).k + Ψi.k = Since 0 TB (4.63 The kth correlator in the OFDM demodulator computes 1 TB The signal term is Si. (4. k = 1. Ψi.29) .k is approximated as a zero mean Gaussian random variable with variance [442.8).26) evaluated at f = k/2TB [442. . .k .22) [φ(t) − θi ]qk (t − iTB )dt (i+1)TB N iTB n=1 2πhCN = TB = The noise term is Ni. ξ(t) is well modeled as a sample function of a zero mean Gaussian process. (4.k Eq = 2πh TB 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB ξ(t)qk (t − iTB )dt.k } ≈ The third term in (4.k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB ξ(t) sin [πk(t − iTB )/TB ] dt.22). 2N σI (4. Ni.n qn (t − iTB )qk (t − iTB )dt 1 2 Ii.k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB (i+1)TB iTB arg[r(t)]qk (t − iTB )dt = Si. . for high CNR. Therefore. the where. 410] Φξ (f ) ≈ N0 . 41–43]. (4. . 41–43] 1 1 N0 Φξ (f )|f =k/2TB ≈ . given a high CNR. from (3. Moreover.24) For example. is expressed as Ψi.k + Ni.27) 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB θi qk (t − iTB )dt.23) 2πhCN Ii. 2. 2TB 2TB A2 This result is the same for DCT and DFT subcarrier modulation.28) qk (t)dt = 0. p. 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. (4. As TB → ∞.26).25) which can be viewed as a Fourier coefficient of ξ(t) at f = k/2T B Hz. pp. (4. var{Ni. It is well known that.k = Ii. Ni. (4. pp. N. A2 |f | ≤ W/2.

35) .33) (4. the probability of Pinner = P (|Ni. the probability of error is 1 Pouter = P (Ni.k > d).7). 194–195].k = 0 and therefore has no effect on system performance. For the M − 2 inner points.8) is inferior to DCT and DFT since Ψ i. (4.] Due to the Gaussian approximation applied to the random variable N i.5 1 2πN0 /(2A2 T B) d ∞ exp −x2 / 2N0 /(2A2 TB ) dx (4.34) is equivalent to the SER for conventional M -PAM [483. 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 (4.30) [Notice that (4. 2 Therefore.9)].31) (4.k > d) = Pinner .k | > d) = 2P (Ni. (4.30) is not averaged over i nor k since var{N i. where d = 2πh 1 2.34) . p. Pinner ≈ 2 =2 d[N0 /(2A2 TB )]−0. 195] BER ≈ SER ≈2 log2 M M −1 M log2 M Q 2πh 6 log 2 M Eb M 2 − 1 N0 .k }. pp. the only significant symbol errors are those that occur in adjacent signal levels.k .32) . as approximated by (4. This highlights an important observation: DST subcarrier modulation (3. Notice that for 2πh = 1. ∞ is a constant. For high SNR. Ψ i. 2N σI (4.64 for DCT and DFT modulations [(3.27). The symbol error rate is computed by determining the probability of error for each error is signal point in the M -PAM constellation. 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. (3.k = 0 isn’t guaranteed. in which case the bit error rate is approximated as [483.

where J = 8 is the oversampling factor 4 . Figure 4. the phase demodulator has difficulty demodulating the noisy samples. the FIR filter (see Figure 4. the arg(·) block in Figure 4. Also.7 example.2. However.1.35) is applicable. For a smaller modulation index.4 compares the performance of N = 64.k = 1 TB (i+1)TB iTB [θi + φ0 ]qk (t − iTB )dt = 0. the analytical approximation is shown to be overly optimistic. has more phase jumps since the received phase crosses the π boundary more frequently. 2π)}.2 Effect of Channel Phase Offset Suppose the channel imposes a phase offset of φ 0 . With the 2πh = 0.37) iTB ≤ t < (i + 1)TB .38) Therefore. The kth correlator is the same as (4. The system is computer simulated with a sampling rate fsa = JN/TB . This demonstrates a limitation of the phase demodulator receiver: for a large modulation index and low signal-to-noise ratio. M = 2 CE-OFDM with phase offset {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0.36) arg[r(t)] = θi + 2πhCN k=1 Ii.65 4. The former is referred to as System 1 (S1).35) closely matches the simulation results for BER < 0. The received signal is then r(t) = s(t)ejφ0 + n(t). In this case. As a result the performance degrades slightly. For these cases the analytical approximation (4. S1 is shown to have a 1 dB performance loss compared to S2. 4 .22). Which is identical to (4. the phase offset due to the channel has no impact on performance.01. S1 and S2 are shown to have identical performance. (4. For Eb /N0 ≥ 10 dB and 2πh ≤ 0. (4. See Section 4.k qk (t − iTB ) + φ0 + ξ(t). and the analytical approximation in (4.4 for more on the filter design. the later as System 2 (S2). except the third term is Ψi.3) has length Lfir = 11 and normalized cutoff frequency fcut /W = 0.20) with the addition of the channel offset term.5. phase unwrapping a noisy signal is a difficult problem and the unwrapper makes mistakes. The performance of S1 is slightly worse than S2 since the output of the phase demodulator. The angle of r(t) is N (4. the unwrapper works perfectly and the performance of S1 isn’t degraded.3. and without (θi + φ0 = 0).1. Proper phase unwrapping is therefore required.

TB (4. A well-known characteristic of such receivers is: at low CNR. N = 64.1 10−4 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.4: Performance with and without phase offsets. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 Figure 4.40) is the noise power.5 0. The CNR at the output of the analog front end. the carrier power can be written in the form A2 = Eb N log 2 M . System 1 (S1) has phase offsets {(θi + φ0 ) ∈ [0.3 0.35).39) Pn = Φn (f )df = Bn N0 −∞ (4.41) . 2π)}. which leads to the BER approximation (4.66 100 System 1 System 2 Approx (4. and ∞ A2 .7 0. From (3. is CNR = where A2 is the carrier power.1. Pn (4. the approximation is invalid and system performance degrades drastically.17).26). below a threshold value. is a standard technique for analyzing phase demodulator receivers [423. J = 8] 4. the CNR is defined and the threshold effect for CE-OFDM is observed by way of computer simulation.35) 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 2πh 0.2 0. r(t). [M = 2. 624]. In this section.3 Carrier-to-Noise Ratio and Thresholding Effects The high-CNR approximation made in (4. and System 2 (S2) doesn’t (θ i + φ0 = 0).

simulation results for an M = 8. and (4. pp. TB Bn (4.19)]. the system is observed to be above threshold. the carrier-to-noise ratio is proportional to E b /N0 and M .43) Therefore.5. a region where the system is useless. In subfigures (a) and (b) the system is below and above the 10 dB threshold.67 thus CNR = (Eb /N0 )N log2 M . N = 64. J = 8. pp. respectively.6 shows results for more values of 2πh. Below 10 dB. [501. A commonly accepted threshold CNR for analog FM systems is 10 dB [472.42) Since the noise samples are assumed independent [see (4.44) (4. to where the system is above threshold. a transition region—that is. . 10 dB can be considered an appropriate threshold level.35). In Figure 4. Figure 4. above CNR = 10 dB.42) reduces to CNR = (Eb /N0 ) log 2 M . with a BER of 1/2. 2πh = 0. the performance begins to deviate from (4. with simulation results closely matching the analytical approximation. This transition region is difficult to study analytically. Bn = fsa = JN/TB . Gaining more insight into this issue is a subject for future investigation. This threshold level is studied in the following two figures.35).5 system are compared to (4. and inversely proportional to the oversampling factor. 120–138]. There is. however. Clearly. For each case. J (4. and for CNR < 5 dB. 87–91]. the performance quickly degrades to a bit error rate of 1/2.

(M = 8. J = 8.35) 10−1 Simulation Approx (4. N = 64. (b) Above 10 dB threshold.2 10−1 Simulation Approx (4.4 0.4 2πh 0. 2πh = 0. (M = 8.8 10−2 0.35) Bit error rate 10−1 Bit error rate 0. Figure 4.2 10−2 −2 0 2 4 6 8 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 10−3 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 24 (a) Below 10 dB threshold.6 0.68 Bit error rate Bit error rate 10−2 Simulation Approx (4.35) 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. (b) Above 10 dB threshold. various 2πh. N = 64.6 Simulation Approx (4. Figure 4.35) 0. J = 8) .8 0.5) 2πh 0.5: Threshold effect at low CNR.6: Threshold effect at low CNR.

The filter. 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. Hamming windows are used5 .7 shows BER simulation results of an M = 2.2 0.7: Performance for various filter parameters L fir . 2πh = 0.5 are shown higher-order filters with fcut /W < 0. fcut /W 0. The SNR is held constant at E b /N0 = 10 dB. The higher-order filters. 623–630].8 1 Figure 4. N = 64.5 system. This is explained by noting that the (single-sided) signal bandwidth is at least W/2 Hz.05. J = 8.5 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. Notice that the L fir = 11 filter band of the lower-order filter.1.4 0.012.5 distort the signal. the better than the unfiltered result.5 to yield good performance.69 4. fcut /W . N = 64. has equally good performance so long as f cut /W ≥ 0. (M = 2. Figure 4. while the analytical approxi- and a normalized cutoff frequency 0 < f cut /W ≤ 1. Therefore. The filters with L fir > 5 and fcut /W > 0. require fcut /W > 0. designed using the window technique described in [422.4 FIR Filter Design The FIR filter preceding the phase demodulator (see Figure 4. . 2πh = 0.35) is BER = 0. J = 8. The mation (4.6 Normalized cutoff frequency.4 all the filtered results are shown to be to have roughly the same performance.1. For fcut /W ≥ 0. pp.3) can improve performance. has a length 3 ≤ L fir ≤ 101 performance without a filter is shown to be BER = 0.35) 10−2 0 0.

. The filters with relatively flat response over |f /W | ≤ 0. These results show that the filter becomes important for larger modulation index: for 2πh = 0. fcut /W = 0.70 0 Lfir .9 compares the performance of binary (M = 2) CE-OFDM with and without the FIR filter. 0. Figure 4. 0.5 result in good performance.1 example is shown to not have this property. for 2πh = 0. This is a consequence of imperfect phase demodulation.7. f /W 2.5 1 1.7 Magnitude response (dB) 3. fcut /W = 0. as shown in Figure 4.5 3 Figure 4.2 filter is used.1 −40 101. for 2πh = 0. fcut /W −20 9. 0.1 the filtered and unfiltered results are the same.5 2 Normalized frequency. The filter lowers the error floor resulting in a 9 dB improvement at BER = 10−6 . has worse BER performance than the other filters.8: Magnitude response of various Hamming FIR filters. The figure above shows the magnitude response of the various Hamming FIR filters.7 there is a 2 dB improvement in the range 10−3 < BER < 10−5 .1 −60 31. Notice the error floor developing below 10 −5 . 0. The Lfir = 11. and.3 the filtered performance is a fraction of a dB better than the unfiltered.1 −80 −100 0 0.7 9. The Lfir = 31. 0.

45) where K = 2πhCN . . N = 64. IN ]}M .35) 10−1 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.3 0. . (M = 2. The set of all possible signals.9: CE-OFDM performance with and without FIR filter. {s m (t)}M .2 The Optimum Receiver As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter. but not necessarily optimum. the optimum. The optimum m=1 (m) N . 0 ≤ t < TB . yet impractical. CE-OFDM receiver is studied. . I2 (m) .7 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 25 30 Figure 4. Consider the mth bandpass signal N sm (t) = A cos 2πfc t + θ0 + K k=1 Ik (m) qk (t) . During each block one of M N CE-OFDM signals is transmitted. the phase demodulator receiver is a practical implementation. N (4. is determined by the m=1 set of all possible data symbol vectors {I (m) = [I1 (m) . Results obtained here are used in the following section to compare the phase demodulator receiver to optimum performance.1 10−4 10−5 10−6 0 5 10 15 20 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. In this section. . J = 8) 4.71 100 Without FIR filter With FIR filter Approx (4.

10. pp. as shown in Figure 4. The second is the data symbol error probability.1 Performance Analysis It is desired to obtain an analytical expression for the bit error probability 6 . as described below. upperbounds and approximations can be derived in a straightforward way. . However. Select the largest Output decision R TB 0 (·)dt Sample at t = TB sM N (t) Figure 4. Likewise for the symbol error probability and symbol error rate. . with each potentially transmitted signal. The first is the probability that the output of the optimum receiver is in error—that is. 6 .72 receiver. 242–247]. However. . . 4. Determining exact expressions for the above probabilities is intractable for large N . . r bp (t) = sm (t) + nw (t). The bit error probability is used interchangeably with the bit error rate.2.10: The optimum receiver. correlates the received signal. there are two other probabilities to consider: P (signal error) and P (symbol error) . The detector then selects the largest result [421. the receiver selects a different signal than the one transmitted. R TB 0 (·)dt s1 (t) R TB 0 (·)dt s2 (t) Received signal rbp (t) . P (bit error).

 N0 max ρm.n is the normalized correlation between s m (t) and sn (t): ρm. and in particular ρ max must be determined. 0 (4.n = 1 Es TB sm (t)sn (t)dt.53) (4.n ).49) the signal correlation properties must be studied. m. m=n where d2 = m.n. This quantity is related to the signal correlation as d2 = 2Es (1 − ρm. min (4. The normalized correlation between the mth and nth signal.51) is the squared Euclidean distance between s m (t) and sn (t).n thus d2 = 2Es (1 − ρmax ).n . as a function of the phase .n 0 TB [sm (t) − sn (t)]2 dt (4. (4.46) and the approximation (4.73 An upperbound for P (signal error) is [373]: 1 P (signal error) ≤ √ 2π ∞ −∞ 1 − [1 − Q(y)]M N −1 × (4.50) d2  min 2N0  . Therefore. m.n.n (4. it provides an upperbound given that λ = ρmax = m.46) The above expression is the probability of detection error for M N signals with equal correlation −1 ≤ λ ≤ 1. p. m=n    1 exp − y −  2 2  2Es (1 − λ)   dy.49) Euclidean distance m.47) where ρm. 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 .48) An approximation for P (signal error) is [421.52) Therefore to obtain the performance bound (4. (4.

e ja cos b ∞ = i=−∞ Ji (a)eji(b+π/2) .n (kd )qk (t) dt. the data symbols are the same. Therefore A2 ρm.n (K) = A2 2Es TB 0 ∞ i1 =−∞ ∞ ··· iD =−∞ Ji1 [2K∆m. Making use of the Jacobi-Anger expansion [580].54) Ik qk (t) dt (n) N cos 2πfc t + θ0 + K k=1 = where ∆m.n (kD )]ejσ(i) dt = A2 2Es TB 0 ∞ i1 =−∞ ∞ (4. the DCT modulation (3.n (k)qk (t) dt.55) D is the total number of differences.7) is assumed. (4.55) in exponential form yields ρm. and d=1 exp j2K 0 TB 0 D d=1 ∆m. is ρm.n (kD )] cos[ω(i) + ψ(i)]dt.56) is written as ρm.5[Ik A2 2Es 0 TB N cos 2K k=1 (n) ∆m.56) A2 = 2Es exp [j2K∆m.n (K) = 2Es TB D − Ik ]. Notice that for k where ∆ m.n (kd )qk (t)] dt. that is.n (k1 )] × · · · × JiD [2K∆m. Writing (4.74 constant K = 2πhCN .n (k) = 0.n (K) = A2 2Es TB D where {kd }D are the indices where the data symbols differ. 1/TB (m) is assumed. ∆ 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.n (kd )qk (t) dt (4.58) ··· Ji1 [2K∆m.n (k) = 0. and these indices don’t contribute to the correlation. (4. (4.57) where Ji (a) is the ith-order Bessel function of the first kind. d=1 To proceed. .n (k1 )]× iD =−∞ · · · × JiD [2K∆m.n (kd ) = 0. The double frequency term is ignored since f c cos 2K 0 d=1 ∆m.

75 where σ(i) = ω(i) + ψ(i). and from (4.n (k1 )| ∈ {1.n (k1 )]. . Index values that ρi. a symbol error can result in 1 to log 2 M bit errors. 2.11(a) plots tion [580. Notice that the largest correlation function is associated with D = 1. a symbol . . . = NQ Es [1 − ρmax ]/N0 Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 . Therefore.1 . there are N other signals with D = 1: therefore. 121].d [2K∆m.. For M > 2. .60) for |∆m. For any given signal. i = 1. p. ii. For DFT modulation.61) (4. Note that ρm. N }. just on the magnitude of the difference |∆ m. .n (k1 ) = 1|. (4. This result is the same for DST modulation except ψ(i i ) = 0. N = 8 DCT subcarrier modulation.n (K) = J0 [2K∆m. ω(i) ≡ πt TB D d=1 id kd result in ω(i) = 0 have no contribution. K d2 the probability of signal error is approximated as  P (signal error) ≈ Kd2 Q  min min = N .49).58) simplifies to D and ψ(i) ≡ π 2 D d=1 id . (4. ρm. (4. . Assuming each outcome is equally likely. so (4. For CE-OFDM signals of interest. Figure 4.60) Therefore the correlation is simply the 0th-order Bessel function.n (K) doesn’t depend on the subcarrier frequency fk1 = k1 /TB . . . 2. .n (kd )] cos[ψ(ii )]. .n (K) for M = 2. .59) where ii ≡ [ii. .63) For M = 2. .  d2  min 2N0 (4. . (4.j (K) = i d=1 Jii.D ].59) is slightly different since both sinusoids and cosinusoids are used as subcarriers. one symbol error corresponds to one bit error. .62) ≈ NQ error probability is approximated as P (symbol error) ≈ A minimum distance signal error results in one data symbols error. the symbol P (signal error) ≈Q N Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 . (4. Also plotted is the envelope of the 0th-order Bessel func- Figure 4.11(b) plots all unique ρm. ρmax = J0 (2K). (M − 1)}. 2. represent the vectors whereby ω(i i ) = 0. For D = 1. k1 ∈ {1.

4 0.8 ρm. N = 8 DCT modulation.5 0 1 2 K 3 4 5 (a) D = 1.40 0.n (K) p 1/πK 0 −0.5 (b) All unique ρm.5 ρm.6 0.2 K 0.1 0. . Figure 4.76 1 0.n (K) 0.n (K) for M = 2.3 0. 1 J0 (2K) 0.n (K).11: Correlation functions ρ m.

64) is shown to be very accurate. 1 − [1 − Q(y)]M N −1 × (4. N = 8) . Thus P (bit error) ≈ 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 18 21 Figure 4.5(log 2 M + 1) ≈ Q Es [1 − J0 (2K)]/N0 .7 which corresponds to K = 0. The number of correlators at the receiver is therefore 2 8 = 256.46) 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).12 shows simulation results of the optimum receiver for M = 2 and N = 8. log2 M (4.5(log 2 M + 1) P (symbol error) log2 M 0.65) Simulation 0.15 and K = 0.64) Bound (4.77 error results in 1 log2 M log2 M i i = 0.65) Figure 4. Two values of modulation index are plotted: 2πh = 0.3 10−4 10−6 0 3 6 9 12 15 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 100    1 exp − y −  2 2  2Es [1 − J0 (2K)]   dy.65) is shown to be within 3 dB of the simulated results for high SNR.12: CE-OFDM optimum receiver performance.64) and using (4. (M = 2.  N0 10−1 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 Approx (4. The upperbound (4.35.7 10−5 2πh 0.3 and 2πh = 0.5(log 2 M + 1) bit errors. The analytical approximation (4.

164]).n (K) ≤ ρmax (K) ≤ d2 (K) ≥ d2 (K) ≥ 2Es m.67) Notice that as K → ∞ the CE-OFDM signals become orthogonal.66) (4. the OFDM signal space is described by 2N dimensions (2 per subcarrier).14 shows simulation results for the phase demodulator receiver with N = 64 and for various modulation index values 2πh and modulation order M . 1 0. the space is transformed into a M N -dimensional space (due to the linear independence of the signal set [421. ρm.29). The functions are shown to be bounded by 1 . and as the modulation index becomes very large.2.3 Phase Demodulator Receiver versus Optimum Figure 4. The simulation . (4.78 4. πK the envelope of the 0th-order Bessel function. Prior to the phase demodulator.13: All unique ρm.n min 1− 1 πK . N = 4 DCT modulation.5 0 1 2 K 3 4 5 Figure 4.5 ρm. N = 4 DCT modulation.13) each correlation function is plotted for M = 2. The phase modulator thus drastically alters the signal space. p. At the output of the phase modulator. a M N -dimensional orthogonal space.n (K) p 1/πK 0 −0. from (3. However. the bandwidth tends to infinity as 2πh → ∞. Therefore. 4.2 Asymptotic Properties In Figure (4.n (K) for M = 2.

is comprised of the transmitted message signal plus an AWGN corrupting signal. (N = 64) results are compared to the analytical approximation (4.64). p. That is. ξ(t) is approximately “white”. 2πh 8. . The SNR per bit is E b /N0 = 30 dB. 2 2 2πσn 2σn (4. 0. 0. This shows that ξ(t) is well approximated as Gaussian.2 16. the phase demodulator must perfectly invert the phase modulation done at the transmitter.2 10−4 2. φ(t) + ξ(t). the OFDM demodulator is optimum given that the input.64) Simulation 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 M . and near optimum performance of the phase demodulator receiver is expected.01. 1.2 10−5 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.35) Approx (4. 0. All curves are shown to be essentially identical for BER < 0.79 100 Approx (4.68) to the Gaussian probability density function. For this to be true.26).15 compares (4. Figure 4. 268] ∞ pξ (x) = 0 y y 2 + A2 − 2yA cos x exp − dy. Eb /N0 (dB) 35 40 Figure 4. and the noise at the output of the phase demodulator must be “white” and Gaussian.8 16.14: Phase demodulator receiver versus optimum.3 4. The probability density function of ξ(t) samples is represented by the well-known form [421. As shown by (4. 0.35) and the optimum receiver approximation (4. This implies that the phase demodulator receiver is nearly optimum.68) 2 where σn = Bn N0 is the power of the noise signal n(t).

Notice that for M ≥ 4 and 2πh > 1. also controls the signal bandwidth. it is better than M -PAM.4 Spectral Efficiency versus Performance In the previous sections. 4. which.0. The bit error rate is plotted against the SNR per bit on the bottom x-axis and the carrier-to-noise ratio on the top x-axis. It is first demonstrated that CE-OFDM with modulation index 2πh > 1 can outperform the underlying M -PAM subcarrier modulation.5 0 x 0. the carrier-to-noise ratio must be above threshold. (E b /N0 = 30 dB) 4. 4 and 16.5 1 1. as shown in Section 3. For CE-OFDM . This is predicted by (4.5 −1 −0. it is shown that the performance of CE-OFDM is determined by the modulation index. CE-OFDM outperforms M -PAM. The FIR filter has length Lfir = 11 and a normalized cutoff frequency 0. and J = 16 for M = 16. The viewable range is such that CNR ≥ 5 dB.0. p(x) 10−5 10−10 10−15 10−20 −1. since for 2πh = 1. 4 and 8.15: Noise samples PDF versus Gaussian PDF. In this section.3 cycles per sample for M = 8.80 100 pξ (x) Gaussian Probability density function.16 shows simulation results7 for M = 2. The results are compared to channel capacity. the expression is equal to the to operate in the region 2πh > 1. and for 2πh > 1. The oversampling factor is J = 8 for M = 2.35). 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.2. and 0. Figure 4.2 cycles per sample for M = 2. 7 performance of M -PAM.5 Figure 4. 8 and 16.

. 0. Figure 4.2. ‡=rightmost curve) . . . Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 15 20 25 30 Simulation (4.1‡ } 10−2 10−3 10−3 10−4 10−4 2πh ∈ {1. .0† .9. (d) M = 16.9.1‡ } 10−5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 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 ∈ {1.1‡ } 10−4 2πh ∈ {2. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.16: Performance of M -PAM CE-OFDM. .35) 4-PAM 10−2 Bit error rate Bit error rate 2πh ∈ {0. 0.35) 20 5 10−1 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 15 20 25 Simulation (4.1.0.4.2. . . . 0. . Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 15 20 25 30 35 Simulation (4. (N = 64. Eb /N0 (dB) 10−5 15 20 25 30 35 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. . . 1.5. 1. 1. . 0.35) 8-PAM 10−2 Bit error rate Bit error rate 10−2 (b) M = 4. †=leftmost curve. 0.0† . . Eb /N0 (dB) (a) M = 2. . 1. .1‡ } 10−5 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.5† . Eb /N0 (dB) (c) M = 8. 0.5† . .81 5 10−1 Carrier-to-noise ratio (dB) 10 15 Simulation (4. 0. 1.

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)

no fading) was considered. The signal-to-noise ratio per bit for a given α is γ = α2 Eb . performance analysis of the phase demodulator receiver is extended to fading channels. respectively. where the channel impulse response is h(τ ) = is. and is thus constant at all frequencies—that In the previous chapter only the simple case of α = 1 (i. In this chapter the channel amplitude is treated as a random quantity. the channel is frequency nonselective.11).2). In the frequency domain. Such a channel model. N0 (5. ∞ −∞ h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t) [see (1.e.4)].2) 86 . since it’s frequency nonselective. and n(t) is the complex Gaussian noise term represented in (4. is commonly referred to as flat fading. α and φ 0 is the channel amplitude and phase. αe jφ0 δ(τ ). The lowpass equivalent representation of the received signal is r(t) = αejφ0 s(t) + n(t) (5.Chapter 5 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Nonselective Fading Channels In this chapter. The received signal can be written as r(t) = (2.15).1) where s(t) is the CE-OFDM signal according to (3. the channel is H(f ) = F{h(τ )}(f ) = αe jφ0 .

For the moment.87 and the average SNR per bit is [421. (5. 102] pγ (x) = (1 + KR )x (1 + KR )e−KR exp − I0 2 γ ¯ γ ¯ KR (1 + KR )x . described by (5. 40]. (5.4). γ ¯ x ≥ 0. p. so long as the for all x ≥ 0. the bit error rate for the Ricean channel. (5. ρ → 0 and γ is Rayleigh 1 x exp − γ ¯ γ ¯ pγ (x) = . is [483. 101]: respectively [401. x ≥ 0. exp − (1 + KR ) sin2 θ + c2 γ /2 2¯ (5.6) To obtain BER(¯ ). This ¯ γ quantity depends on the statistical distribution of γ. the probability density function of γ is [483.7) In Section 4.1.4) where I0 (·) is the 0th-order modified Bessel function of the first kind.10) . γ 817]: BER(¯ ) = γ 0 ∞ BER(x)pγ (x)dx.8) system is above threshold. p. (5. where c1 = 2(M − 1)/(M log 2 M ) and c2 = 2πh √ BER(x) = c1 Q(c2 x). p. For channels with a line-of-sight (LOS) component. assume 6 log 2 M/(M 2 − 1). 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. p.5) 2 is the Rice factor: ρ2 and 2σ0 represent the power of the LOS and scatter component.3) It is desired to calculate the bit error rate at a given γ . N0 (5. distributed [483.1 it is shown that √ BER(x) ≈ c1 Q c2 x . (5. the conditional BER is averaged over the distribution of γ [421. For channels without a line-of-sight. denoted here as BER(¯ ).9) If this were true. p. and KR = ρ2 2 2σ0 (5. p. 817] γ = E{γ} = E α2 ¯ Eb .

as discussed in Section 4.11) However. Lfir . γ (dB) ¯ (a) M = 8.10) for γ > 15 dB.6 the simulation result closely matches (5. normalized cutoff frequency. Figure 5. For lower values of γ . as described by (5. for example). This is due to the inaccuracy of the Q-function for large modulation index ¯ cases (see Figure 4. Rayleigh. Figure 5.4. (5.10) 10−1 10−1 100 Simulation Approx (5. as a result of the threshold effect. the bit error rate of CE-OFDM.6 Bit error rate 10−2 2πh 10−3 1. isn’t simply expressed by the Q-function for all values of SNR.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.9) is false. [483. (N = 64) Unless otherwise stated. and so forth—are the same as those used for the result shown in Figure 4.10) is overly optimistic by at least 3 dB for all values of γ .4 10−4 10−4 10−5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit.2 0.8 example. γ (dB) ¯ 10−5 0 10 20 30 40 50 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit.11) are not generally accurate. For the 2πh = 1. (b) M = 4.10) for an M = 8.88 and for the Rayleigh channel.10) and (5.11) Bit error rate 10−2 2πh 10−3 1. (5.1: Performance of CE-OFDM in flat fading channels. For 2πh = 0.1(a) compares simulation results 1 to (5. that is. 100 Simulation Approx (5. 101] BERRay (¯ ) = γ c1 2 1− c2 γ /2 2¯ 1 + c2 γ /2 2¯ .1. Ricean KR = 10 dB. p. (5.6). 1 . Consequently (5. N = 64 system in the Ricean channel with KR = 10 dB. the simulation parameters—J.16 (see the footnote in on page 80).8 0. (5.3.

at low SNR the bit error rate is roughly 1/2.8) holds. that is. (5.12) Determining x0 for a given M and 2πh. (5. As observed γ in Section 4.13) This simplified model. Also shown is the observed simulation result. Therefore (5. x0 x0 0 ≈ BER(x)pγ (x)dx + 0 √ (5. [For more examples of the transition region. For the low modulation index case of 2πh = 0. However.1. then BER(¯ ) ≈ γ 1 2 x0 ∞ pγ (x)dx + 0 x0 √ c1 Q(c2 x)pγ (x)dx.9). (5.10) and (5. N = 64 system is simulated in the Rayleigh channel.2: below x 0 the BER is 1/2.2. is not accurately described by the Q-function at low SNR and/or for large modulation index. (5. for the large modulation index case of 2πh = 1.16) the following observation can be made: above a certain SNR.4.] Consequently. .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.6. 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).1(b) further illustrates the inaccuracy of assuming (5. otherwise the BER is equal to the Q-function.12) are the problems that remain to obtain an accurate approximation of BER(¯ ).11) is somewhat accurate.89 Figure 5. For a limited range of 2πh (for example. A Semi-Analytical Approach The problem with (5. the values shown in Figure 4.13) is not generally accurate.6(a)]. see Figure 4. BER(x). An M = 4. and dealing with BER(x)pγ (x)dx in (5. the conditional bit error rate closely matches the Q-function. Assume for the moment that BER(x) = 1/2 for x ≤ x 0 . say x 0 . (5.11) is that the conditional bit error rate.3 [see Figure 4. and a more elaborate approach is required which accounts for the transition region. referred to as a two-region model since the conditional BER is split into two regions.11) is shown to be off by 5–7 dB. is illustrated in Figure 5.

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.

r(t) is sampled at the rate f sa = 1/Tsa samp/s. The received signal is ∞ r(t) = = 0 −∞ τmax h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t) h(τ )s(t − τ )dτ + n(t). the processed samples are Nc −1 rp [i] = r[i] = m=0 h[m]s[i − m] + n[i]. A guard interval of duration Tg ≥ τmax is inserted between successive CE-OFDM blocks to avoid interblock interference.Chapter 6 Performance of CE-OFDM in Frequency-Selective Channels In this chapter the performance of CE-OFDM in frequency-selective channels is studied. Using the discrete-time model outlined in Section 2.2) . The channel is time dispersive having an impulse response h(τ ) that can be non-zero over 0 ≤ τ ≤ τmax .2.1) is due to the law of causality [401.1) where s(t) is the CE-OFDM signal according to (3. At the receiver. (6. h(τ ) = 0 for τ > τ max . where τmax is the channel’s maximum propagation delay. 245]: h(τ ) = 0 for τ < 0. p. .11) and n(t) is the complex Gaussian noise term represented by (4.15). NB − 1. TB .1. . . with a block period. (6. by definition of the maximum propagation delay. 94 i = 0. . CE-OFDM has the same block structure as conventional OFDM. The lower bound of integration in (6. The upperbound is τ max since. the guard time samples are discarded and the block time samples are processed. designed to be much longer than τmax .

6) takes into account fade of −30 dB results in a correction term with gain +30 dB. k=0 i = 0. the ZF frequency-domain equalizer perfectly reverses the effect of the channel. .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. and C[k] = (6. Ignoring noise (n[i] = 0). the ZF suffers from noise enhancement. NB − 1. (6. NB − 1. When noise can’t be ignored. NB − 1. .6) for the minimum mean-square error (MMSE) criterion. . a but amplifies the noise by a factor of 1000. 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. Transmitting a cyclic prefix during i=−N the guard interval makes the linear convolution with the channel equivalent to circular convolution.7) = S[k]ej2πik/NDFT i = 0. (6. which corrects the channel . . . the output of the frequency-domain equalizer using (6. k=0 i = 0. Therefore. followed by an IDFT. The MMSE criterion (6. The FDE output is s[i] = ˆ 1 NDFT NDFT −1 Rp [k]C[k]ej2πik/NDFT . . .5) H ∗ [k] |H[k]|2 + (Eb /N0 )−1 (6.3) where {H[k]} is the DFT of {h[i]} and {S[k]} is the DFT of {s[i]}. .95 Note that the discarded samples are {r[i]} −1 g . The effect of the channel can be reversed with the frequency-domain equalizer: a DFT followed by a multiplier bank. . . Thus rp [i] = 1 NDFT NDFT −1 H[k]S[k]ej2πik/NDFT . For example. . .4) tion terms. = s[i].

1: CE-OFDM system with frequency-selective channel.96 the signal-to-noise ratio. In both sections an N = 64 CE-OFDM system is considered. over the corresponding guard interval [0. 6. oversampling factor J = 8. {s[i]} and {n[i]} are Figure 6.8) Eb /N0 →∞ The system under consideration is shown in Figure 6.75 The channel samples {h[i]}. 10 µs]. resulting in a transmission efficiency η t = 128/138 ≈ 0. 2 |H[k]| H[k] (6. the performance of the MMSE and ZF equalizers are compared over various frequency-selective channels.25 µs.5 Hz and the mainlobe bandwidth is W = N/TB = 500 kHz. and the sampling period is Tsa = 1/fsa = 0. In Section 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. Notice that the MMSE and ZF are equivalent at high SNR: lim C[k]|MMSE = H ∗ [k] 1 = = C[k]|ZF . For Channels A–C the maximum propagation delay is τ max = 0. The samples {h[i]}. The subcarrier spacing is 1/T B = 7812. therefore the sampling rate is f sa = JN/TB = 4 Msamp/s. described statistically.2.93. The study is separated into two parts. with a block period of TB = 128 µs. System performance is generated then used to calculate the received samples (6. in which case {h[i]} is 6. In Section 6.2) which are then processed by the FDE and the demodulator.1. The guard period is Tg = 10 µs.1. making an optimum trade between channel inversion and noise enhancement. The simulation uses an performance is evaluated for frequency-selective fading channels.1 Channel Description shown in Table 6.1 MMSE versus ZF Equalization In this section. the performance of CE-OFDM using the MMSE and ZF frequencydomain equalizers is compared over six frequency-selective channels.1.1. are .

86 0.99 0.55 0.89 0.02e+j3.81 0.07e+j0.01e+j2.12e+j1.71e−j0.00 0.41 0.09e+j0.01 0.00 0.01e+j2.76 0.00 0.01e−j1.01e−j2. i 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Delay (µs) τi = iTsa 0.67 – – – – – .05e+j0.50 0.00 7.91 0.05e+j2.93 0.75 7.03e+j2.01e−j2.01e+j2.20 0.14e+j1.96 0.75 3.22e+j0.02e−j1.10 0.01e−j1.42 0.54 0.89 0.00 3.40 0.03e+j0.01e−j2.95 0.25 4.98 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel D h[i] 0.01e+j0.98 0.50 4.25 2.25e−j1.01e+j3.87 0.72 0.75 1.25 5.47e−j0.75 4.57 0.01e−j3.18 0.50 8.75 6.12e+j1.25 3.02e−j1.47e−j1.97 Table 6.01e−j0.25e−j1.01 0.10 0.05 0.11 0.01e+j1.11 0.01e−j0.43 0.12e−j0.20 0.0 Channel A h[i] 0.09e+j0.50 1.75 8.69 0.14 0.17e+j0.00 2.18 0.93 0.21e−j1.56 0.61e+j0.01 – – – – – Channel E h[i] 0.49 0.38 0.36 0.00 1.92 0.59e+j3.24e+j1.58 0.00 0 0.13e+j0.17 0.01e−j1.01e+j0.96 0.82 0.01e+j1.30 0.08e−j2.21e−j2.19 0.01 0.42 0.07e−j2.03e−j1.42 0.13 0.75 5.02e+j0.23 0.99 0.67 0.16e−j2.02e−j1.10e+j1.25 1.30 0.03 0.03e+j2.23e+j1.01e+j2.14 0.83 0.33e+j2.33 0.50 9.00 8.16e−j0.49 0.01e+j2.15 0.01e+j2.01e−j0.13e+j2.80e−j2.11 0.05e−j2.11 0.77 0.08 0.00 0.00 9.20e+j2.50 6.13e−j0.09e−j1.22 0.39 0.75 10.01e+j0.76 0.12 0.00 6.02e+j2.11 – – – – – Channel F h[i] 0.06 0.01e−j0.01e−j1.02e+j1.36 0.20 0.93e−j1.24e+j0.01e+j0.01e−j2.04 0.08e+j1.92 0.02e+j2.07 0.05e+j1.60 0.27e+j1.30e−j2.14 0.07e−j0.91 0.09 0.98 0.34 0.50 7.50 2.92 0.11e+j1.82 0.50 3.08e−j0.88 0.01e−j0.25 8.03e+j0.28 0.05e+j0.02e−j0.50 5.02e−j2.37 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel B h[i] 0.04e+j3.12e−j0.05e+j1.05e−j1.01e+j0.1: Channel samples of frequency-selective channels.25 7.93 0.70e+j2.05 0.18e+j1.02e+j0.64 0.96 0.26 0.01e−j3.15e+j0.36 0.22 0 0.01e−j1.25 9.25 6.06e−j1.75 2.68 0.75 9.08e+j1.40 0.13 0.01 0.48 0.02e−j2.97 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Channel C h[i] 0.01e−j0.33 0.93 0.14e−j2.58 0.00 0.02e+j2.90 0 0.06e−j0.01e−j0.56e−j0.17 0.00 5.19e+j0.04e−j1.03e+j0.00 4.62e+j0.25 0.51e−j0.97 0.02e+j2.29 0.54 0.29 0.56 0.10e−j0.42e−j0.53 0.13e+j2.04e−j1.

11) where f is the normalized frequency variable having units cycles/samp [422. (6.14) Stochastic models are discussed in the next section. 256] Nc −1 H(f ) = i=0 h[i]e−j2πf i .75/0.9) Channels A–C are single realizations of an approximation to the maritime channel model in [350]. 2 fk ≡  k NDFT  + 1. In subfigure (b).10) is the Fourier transform of h[i].25 + 1 = 4 samples [see (2.75 µs. Nc −1 H[k] = i=0 h[i]e−j2πik/NDFT . NDFT . |h[i]|2 . that is. . . In subfigure (a). . (6. k = 0. NDFT . 1. . .12) as H[k] = H(fk ). 24] f = f fsa Hz. . . which results in Nc = τmax /Tsa + 1 = 0. NDFT − 1. p. . p.10) is related to the discrete Fourier transform. k = 0.5 dB range. 1. . NDFT − 1. thus Nc = 8.19)]. 16]. For Channels D–F. Channels D–F are single realizations of a stochastic model which has an exponential delay power density spectrum 1 . the power of the time samples. τmax = 8. k = 2 1 (6. .75/0. (6.5 dB ≤ |H(f )|2 ≤ 6 dB. (6. . Notice that over the signal’s mainlobe frequency range.13) where the discrete set of frequencies {f k } are defined as   k  k = 0. is plotted.2 shows Channel D in the time and frequency domains.25 + 1 = 36. (6. Figure 6. −250 kHz ≤ f ≤ 250 kHz. NDFT − 1. . |H(f )|2 is plotted. The x-axis is scaled as [422. . NDFT − 1. The Fourier transform (6. . . p. the channel is frequency selective. −2. . . The channels are normalized such that Nc −1 i=0 |h[i]|2 = 1. The magnitude response fluctuates over a 8. where [422.98 µs.

|H(f Equalizer response.35 0.3 0. Figure 6. f = f fsa (kHz) 100 200 (b) Frequency domain. 10 Magnitude response (dB) Channel D response. . Equalizer response.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Propagation delay. iTsa (µs) 7 8 9 (a) Time domain.2: Channel D.4 0.25 |h[i]|2 0. MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 10 20 )|2 ZF dB dB dB 5 0 −5 −200 −100 0 Frequency.2 0.99 0.15 0.1 0.

9).8.15) + 1. the MMSE is shown to slightly outperform the ZF at low SNR (i.2(b) is the response of the MMSE and ZF equalizers. The MMSE response. JN TB = fk = fk fsa = fk k TB  − fsa . is shown for Eb /N0 = 0. Notice that at high SNR the MMSE approaches the ZF equalizer.e. and the bit error rate performance results are shown in subfigure (c). The results for Channel A are shown in Figure 6. .2 Simulation Results The N = 64 CE-OFDM system is simulated over Channels A–F. For this particular channel the MMSE and ZF are shown to be equivalent for Eb /N0 ≥ 20 dB. . and different values of the modulation index.4 and 0. Channel A is the most mild in terms of its frequency-domain response.. The ZF response. NDFT . Of the six test channels. (6. their frequency response become the same at high E b /N0 . 0. . 0. For the 2πh = 0.6 example for Eb /N0 < 10 dB). Results for 2πh = 0. Over the signal bandwidth.1. As with the previous example.1. . for higher values of SNR the performance of the two equalizers becomes nearly identical. . 10.3–6.4. |h[i]| 2 is plotted in subfigure (a). The results are shown in Figures 6. The magnitude response |H(f )|2 spans a 3 dB region in a nearly linearly manner.11). The frequency response of this channel is more severely varying than Channel A.3(b). |H(f )|2 spans a 6 dB range.5). the 2πh = 0.3 and 0. The equalizers are shown to able from the simple AWGN curves. . . the ZF result is shown to be slightly worse than the MMSE result.6). the simulation results are compared against the simple AWGN channel. is simply the inverse of the channel. 0. 2 k= NDFT 2 (6. as illustrated in Figure 6. are selected.3(c) are nearly indistinguish- .8). the frequency samples {H[k]} correspond to the frequencies  k  . 1.1. For each case.6 example at the lower SNR values E b /N0 < 10 dB. Included in Figure 6.6 over Channel B are shown in Figure 6. 6. . . . (6.100 Using a DFT size NDFT = JN = NB and noting (6. This is to be expected since. .6. Results are plotted for 2πh = 0. but the two equalizers have essentially the same performance at the effectively correct the channel: the BER curves in Figure 6. The modulation order is M = 2.2. TB k = 0. .3. Due to the channel normalization (6. and 20 dB. NDFT − 1. the channel and equalizer frequency-domain responses are plotted in subfigure (b). which is to be expected from (6. h.

.5 0. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency. Figure 6.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.101 0.4 0.2 0.35).6 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.3 0.7 0.6 0. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.3 0.1 0 Magnitude response (dB) 2 0 |h[i]|2 −2 Channel A ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB −4 −6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.3: Channel A results.

35). f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain.3 0.7 0.1 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.6 |h[i]|2 0.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.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.4 0.9 0.102 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4.4: Channel B results. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4. . Figure 6.2 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.6 0.4 0.8 Magnitude response (dB) 0.2 0.

5.1. the two are equivalent only for E b /N0 > 35 dB.001. the ZF performance gradually approaches the MMSE performance at these high SNR values. when compared to the simple AWGN result. B and D.5(c): for the 2πh = 0.8(c) show the dramatic performance degradation as a consequence of the severe frequency selectivity. for example—the performance degradation is minor. the performance of the equalized CE-OFDM systems studied depends on the amount of frequency selectivity over the signal bandwidth.001 the degradation caused by the frequency selective Channel C has the most frequency-selective response of the three maritime channel realizations. channel. Channel F. MMSE example at the bit error rate 0. the ZF case degrades more than 20 dB further. The noise enhancement that results from equalizing channels with severe frequency responses— .103 higher SNR values. is slightly less than 1 dB. The degree that the each channel varies over the signal bandwidth progresses from Channel D to Channel F.1 case. For channels with a relatively mild frequency response— Channels A. is experienced for the 2πh = 0. First. having a 50 dB attenuation at 185 kHz.3 Discussion and Observations At this point. is the most harsh of the test channels. 6.1 and 0. The improvement of the MMSE is pronounced for 2πh = 0. Clearly. the three channels are three different realizations of a stochastic model with an exponential delay power density spectrum.8 show the results for Channels D–F. and is only 2 dB worse than the performance over the simple AWGN channel.6. As shown in Figure 6. compared to the AWGN performance.001. for example. the MMSE outperforms the ZF by 7 dB. At the bit error rate 0.6–6. the large amount of frequency selectivity of this channel results in a large performance degradation when compared to the AWGN results. It is also shown that very high SNR is required for the MMSE response to approach the ZF response. As stated earlier. the degradation is 10 dB for the 2πh = 0.001. This equivalence is also demonstrated in Figure 6. A 40 dB loss is suffered for the 2πh = 0. the magnitude response varies over a 20 dB range.1 example. Figures 6. Over the frequency range −250 kHz ≤ f fsa ≤ −200 kHz.3 cases. For BER ≤ 0. The results in Figure 6. An 18 dB loss. These results show that frequency selective channels having deep fades in the signal bandwidth impact performance greatly. At the bit error rate 0.5(b). several observations can be made.

5 0.3 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.5: Channel C results. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.6 0.5 Magnitude response (dB) 0.4 |h[i]|2 0. . f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain.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 (4.104 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). Figure 6. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.

4 0.3 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 30 35 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.15 0. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.1 0.35 0. Figure 6. .05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.35).2 0.105 0. f = f fsa (kHz) Channel D ZF MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 dB 10 dB 20 dB 200 (a) Time domain.6 0.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. iTsa (µs) 8 9 Magnitude response (dB) 6 4 2 0 −2 −4 −6 −8 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.25 |h[i]|2 0.6: Channel D results.2 0.

.15 0. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.7: Channel E results.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit.3 0. iTsa (µs) 8 9 −200 −100 0 100 Frequency.25 0.35). ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4. Eb /N0 (dB) 35 40 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4.6 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 2πh 0.35 0.2 0.1 0. Figure 6.05 Magnitude response (dB) 10 MMSE: Eb /N0 = 0 10 20 30 Channel E ZF dB dB dB dB 5 |h[i]|2 0 −5 −10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay.106 0.

35).25 |h[i]|2 0.3 0.3 0.8: Channel F results.1 0. Eb /N0 (dB) 60 65 70 (c) Performance for MMSE and ZF compared to AWGN and (4. ZF MMSE AWGN sim AWGN approx (4.107 0.35 0.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 0.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Signal-to-noise ratio per bit. f = f fsa (kHz) 200 (a) Time domain.1 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.6 2πh 0.3 0.2 0.15 0.6 0.4 0. Figure 6.05 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Propagation delay. 10−1 (b) Frequency domain.

the widely used assumption of WSSUS (wide-sense stationary uncorrelated scattering) is applied. the ZF performance is the same as the MMSE performance for many cases—the 2πh ≤ 0. Second. the MMSE equalizer offers significant improvement over the ZF equalizer when averaging performance over many channel realizations of a stochastic channel model. it is assumed that the channel is composed of discrete paths. and thus estimating Eb /N0 pays substantial dividends—the 2πh = 0. with a focus on the various aspects of simulation. E and F—degrades performance dramatically.4 per bit.16) .5 case for Channel C illustrates this point. the complexity of the frequency-domain equalizers is determined by the DFT size. for example.108 Channels C. the MMSE performs much better. This is in contrast to conventional time-domain equalizers which have a complexity that depends on the number of paths in the multipath channel. each having an associated gain and discrete propagation delay. Last. the MMSE equalizer is more complicated than the ZF equalizer since the SNR this added complexity doesn’t always translate into improved performance. The results of this study show that cases in Channel B. which were deterministic as defined in Table 6. 244].2 Performance Over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels In contrast to the test channels used in the previous section. Mobile Fading Channels [401]. In other cases. The mathematical foundation for stochastic time-variant linear channels was pioneered by Bello [50]. more recently P¨tzold’s text. In the study here.1. Eb /N0 . The channel’s impulse response is L−1 h(τ ) = l=0 al δ(τ − τl ). As demonstrated in the following section. (6. Also. not by the number of non-zero channel terms h[i]. 6. That is. p. provides a a excellent treatment of the topic. must be estimated at the receiver. the channels used in this section are described statistically. This assumption is based on the Parsons and Bajwa ellipse model for describing multipath channel geometry [401.

thus τl = lTsa . has a zero mean and a variance 2 σal = E |al |2 . p. (6. they are set equal to the sampling period of the simulation [401. . which provide the theoretical and mathematical foundations. The propagation delay differences are ∆τl = τl − τl−1 ≡ Tsa . “delay power spectral density” is used here. Also. l=0 (6. . delay of the 0th path is defined as τ0 ≡ 0. For each simulation trial. . . such that 267]. (6. this distinction isn’t stressed here (which results in a slightly different notation for the expressed formulas in his text). 2. . The gain is complex valued. Each l=0 l = 0. p. l = 0. In P¨tzold’s text.19) Both the real and imaginary parts of the path gains are Gaussian distributed [401. the set of path gains {a l }L−1 are generated randomly. time correlation function and coherence time (see [401. Also. 269]. thus the envelope |al |2 is Rayleigh distributed. . such as the below. 1. . .109 where al is the complex channel gain and τl is discrete propagation delay of the lth path. since only time-invariant channels are considered in this thesis. and “deterministic” channel models which are generated in software or hardware for simulation purposes.22) The phrase “delay power spectral density” is also commonly referred to as “power delay profile” (PDP) or “multipath intensity profile” (MIP). the total number of paths is represented by L. L − 1. 276–279) the parameters σ al . pp. τl and L determine a (6.21) • Average delay: (1) Bτ τ = L−1 2 σ al τ l . L − 1. 1. l=0 2 As outlined in P¨tzold’s text (pp. . the channels are normalized L−1 2 σal = 1. The relevant formulas are expressed Sτ τ (τ ) = l=0 2 σal δ(τ − τl ). (6. L − 1. (6. • Delay power spectral density: L−1 delay power spectral density and the delay spread 2 . a clear distinction is made between stochastic channel a models. . 2 .18) l = 1. For the sake of being consistent with [401]. the Doppler power spectral density. For the sake of simplicity.20) the fundamental characteristic functions and quantities of the channel models. . 277–279]) are not discussed. .17) That is.

3 .e. 6. path). 0 ≤ τl ≤ 8.27) is the normalizing constant used to guarantee (6.C =  0. due to (6.110 • Delay spread: (2) Bτ τ L−1 = l=0 (σal τl )2 − Bτ τ (1) 2 (6. 278].2.1188 . i. p. . 35 Channel Af has a weak secondary path (one-tenth. Channel Bf has a stronger secondary path (one-half..25) Notice that BC is the 3 dB bandwidth of rτ τ (v ). primary path). . −3 dB.20). otherwise. is equivL−1 l=0 2 σal e−j2πBC τl − 1 = 0.24) The variable v is referred to as the frequency separation variable [401.1 Channel Models CE-OFDM is simulated over four frequency-selective fading channel models. Both have a secondary path with a 5 µs propagation delay. (6.75 µs. the power of the primary (6. To avoid notational ambiguities. • Coherence bandwidth: The coherence bandwidth is the smallest positive value alent to BC which fulfils |rτ τ (BC )| = 0..23) • Frequency correlation function: L−1 rτ τ (v ) = l=0 2 σal e−j2πv τl (6.5|rτ τ (0)|. the power of the Channel Cf has an exponential delay power spectral density:   CC e−τl /2µs . −10 dB.e. Table 2 6.2 defines the parameters {σal } and {τl }.20) and (6. i.75 µs. which. Note that the maximum propagation delay is 8.26) where C Cf = 1 l=0 exp(−τl /2e-6) = 0.24). f 2 σal . 2 (6. the channel model labels in this section have the subscript “f” (“fading”). Channel Af and Bf are similar to the maritime channel models in [350]3 .

75e-3 8.50 9.50 0.25 0.70e-3 5.06e-2 1.50 6.41e-2 1.06e-3 3.75 6.75 3. Path no.25e-2 8.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 .36e-2 5.18e-1 1.75 7.2: Channel model parameters.00 5.17e-3 1. 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.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 .75 2.25 6.00 7.49e-3 0 0 0 0 0 Channel Df 2 σal .25 3.75 1.69e-3 1.50 4.50 7.46e-3 2.65e-2 2.75 9.16e-3 2.0 Channel Af 2 σal .00 8.60e-3 7.25 1.59e-3 6.33e-2 2.04e-1 9.75 10.50 5.37e-2 3.16e-2 7.79e-3 2.25 4.00 3.75 4.58e-3 3.50 3.00 6.75 8.61e-2 4.00 2.25 2.25 8.25 5.22e-3 4.75 5.85e-2 3.00 0.95e-2 4.25 7.50 8.91e-3 5.25 9.111 Table 6.50 1.00 4.60e-2 1.C 1.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 .50 2.60e-3 4.10e-2 9.00 9.40e-2 3.25e-2 1.92e-3 1.20e-2 6.00e-2 2.82e-2 1.00 1.

resulting in degraded performance.1. the channel may be fading such that the gain is less than unity. The corresponding average delay (6. CDf = 1/36. has a uniform delay power density spectrum:   CD .21) and the frequency correlation function (6. 4 9 11 1 2 > ≈ −3 dB. 6. as shown in subfigure (b). B C = 67 kHz. Some channel realizations result in very poor performance (for example. Due to (6. are complex-valued quantities. for a given trial. The likelihood of a deep channel fade depends on the number of independent ˛ ˛ 10 1 For Channel Af . Channel Df .24) are plotted for each of the four models. |rτ τ (v )| > −3 dB for all frequency separation values 4 .2 Simulation Procedure and Preliminary Discussion The average performance of various CE-OFDM systems is evaluated over the four above. f 2 σal .2. drawn from the Gaussian distribution. as stated 2 mean and variance {σal }—computing the received samples (6. This is done by randomly generating {a l }—which.000 bit errors.25) for each model is labeled.22). whichever happens first. (6.75 µs.D =  0. then processing the samples with the frequency-domain equalizer and the CE-OFDM demodulator. otherwise.23) and coherence bandwidth (6. while others result in a bit error rates not much worse than that of the simple AWGN channel.2). or until 100. see Figure 6. delay spread (6. At each average Eb /N0 considered.000 bits are transmitted. min |rτ τ (v )| = min ˛ 11 + 11 exp(−j2πv 5 µs)˛ = 5 Example simulation code can be found in Appendix C. The performance also depends on the gain of the channel realization.112 The last model.28) where the normalizing constant is (6. is normalized to unity. the simulation runs for at least 20. 0 ≤ τl ≤ 8.8). For Channel Af the coherence bandwidth isn’t finite since.000.9 the delay power density spectrum (6. however. with zero stochastic channel models. .20) the channel gain. as observed with the several examples in Section 6. This corresponds to many thousands of channel realizations5 . Notice that Channel Df has the smallest coherence bandwidth. This performance difference is attributed to the severity of the channel’s frequency response. on average.29) In Figure 6.

v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay.9: Fundamental characteristic functions and quantities [(6. Channel Bf 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 Bτ τ = 1.67 µs (2) Bτ τ (1) (d) Frequency correlation function.75 µs −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 140 300 Frequency separation.45 µs Bτ τ = 1. 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. Channel Bf 0 −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 = 2.36 µs −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 74 150 300 Frequency separation. v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay. . Channel Cf 0 −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 = 1. Channel Af 0 10 log 10 [rτ τ (v )] 10 log10 [Sτ τ (τ )] −5 Bτ τ = 0.113 (a) Delay power spectral density. Channel Af 0 −3 −6 −9 BC → ∞ −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 150 300 Frequency separation. τ (µs) 9 10 (g) Delay power spectral density.38 µs = 2.25)] of the four channel models considered. Channel Cf 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 = 4.60 µs −3 −6 −9 BC −10 −15 −20 −25 −30 0 1 −12 −15 −450 −300 −150 0 67 150 300 Frequency separation. τ (µs) 9 10 (c) Delay power spectral density.21)–(6.78 µs (2) Bτ τ (1) (f) Frequency correlation function. v (kHz) 450 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Propagation delay.44 µs (2) (1) (b) Frequency correlation function. τ (µs) 9 10 (e) Delay power spectral density. τ (µs) 9 10 Figure 6.

For reference. and Figure 6.16) independent]. Of the four models considered in this study. N = 64. [It is worth noting that the frequency-nonselective channel models considered in Chapter 5 channels have no multipath diversity. For each case. on average. 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. That is. In Figure 6. the MMSE equalized results have solid lines connecting the points. 2 have L = 1 path of which 100% of the channel gain depends (σ a1 = 1). Figure 6.3 Simulation Results The simulation results of this study are presented over three figures: Figure 6.114 propagation paths [the WSSUS assumption makes each path in (6. over Channel C f .11 compares the performance of a CE-OFDM system with fixed M but varying h over Channel C f . each having.] In the results that follow.12 compares the performance of constant envelope and conventional OFDM systems. The simulation results over the multipath channel models A f –Df are labeled with circles and triangles. in the presence of power amplifier nonlinearities.0 CE-OFDM system are plotted. an equal contribution. the performance of the system over the simple AWGN channel is plotted (with dash-dot lines) along with the performance over the Rayleigh frequency-nonselective fading channel (represented by the thick solid line).2.10. over the four channel models. It is unlikely that multiple paths fade simultaneously. Channel B f has more multipath diversity than Channel Af since the gain is distributed more equally between the two paths. while the ZF equalized results use dashed lines.10 compares the performance of a CE-OFDM system. 2πh = 1. Channel Af can be said to have the least amount of multipath diversity: over 90% of the channel gain depends on a single path. with fixed modulation order M and modulation index h. These results show the significant performance improvement . and thus these diversity—and its frequency-domain dual frequency diversity—on CE-OFDM systems is 6. performance results of an M = 4. Channel Df can be said to have the most multipath diversity: the gain of a given realization depends on 36 independent paths. For this reason. channels characterized by multiple propagation paths possess a type of diversity known at multipath diversity— which can be exploited by the receiver. as determined by {σ al }. the impact of multipath studied. the number of subcarriers is N = 64.

for example. results in a better performance that all the other channels. Eb /N0 (dB) 40 Figure 6.35) 10−2 Bit error rate 10−3 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit. the performance over the multipath Notice that Channel Df . L = 1 result is that of the frequency-nonselective channel model. is in fact better than the performance over Channel Af .1. L = 1 AWGN AWGN approx (4. . specifically.1.001.115 10−1 MMSE: Channel Af Bf Cf Df ZF: Channel Af Bf Cf Df Rayleigh.001. the Rayleigh.0) that is to be had by using the MMSE equalizer. 2πh = 1. At the bit error rate 0.10: Performance results. which has the most multipath diversity. MMSE outperforms ZF by 10 dB for Channel D f . These results indicate that the CE-OFDM receiver exploits the multipath diversity of the channel. The performance over Channel B f . For BER ≤ 0. multipath diversity. (Multipath results are labeled with circle and triangle points. 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. The fact that constant envelope OFDM exploits multipath diversity is an interesting result since conventional OFDM doesn’t. M = 4. which has more multipath diversity than Channel A f . For E b /N0 > 15 dB. This was shown in Section 2. the performance Rayleigh (L = 1 path) channel. N = 64. Consider the MMSE results.

however. .2. these topics are beyond its scope—and are topics for further research. . is the normalized . CE-OFDM. . However. that is. it is best to view the problem in the frequency domain. over the signal bandwidth the frequency response of the channel varies. and m(t) = CN N k=1 Ik qk (t). σφ = (2πh)2 is the phase signal variance.2.1 Consider a CE-OFDM waveform with an OFDM message signal composed of N = 2 orthogonal 6 Note that OFDM systems typically employ channel coding and frequency-domain interleaving. (3. this property was considered beneficial since ISI is avoided. n ≥ 2. the performance of OFDM in a time-dispersive channel is equivalent to flat fading performance. T g ≥ τmax .24)]: s(t) = A 1 + jσφ m(t) − 2 σφ 2 m2 (t) − j 3 σφ 6 m3 (t) + .116 by (2. To understand why CE-OFDM has improved performance over multipath fading channels (compared to single path fading channels) while OFDM doesn’t. which can be taken advantage of by the receiver to obtain performance better than flat fading—is not exploited by the OFDM receiver. results in a frequency spreading of the data symbols. So long as the duration of the guard interval is greater than or equal to the channel’s maximum propagation delay. in contrast. In the context of Section 2. In the context here.1.1. and a cyclic prefix is transmitted during the guard interval. In other words. This property is best demonstrated by way of a simple example. this property is considered a weakness since the multipath diversity of the channel isn’t leveraged6 . spreads the data symbol energy in the frequency domain.30) 2 0 ≤ t < TB . which offers diversity. the multipath fading performance is the same as single path fading performance. As identified in Section 1. Therefore any frequency diversity inherent to the channel—that is. where A is the signal amplitude. It can be said that OFDM lacks frequency diversity as well. the wideband frequency-selective fading channel is converted into N contiguous frequency-nonselective fading channels. 0 ≤ t < T B . since this thesis only deals with uncoded systems. OFDM message signal.1. (6. CN = 6/N (M 2 − 1).2. Example 6. in effect.9). has the ability to exploit the frequency diversity of the channel since the phase modulator. This can be seen by viewing the CE-OFDM waveform by the Taylor series expansion [see Section 3. The higher-order terms m n (t). The frequency domain dual to multipath diversity is frequency diversity.

. For the second-order term.5I2 c4 (I1 c1 + I2 c2 ) 2 3 2 3 2 = 0. for m(t). I2 and {cos 2πkt/TB }.5I1 + 0. The simple example above shows how the data symbols spread across multiple frequency bins.5I1 c2 + (I1 I2 ) c3 + 0. The phase modulator mixes and spreads—albeit in a nonlinear and exceedingly complicated manner—the data symbols in frequency. k = 1.5I1 c2 2 + (I1 I2 ) c3 + 0. 6 frequency bins. This task requires some algebra. . . and 4 frequency bins.34) and the third-order term as m3 (t) = 2 2 2 0. 0 ≤ t < TB .32) (6. h.33) (6. . Referring to the tones as frequency bins. 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.31) where Ik ∈ {±1}.75I1 + 1. (6. (6. Assume that the modulation index. For small values of modulation index. which gives the CE-OFDM system the potential to exploit the frequency diversity in the channel. 2.117 cosine subcarriers modulated with binary data symbols (M = 2): 2 m(t) = k=1 Ik cos 2πkt/TB . The second-order term is calculated as m2 (t) = (I1 c1 + I2 c2 )(I1 c1 + I2 c2 ) 2 2 2 2 = 0.5I2 c0 + (I1 I2 ) c1 + 0. 2.5I2 c2 3 2 2 + 0.30). ck ≡ cos 2πkt/TB . 1.5I1 + 0. k = 0. Thus. 1. For notational simplicity.75I1 I2 c0 + 0.5I2 c4 .25I1 + 0. . m2 (t) and m3 (t) is shown. it can be said that for m(t) the two data symbols are simply contained in the k = 1 and k = 2 frequency bins. (6. 6.75I1 I2 c3 + 0. m2 (t). The data symbol contribution at each tone cos 2πkt/TB . (6.75I1 I2 c5 + 0. however. 3. .5I1 I2 c1 + 1.3. In general.25I1 I2 + 0. let’s define write m2 (t) and m3 (t) in terms of I1 . . the data symbols mix across the k = 0. . 1. is such that the higher-order terms m2 (t) and m3 (t) contribute to the make up of s(t) according to (6.25I2 c6 . the data symbols mix across the k = 0. It is desired to but is simply done.5I2 c0 + (I1 I2 ) c1 + 0.31) is written as m(t) = I1 c1 + I2 c2 .35) The expansions above are represented in Table 6. . This isn’t necessarily the case.75I1 I2 c4 2 3 + 0. For m3 (t).

5I1 . 2 1. For the OFDM system. In the final figure. QPSK data symbols are used.5I2 2 0.5I1 I2 kth tone. This property is demonstrated in Figure 6. The x-axis is adjusted to account for the negative impact of input power backoff.12.1 are shown. N = 64 CE-OFDM system are shown. A) and therefore doesn’t have the ability to exploit the frequency diversity of the channel. Notice that the single path and multipath performance is essentially the same. 2πh = 2. 0 – 2 0.5I2 2 0. and 3.0.3: Data symbol contribution per tone for m n (t). 2.25I2 I1 I2 3 0. for the large modulation index example 2πh = 1. Second. The system is simulated over the single path Rayleigh flat fading channel and over the multipath fading model Channel C f .001 the multipath performance is over 10 dB better than the single path performance.1.11. The advantage of the CE-OFDM systems is twofold. that is.9.0.30) contribute.75I1 I2 6 – – 3 0. (6. s(t) ≈ A [1 + jσφ m(t)] . the CE-OFDM systems exploit . CE-OFDM has frequency diversity when the modulation index is large and doesn’t have frequency diversity when the modulation index is small. 3 0.5I2 5 – – 2 0. To demonstrate that CE-OFDM with a small modulation index lacks frequency diversity.5I1 2 1. the CE-OFDM systems operate with IBO = 0 dB. jσφ m(t). The systems are simulated over Channel Cf . Simply put. The SSPA model (see Section 2. at the bit error rate 0. cos 2πkt/TB 2 3 4 I2 – – 2 0. Figure 6. By contrast.36) the CE-OFDM signal doesn’t have the frequency spreading given by the higher-order terms.75I1 I2 m(t) m2 (t) m3 (t) 1 I1 I1 I2 3 0. Three different CE-OFDM systems are tested: M = 4. and M = 16. For example. the performance of constant envelope OFDM is compared to conventional OFDM in the presence of power amplifier nonlinearities. 2 0. the multipath performance is significantly better than the single path performance.75I1 . (plus a relatively large DC term. In this case. 2πh = 0. n =1.75I1 I2 where only the first two terms in (6. the CE-OFDM signal is essentially equivalent to a conventional OFDM signal.118 Table 6.25I1 .75I1 I2 2 0.3) is used at various input backoff levels. Simulation results of an M = 4. M = 8. 2 0. First. results for 2πh = 0.25I1 I2 . 2πh = 3.

N = 64. therefore. Notice that the OFDM system with IBO = 0 dB results in an irreducible error floor just below the bit error rate 0. Channel C f . Also.12 also highlight the poor performance of CE-OFDM at low SNR due to the threshold effect (as studied in Section 4.001 the CE-OFDM systems outperform the OFDM system by at least 10 dB.5 and 1.1. MMSE) the frequency diversity inherent to the channel.0 and 2πh = 3. At the bit error rate 0. Making a direct comparison between CE-OFDM and conventional OFDM is difficult ≤ Eb /N0 ≤ 10 dB. according to (4. At this bit error rate. The M = 8 and M = 16 systems have spectral efficiencies of 1.1 10−4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit. Eb /N0 (dB) 45 50 Figure 6. Even so. Roughly speaking. The results in Figure 6.3 b/s/Hz. the spectral efficiency of the QPSK/OFDM system is 2 b/s/Hz.119 100 Multipath Single path 10−1 Bit error rate 10−2 10−3 2πh 1. IBO = 6 dB is preferred since the performance is the same but the power efficiency is higher (see Figure 2. 2πh = 0. the OFDM system performs better than the CE-OFDM system. 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 = 2.11: Single path versus multipath. the OFDM system has essentially the same performance with backoff levels of 6 and 10 dB. (M = 4.14). respectively. is about the same as the M = 4. which.9 CEOFDM system.3). 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. .1 0.0 respectively) which results in spectral broadening.1.70).

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

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

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

most single carrier modulations have a non-constant envelope due to pulse shaping and multilevel QAM symbol constellations. considering different equalization techniques. OH). A study is needed to compare these modulation techniques to CE-OFDM taking into account the effects of the PA at various backoff levels. . 460. However. CPM systems in the other hand require high quality coherent channels. In the near term a CE-OFDM prototype is being developed by Nova Engineering (Cincinnati. performance and complexity. only 64 subcarriers are used). using CPM with a cyclic prefix is an interesting idea. 154. spectral efficiency. Also. 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. 574]. CE-OFDM might provide acceptable performance without equalization. Research challenges that remain include evaluating CE-OFDM with many subcarriers (in this thesis. 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. 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.123 For example. 463. power amplifier efficiency. Additional future work includes comparing CE-OFDM with other block modulation technique in terms of PAPR. a channel characterized by a two-path model with a weak secondary path. developing synchronization schemes and studying the impact of channel coding and the effects of time-varying channels. Comparing the complexity and spectral efficiency of such a technique with CE-OFDM would be interesting.

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

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 . k=1 (A. 1. .7) x[i] = k=1 ∗ XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N + XN/2−k e−j2π(N/2−k)i/N . (A. . . N − 1.10) . The IDFT is then N −1 (A. N/2−1 x[i] = 2 k=1 {Xk } cos(2πki/N ) − {Xk } sin(2πki/N ). However it can be made real-valued by making X conjugate symmetric: ∗ XN/2+k = XN/2−k (A. =2   k=1 (A. . . . 1.9) And since {AB} = {A} {B} − {A} {B}. . (A. N − 1. . N − 1. .125 The sequence is complex-valued in general. 1.   N/2−1  XN/2−k ej2π(N/2−k)i/N x[i] = 2   k=1   N/2−1  Xk ej2πki/N . . (A.6) = i = 0. Using the identity A + A ∗ = 2 {A}. . 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) can be written as N/2−1 (A. i = 0.8) i = 0. .

centered at a carrier frequency fc Hz. . and likewise.1).11) Now. 1. x[i] is real.13) (A.14) In the frequency domain. the real and imaginary components are derived from M -PAM (pulseamplitude modulation) constellations. signal as-is. ±3.15) the signal is therefore N/TB Hz. . .126 i = 0. . 2. suppose the data symbols are derived from a M 2 -QAM (quadrature-amplitude modulation) constellation. so long as it is transmitted at baseband. . fc + (N − 1)/TB Hz. (A. 1/TB . The transmitted signal is represented as s1 (t) = x(t)ej2πfc t . N − 1. therefore the spectral efficiency is S1 = Bits per second (b/s) N log2 M/TB = log2 M b/s/Hz.12) In other words. Transmitting the {Xk }.. they are The real-valued OFDM signal in (A. (A. (A.2 Spectral Efficiency Complex-valued baseband signals are transmitted as bandpass signals. . . A. x(t) is shifted to the right by f c Hz. The effective bandwidth of assumed to be selected from a M -ary constellation). . (A.e. . Therefore. (N/2) − 1. and the subcarriers are centered at fc . = Bandwidth (Hz) N/TB (A. processing M 2 -QAM data with the IDFT. where {Xk }. ±(M − 1)}. mod- . fc + 1/TB . . . . modulate cosine subcarriers centered at ulate sine subcarriers at the same frequencies. that is. k = 1.11) has the same spectral efficiency as the complex-valued signal. . {Xk } ∈ {±1. [(N/2) − 1]/TB Hz. . This is the case for the complex-valued signal in (A. Each data symbol represents log 2 M bits (i. 2/TB . . . . k = 1. . 2. for all k. . Xk = {Xk } + j {Xk }. Thus. The effective bandwidth of the signal is {Xk }. fc + 2/TB . (N/2) − 1.11) is a real-valued M -PAM OFDM signal. . 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) have a double sideband spectrum: that is. the passband transmission of (A. f ≥ 0.127 (N/2)/TB Hz1 . so the frequency Consequently. which has complex sinusoids: exp(j2πkt/T B ) 1 Only the positive frequencies. However.5 log 2 M bits. Bandwidth (Hz) (N/2)/TB (A. [This has a spectral component only at k/T B Hz and is thus considered single sideband. the spectral efficiency of the real-valued OFDM signal is S2 = Bits per second (b/s) 2 × 0.] The carrier frequency is typically much larger than the signal bandwidth.11) results in a signal with double the bandwidth and 1/2 the spectral efficiency. cos(2πkt/TB ) [or sin(2πkt/TB )] has a spectral components at ±k/T B Hz. This is due to the fact that the cosine and sine subcarriers in (A. translation brings all the negative frequencies to the positive side: −(N/2)/T B + fc 0.16) Therefore the spectral efficiency is the same as for the complex case. . isn’t the case for the complex-valued signal. 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. count.5(N/2) log 2 M/TB = = log 2 M b/s/Hz. and since the real and imaginary parts of X k represent 0.

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

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

Figure B. is the goal.1 shows the result of searching for “OFDM” in the IEEE online literature database. which may include several thousands of papers published over many decades.130 First. So. to get an idea of the size of the literature.1: “OFDM” search on IEEE Xplore [222]. As of the year 2004. there are many papers to read and to learn from. Figure B. Besides the OFDM-specific papers. Being familiar with the relevant literature. (b) Cumulative paper count. . 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. 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.

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

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

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

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

% bit mapping 0 0. 0 0 1.^2)/M..135 io=1.1. A=1. NF=TF*Fsa. 0 1 1. 0 1 1 1.. end if M==8 SymMap=[-7:2:7]’. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[.. 1 0 1 1. 0 0 0 1.1]. . % bit mapping end if M==4 SymMap=[-3. 1]. 1 0 0]. 1 0]. Nc=taumax*Fsa. 1 0 0 1. TF=Tg+TB. L=8. . Tsa=1/Fsa. 1 0 0 0]. TB=128e-6. 1 1 0 0. 1 1 1. M=4.0/(2*pi). 0 1 0 0..-1. 0 1 0 1. Ng=Tg*Fsa. 0 0 1 0. 0 1 0. Nr=Nc+NF-1.3]. 0 1 1 0. 1 1. % variance of data ... 1 0 1 0. Ndft=512. 0 0 1 1. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[. J=8. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[0.. taumax=9e-6. 1 1 0. NB=TB*Fsa.. end if M==16 SymMap=(-15:2:15)’. end varI=sum(SymMap.. % bit mapping 0 0 0 0. ip=[Ng:NF-1]+io. 0 1. 1 1 1 1. % data symbol mapping BitMap=[. modh=1. Tg=10e-6. 1 1 0 1. % bit mapping 0 0 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. N=64. Fsa=J*N/TB.. 1 0 1. 1 1 1 0.

% initialize unitary matrix for k=1:N/2 % W is a set of orth. % SNR counter go=1.*w1. % delay n2=(d+1):(d+NB). % desired.N). sines and cosines W(:. end for k=(N/2+1):N W(:.5. % normalized cutoff frequency (cyc/samp) wc=2*pi*fc.Mf). % time vector p=1/tauRms*exp(-t/2e-6). % SNR step size iSNR=1. % delay PDS % ------. % initialize SNR vector dx=2. else h1(i)=sin(wc*(n1(i)-(Mf-1)/2))/(pi*(n1(i)-(Mf-1)/2)). % time vector W=zeros(NB.2. % normalizing constant %% Subcarrier matrix t=0:Tsa:(TB-Tsa). Trans_num=0. % initialize for i=1:Mf % compute coefficients if n1(i)==((Mf-1)/2) h1(i)=wc/pi. % filter sample index d=(Mf-1)/2. % filter length n1=0:(Mf-1). % Hamming window hf=h1. (Error_num<=Error_min & Trans_num<=Trans_max) .. % normalized cutoff frequency (rad/samp) h1=zeros(1.. end %% Design FIR filter: improves performance of phase demodulator %% See Proakis’s DSP text for design details Mf=11. end end w1=0. delayed indices fc=0.46*cos(2*pi*n1/(Mf-1)).k)=sin(2*pi*(k-N/2)*t/TB)’. % initialize loop while go % run until max SNR condition Error_num=0.k)=cos(2*pi*k*t/TB)’.136 CN=sqrt(2/(N*varI)). % windowed filter coefficients %% Channel delay power spectral density (exponential) t=[0:Nc-1]’*Tsa.Simulation ----------------------------------------------BER=0.54-0. % initialize while Trans_num<=Trans_min | . % initialize BER vector EbN0_dB=0.

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

/H. Error_num. % phase demodulate Ihat=W’*hatphi/((2*pi*modh*CN)*NB*1/2). M=%d.BER) %% Save tmp=[EbN0_dB’ BER’]... 2*pi*modh.1)..1f. 2pih=%1. (<=M) inHat=max(inHat. ’.M). else % keep going iSNR=iSNR+1. 2πh. % correction term (ZF) The other fading channels are generated by changing the code that defines the channel. ’fc=%1. BER=%1. Error_num/Trans_num) end end % end this SNR BER(iSNR)=Error_num/Trans_num.:)~=BitMap(inHat. save -ascii data tmp To get other results.1e’]. M. end end % end simulation %% Plot semilogy(EbN0_dB. J=%d. EbN0=%2. the above code is used with different values of M .:))). % bit errors Error_num=Error_num+Errors. J. Trans_num. % bit error rate for current SNR %% Test for max SNR condition if BER(iSNR)<targetBER | EbN0_dB(iSNR)>=SNRmax go=0... EbN0_dB(end).138 end %% Demodulate and detect hatphi=unwrap(angle(hats)).1f. EbN0_dB(iSNR)=EbN0_dB(iSNR-1)+dx. ’. % cumulative bit errors Trans_num=Trans_num+L*N*log2(M). ’Error_num=%d.1f. For Channel Af : .. % matched-filter output inHat=min(round((Ihat+(M-1))/2)+io. and/or channel definitions.. EQ. Trans_num=%d. % index estimate. % cumulative bits %% Display (optional) if rem(Trans_num. % (>=1) Errors=sum(sum(BitMap(in. fading ChC. The ZF equalizer is simulated by changing the equalizer to C=1.10*L*N*log2(M))==0 % print-frequency clc printf([’MMSE. fc. equalizer settings.

% path power (dB) power=10. % path index p(i+io. C.^(power_dB/10). % delay PSD end p=[p. # Tell Gnuplot what kind of plot to generate and give it # some parameters.1)=power(n). % path delays power_dB=[0 -3]. zeros(Nc-length(p).1)=power(n). % path power (dB) power=10.10.1)]. % discrete propagation delays p=ones(size(t)). % zero-pad For Channel Df : %% Channel delay power spectral density (uniform) tau=[0:Nc-1]’*Ts. the above template can be used for conventional OFDM with some minor alterations. % path delays power_dB=[0 -10]. zeros(Nc-length(p). % path index p(i+io. % path power for n=1:length(tau) i=tau(n)*Fs. % delay PSD Additionally. % zero-pad For Channel Bf : %% Channel delay power spectral density (two-path) tau=[0 5e-6].^(power_dB/10). set term pslatex monochrome dashed rotate 8 set format "$%g$" set logscale y 10 set format y "$10^{%T}$" . % path power for n=1:length(tau) i=tau(n)*Fs. Below is sample code which generates Figure 6. % delay PSD end p=[p.1)].139 %% Channel delay power spectral density (two-path) tau=[0 5e-6].2 Gnuplot Code The majority of the figures in this thesis were generated with Gnuplot.

\ "results/MMSE/ChC" t ’C’ w lp ls 3.\ $\mathcal{E}_\text{b}/N_0$ (dB)}’ set ylabel ’Bit error rate’ # Now.5 grid size 1.5 border 31 linewidth 0.0 set style line 33 lt 3 lw 1 pt 7 ps 1.140 set set set set set set ticscale 0.\ "results/flat" t ’Rayleigh.0.0 set style line 3 lt 1 lw 1 pt 7 ps 1. set style line 1 lt 1 lw 1 pt 9 ps 1.\ "results/ZF/ChA/" t ’ZF: Channel A’ w lp ls 11.1. set xlabel ’[t]{Average signal-to-noise ratio per bit.0 set style line 22 lt 3 lw 1 pt 6 ps 1.\ "results/approx" t ’AWGN approx \eqref{eqn:approx}’ w l ls 7 . (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 2 lt 1 lw 1 pt 6 ps 1.0 set style line 11 lt 3 lw 1 pt 9 ps 1.5e-1 output "p_ber" # Define line styles.\ "results/AWGN" t ’AWGN’ w l ls 6.\ "results/MMSE/ChB" t ’B’ w lp ls 2.4.5 height 1 box lw 0.0 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.\ "results/ZF/ChB/" t ’B’ w lp ls 22.0 set style line 44 lt 3 lw 1 pt 8 ps 1.\ "results/ZF/ChC/" t ’C’ w lp ls 33.1.0 set style line 4 lt 1 lw 1 pt 8 ps 1.4 key width -23.1 41. plot.\ "results/MMSE/ChD" t ’D’ w lp ls 4. $\mathcal{L}=1$’ w l ls 5.\ "results/ZF/ChD/" t ’D’ w lp ls 44.

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 .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.

000.142 kHz LAN LMMSE LMS LOS M -PSK M -PAM M -QAM MAN Mb/s Msamp MHz ML OFDM P/S PA PAM PAPR PLC PSK QAM QPSK RLS RMS s S/P samp SC-FDE SER SDR SNR SSPA STTR SVD TWTA UWB W WSSUS µs kilohertz (1 thousand cycles/s) local area network linear minimum mean-squared error least-mean-square line-of-signal M -ary phase-shift keying M -ary pulse-amplitude modulation M -ary quadrature-amplitude modulation metropolitan area network megabits per second (1 million b/s) megasample (1 million samples) megahertz (1 million cycles/s) maximum-likelihood orthogonal frequency division multiplexing parallel-to-serial conversion power amplifier pulse-amplitude modulation peak-to-average power ratio power line communication phase-shift keying quadrature-amplitude modulation quadrature phase-shift keying recursive least-square root-mean-square second serial-to-parallel conversion sample single carrier frequency-domain equalizer symbol error rate software defined radio signal-to-noise ratio solid-state power amplifier small business technology transfer singular value decomposition traveling-wave tube amplifier ultra-wideband Watts wide-sense stationary uncorrelated scattering microsecond (1/1.000 s) .

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 . .Symbols Set Theory ∈ ∈ / [·] [·) {xn }N n=1 is an element of is not an element of closed interval open interval set of elements x1 . . . .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 . .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 .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.

that is. 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 .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) .145 Channel 2 2σ0 al BC (1) Bτ τ (2) Bτ τ C h(τ.n d2 (K) m. ∆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.

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. b/s spectral efficiency. b/s/Hz lowpass equivalent representation of transmitted signal samples of s(t) bandpass representation of s(t) in-phase component of sbp (t) quadrature component of sbp (t) frequency domain representation of s(t) discrete Fourier transform of s[i] time variable . 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.

147 TB Tg Ts Tsa W ∆m. . n[i] phase signal variance correlation between mth and nth signal correlation between mth and nth signal as a function of the phase constant maximum correlation among signals phase signal noise autocorrelation function Abramson spectrum estimated Abramson spectrum power density spectrum of signal x.n (k) γ γ ¯ γclip fo ηt θi ξ(t) 2 σI 2 σn 2 σφ ρm.n ρm.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. 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.

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

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

153–159. 30.” IEE Proc. pp. and D. vol. July 1982. pp. Broadcast. Baas and D. 3. no. 3. 2002. W. Aue and G. pp. 1506–1510. June 2001.” IEEE Trans. Commun. Mar. [32] T. “Understanding the Effects of Phase Noise in Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM).” IEEE Trans. vol. no. pp. Low-Complexity Communication Over Fading Dispersive Channels. J. Sept. 1999. pp. “Analysis of New and Existing Methods of Reducing Intercarrier Interference Due to Carrier Frequency Offset in OFDM. N. no. 246–247. 38. G. 5. IEEE VTC. vol. “Phase Noise and Sub-Carrier Spacing Effects on the Performance of an OFDM Communication System. 3. 49. pp.” in Proc. vol.. Commun. Nix. [31] T. 2438–2449. [28] ——. no. pp. 7. no. Mar. [36] N.” IEE Electr. vol.” IEEE Trans. “Continuous Phase Modulation—Part II: Partial Response Signaling. A.. Rhodes. pp. pp.-E. P. Commun. 1. vol.. Armstrong.” IEEE Trans. 2. Sundberg. [27] J. 10. 47. Greece. Commun. pp..-E. Armada. 3. Taylor. 1983..” IEEE Trans. 365–369. Lett. 11. Aulin and C. no. . [29] ——. [26] S. “An easy way to calculate power spectra of digital FM. 30. [34] ——. W. “A Comparison of the Performance of Linearly Equalized Single Carrier and Coded OFDM Over Frequency Selective Fading Channels Using The Random Coding Technique. 196–209.” IEEE Commun. Bull. [35] T. vol. vol. 756–760.. no. 1998. Nov. no. and C. Oct. 1981.150 [24] A. Feb. Jan. Atlanta. 29. no. no. Commun.” in Proc. Fettweis. 11–13. 6. vol. Aulin and C. 519–526. 1981. 210–224. “Peak-to-average power reduction for OFDM by repeated clipping and frequency domain filtering. “Exact Asymptotic Behavior of Digital FM Spectra. “Continuous Phase Modulation—Part I: Full Response Signaling. 1748–1754. Mar. “Minimum Euclidean Distance and Power Spectrum for a Class of Smoothed Phase Modulation Codes with Constant Envelope. 1999.-E.” IEEE Trans. [33] ——. vol. 47. pp. vol. Commun. Oct. May 2001. vol. IEEE VTC. 1721–1729. “Bandwidth Expansion for Robust. IEEE ICC.. Armour. pp.. 2. 2001. [30] V. “The Impact of FFT Size on the Performance of a Combined OFDM-Equalization Radio Modem. “New OFDM Peak-to-Average Power Reduction Scheme. 1. Aulin.” IEEE Trans. Lett. vol. [25] ——.. 29. 753–757. 2. Sundberg. pp. 1982.” in Proc. June 1998. Sundberg. 130. P. Rydbeck..

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

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

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

Kuala Lumpur. 6. vol. Su. June 2002. cheol Lee. A. J. vol. 2001. H. vol. 2. “A Simplified Predistorter for Compensation of Nonlinear Distortion in OFDM Systems. May 2002. 736–740. 721–732. 305–307. no. vol. pp. 14. J. Gibby. July 2003. E. Chang. 1775–1796.488. vol. 7. 607–610. Lett. vol. 2. com-16. O. no. IEEE VTC. pp. Nov. [80] R. 1966. Lett. 1966. “Multicarrier transmission in a mobile radio channel.” IEEE Trans. 1968. 1970. [88] H. San Antonio. Commun. J. Chang and Y. vol. San Francisco. 1016–1028.. [89] W. 7. IEEE ISSPA. “Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing. Aug. E.” US patent 3. Broadcast. [86] S. K.445. [85] S. Chen and G. 1295–1299. 1. pp. vol. Cherubini. T.. Oct.” IEEE J. Lett. 1962–1963. 4. jin Kang.-M. J. Ottawa. pp.. Nov. Chang and R. Pottie. Chang and E. and K. no. 20. [81] M.” in Proc. 2001. vol. 44. [83] ——. Powers. Dec. 3080–3084. IEEE Globecom. 6. and J. and S. “A 20 Mbits/s OFDM Demodulator at 5 GHz: System Design. “A Theoretical Study of Performance of an Orthogonal Multiplexing Data Transmission Scheme. Chang. 2000. “Performance Analysis of Viterbi Decoder Using Channel State Information in COFDM System. 21. 2002.. Jones. Technol. 488–496.” in Proc.. 4. 5.154 [78] R. Tech. “Efficient Equalizers for Single and Multi-Carrier Environments with Known Symbol Padding. IEEE Globecom.” in Proc. Dec. 529–540. “Performance Analysis of Equalized OFDM Systems in Rayleigh Fading. issued Jan. Castle and A. Park. pp. vol. W. pp. pp. bae Kim. Chung.” IEE Electr. Moonen. Select. no. Eleftheriou. pp. “Filtered Multitone Modulation for Very High-Speed Digital Subscriber Lines.. Chen and A. Implementation and Experimental Results. 4. no. Areas Commun. Powers. Caswell. Oct. Haimovich. Cendrillion and M. 169–171. pp. [84] R. 2. filed Nov. no. 32. May 1998. pp. 5. “A Compensation Scheme for Nonlinear Distortion in OFDM Systems. pp. vol. “An Orthogonal Projection-Based Approach for PAR Reduction in OFDM. 45. . Aug.” IEEE Commun. pp. [79] A. M.” IEEE Trans. 5. [87] H. ¨ c [90] C. “Synthesis of band-limited orthogonal signals for multichannel data transmission.-X. [82] R.” IEEE Commun.” Bell Syst. Ol¸er. W. Wireless Commun. vol.. no.” in Proc. 1996. “Iterative Estimation and Cancellation of Clipping Noise for OFDM Signals.” IEEE Trans. 1998.. C.

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

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

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

“Training Sequence versus Cyclic Prefix—A New Look on Single Carrier Communication. Atlantic City. 38.” in Proc. 791–796. no. BC. Commun. pp. pp. Dmochowski and P. [134] L. 1999. 46. Giardina. IEEE PACRIM. vol. 1.. Amsterdam.” IEEE Trans. vol. Bottomley. pp.” IEEE Trans. 3. G. “Multiple-Symbol Differential Detection of MPSK. Kenny. pp. 14–19.. J. Dinur and D. vol. Iezekiel. 2009–2018. [143] O. July 1998. Sept. 1998. Zhou. and T. [133] P. vol. Divsalar and M. 3. [Online]. [142] P. D. Lett. vol. 11. Ding.” IEE Electr. R. M. “Jakes Fading Model Revisited. no. Jan. 292–294. vol. K. Beek. NJ. IEEE ICC. 1999.158 [131] Debian—The Universal Operating System. 2004. G. 13. Dinis and A. Pollard.. Wulich.” IEEE Commun. pp. T. Wilson. “A discussion of the effects of amplifier back-off on OFDM. IEEE VTC. D. “Performance evaluation of a multicarrier modulation technique allowing strongly nonlinear amplification. J. IEEE VTC. 2001.” in Proc. Gusm˜o. 2. . [138] ——. and P. Commun. 2923–2928. 7. 1162–1163. J. S. vol. 300–308. Edfors. [135] R. Nov. pp. 2.” IEEE Trans. pp. vol.. 3. pp. no. Proakis.” in Proc. Kim. July 2001. Mar. 29. van de. 1990. pp.” IEEE Trans. “Frequency Domain Equalization for High Data Rate Multipath Channels. [144] O. 2004. 1370–1374. B¨rjesson. R. no. May 1997. [136] ——. S. 7. Ma. Deneire. Dural and J. K. Dixon. 1663–1667. and S. G. vol. Commun. Leeds. Simon.” in Proc. [141] B.org/ [132] L. June 2001. Victoria. Gyselinckx. and C. R. E. Available: http://www. June 1993.. pp. Sept. o “OFDM Channel Estimation by Singular Value Decomposition. [139] N. Dent. Z. vol.. [140] D. 6. “On the Performance Evaluation of OFDM Transmission Using Clipping Techniques. a IEEE VTC. J. O. no. 5. Commun.” Proc. A. Morgan.” IEEE Trans. Croft. J. no. “Signal Space Representation of Binary Continuous Phase Modulated Signals.. 49. [137] ——. and M. 52. 2001.” in High Frequency Postgraduate Student Colloquium. pp. 931–939. 159–165. Sandell. no. Aug. Oct. “Carrier synchronization with CEPB-OFDM. pp. McLane. pp. “A Robust Digital Baseband Predistorter Constructed Using Memory Polynomials. 534–537. “Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in High-Order OFDM. vol. Commun. “A Class of Nonlinear Signal-Processing Schemes for Bandwidth-Efficient OFDM Transmission With Low Envelope Fluctuation. 52. Engels. B.-J. 5. Lett.debian. 1063–1072. vol.

” IEEE Commun. 2004.” in The 2002 45th Midwest Symposium on Circuits and Systems. no. N. Commun. Oct. Cellini. IEEE Symp. 88–94. Aug. “Peak to average power reduction for OFDM schemes by selective scrambling.. 2003. 47. Eidson. K. pp. 47. S. May 1988. May 2005.” IEEE Trans. pp. vol. 2. “Design Methods for Time-Domain Equalizers in DMT Transceivers. Technol. L. Broadcast. Ariyavisitakul. vol. IEEE Wireless Pers. Wu. Cox. June 1988.. Eetvelt. Farrow. 2. 2001. [150] S. “A Continuously Variable Digital Delay Element. “Broadband Wireless Using Single Carrier and Frequency Domain Equalization. vol. and S.. Mag. pp. pp. Elnoubi. Wade. Eleftheriou. Commun. Mar... pp. Falconer. pp. vol... G. 58–66. V. no. 2002. pp. vol. Farhang-Boroujeny and M.” IEEE Trans. II–200—II–203. pp. and V. no.” IEEE Trans. 3. [148] ——. 1. pp. 554–562. [152] T. “OFDM Uplink for Interactive Broadband Wireless: Analysis and Simulation in the Presence of Carrier. 32. Elphick. Broadcast. H´zy.. “A Multicarrier Architecture Based Upon the Affine Fourier Transform. 27–36.” IEE Electr. 1. “Partial evaluation of matlab. pp. Y. no. Ding. vol. Ragaie. 2002. 21. Oct. 853–862. Laurenti.. Syst. [153] D. [154] D. 1963–1964. ¨ c [149] E. 2001. L. Sharaf. 5. [155] B. Commun.” in Proc. 104–107. Lett. 49.. and M. M. Apr. [146] H. Multi. 2001. Ol¸er. “Frequency Domain Equalization for Single-Carrier Broadband Wireless Systems. Mar.. [151] D.” IEEE Trans. Falconer and S. 3–19.159 [145] P. D. Veh. Leuschel.” in GPCE ’03: Proceedings of the second international conference on Generative programming and component engineering. W. 344–363. 3. Ariyavisitakul. Sadjadpour. Inc. Espoo. 2002. S. Mag. vol. 2641–2645. 1. Erseghe. vol.” IEEE Trans. pp. [156] C. A. . S. Finland. Mar. M. 37. and B. “Analytical Modeling and Simulation of a Phase Noise Interference in OFDM-Based Digital Television Terrestrial Broadcasting Systems. Benyamin-Seeyar. Circuits. Clock and Timing Errors. [147] M.” IEEE Commun. M. and H. Springer-Verlag New York. no. El-Tanany. Tomlinson. and H.” in Proc. 53. “Predetection Filtering Effect on the Probability of Error of GMSK with Discriminator Detection in Mobile Radio Channels. no. “Application of Capacity-Approaching Coding techniques to Digital Subscriber Lines. vol. 1996. “ARCTAN Differentiated Digital Demodulator for FM/FSK Digital Receivers. Apr. 20–31. pp. Eissa. and L.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

88. [263] H. Signal Processing. Keller. no. I. Fukuhara. Apr. 1998. S. Oct.” IEEE J. [261] Y. vol. [256] T. Song. Areas Commun. [260] J. S. Commun. “Clipping Noise Mitigation for OFDM by Decision-Aided Reconstruction. pp.. pp. 1998.167 [255] A. D. 1579–1589. Krongold and D. [265] S. “A Bandwidth Efficient OFDM Transmission Scheme.” in Proc. “Performance of Multicarrier DS CDMA Systems. “Analysis and Compensation of Bandpass Nonlinearities for Communications. “Preamble and Embedded Synchronization for RF Carrier Frequency-Hopped OFDM. M. H. Select. 3. 965–972. no. St¨ ber. vol. Oct. 5.” IEEE Commun. and E. and M. vol. 48. 3. 16. 5. 4–6. 1. Chuprun. 1915–1919.” IEEE Trans. Technol. A [266] H. “Residual ISI Cancellation for OFDM with u Applications to HDTV Broadcasting. 2. Kobayashi. and L. Kleider.. “Adaptive Multicarrier Modulation: A Convenient Framework for Time-Frequency Processing in Wireless Communications.” IEEE Trans. Koffman and V.. “An Active-Set Approach for OFDM PAR Reduction via Tone Reservation. vol. Kim and G. “Nonorthogonal Pulseshapes for Multicarrier Communications in Doubly Dispersive Channels. [262] J. IEEE ICASSP. Piazzo. Daly. H. pp. 920–931. Areas Commun. J. Mag. Veh. W. [257] T. Roman. G.” IEEE J. May 2000. 1999. Chang. Apr. B. T. Feb. E. H.. Technol. Molisch. pp.” IEEE Commun. no. Commun. 8. pp. Kondo and L. L. 1999. no. G. pp. [268] B. 2002. pp. Milstein. Yuan. Kim. [264] I. vol. 2. F. 611–640. Kopka and P. vol.. vol. no. 6. P.. 2003. “Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplex Synchronization Techniques for Frequency-Selective Fading Channels. Hanzo. July 2001. L. Oct. “Performance Analysis of a Coded OFDM System in Time-Varying Multipath Rayleigh Fading Channel. Select. pp. Feb. pp. Keller and L.” IEEE J. A Guide to L TEX. Lett. 19. Kang. A. Kim. 16. Areas Commun. iii–2329–iii–2332. and H. “Proposal of Single Carrier OFDM Technique with Adaptive Modulation Method. [259] ——. 999–1008. and S. and Y.” in Proc. Areas Commun. Kaye. Jan. IEEE VTC. 52.” IEEE Trans. no. no. Eric. no.16.” IEEE Trans. 44. Maalouli. vol. vol. 23. Kim.” Proc. Sept. 1972. May 2005. Kim. [267] W. pp. 1999. 2004. .. May 2002. vol. 238–246. Kozek and A. R. pp. Jones. J.. 495–509. “Broadband Wireless Access Solutions Based on OFDM Access in IEEE 802. 1610–1615. 8. Hanzo. T. L.” IEEE J. 5. no. vol. vol. Select. pp. Powers. Select. 3. pp. 20. 96–103. 1996. IEEE. Takeuchi. Mandarini.. no. [258] D. Gifford. J. George. 5. 1590–1599. London: Addison-Wesley.

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

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

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

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

” IEEE Trans.. Dec. P. Broadcast. 52–62. 1985. “Digitally Phase Modulated (DPM) Signal. Merch´n. E. 2774–2478. “Impulse Response Shortening for Discrete Multitone Transceivers.” in Proc. and T. Pingali. 1998. no. J. Available: http://www.” IEE Electr. E. 1999. “Performance Analysis of Viterbi Decoding for 64-DAPSK and 64-QAM Modulated OFDM Signals. Mazo and J.” IEEE Trans. Commun. P. A. 1. Engels. pp. no. Biran. Mar.172 [325] M. 182–190.” IEEE Trans. May. 2. E. no. no. vol. 29. IEEE PIMRC. Oct. pp. no. no. Sept. Spruyt. 1998. Rohrs. 53–65. W.com/ [329] A.. “Decomposition of M -ary CPM Signals into PAM Waveforms. Salz. “Reducing the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in OFDM Radio Transmission Systems. [338] D. 418–419. 1977. “Spectral Properties of Single-Sideband Angle Modulation. J. 41. Wilkinson. 12.” in Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Domain-Specific Languages. 1968. [327] E. [330] T. 106–114. [331] T. Sept. 1. Commun.” IEEE Trans. 3. 49. and C. McDonnell and T. Melsa. Mestdagh. 1011–1020. [336] V. and J. 44. pp. 1995. pp. vol. G.. Morelli. and V.” IEEE Trans. Dec. 33. G. Nonlinearity. Menon and K. Rohling. [332] J. 23. pp. vol. Commun. Commun.” IEEE Trans. vol. Feb. 1088–1091. 15. [326] T. 1662–1672. [328] Mathematica. 1999. vol. Inform. vol. vol. 1265–1275. May and H.. vol. M. Inform. 16. Masry.” IEEE Trans. “A Multicarrier System Based on the Fractional Fourier Transform for Time–Frequency-Selective Channels. vol. 9. no.” IEEE Trans. IEEE VTC. “Distortionless Demodulation of Narrow-Band Single-Sideband Angle Modulated Signals. A. pp.” in Proc. Maseng. Armada. 1996. Mattsson. Broadcast. [335] U. Martone. pp. vol.. no. May 1998. Mengali and M. [Online]. 45. T. Rohling. no. 5. Sept. Theory. Lett. 44. Theory. 6.. 5. Austin. pp. 3. L. H. “A Case for Source-Level Transformations in MATLAB. Ottawa.wolfram. no. 1996. 582–591. 1354–1355. pp. [333] J.” IEEE Trans. R. Feb. pp. Commun. June 2001. pp. [337] S. “Comparison of Computational Complexity of Adaptive Equalization and OFDM for Indoor Wireless Networks. vol.. . 4. G. Technol. M. Dittmer.. “Comments on: “Reduction of peak-to-average power ratio of OFDM system using a companding technique”. pp. [334] P. Mendenhall. 46. 911–918. July 1993. and B. vol. “Effect of Amplitude Clipping in DMT-ADSL Transceivers. Younce. pp. Garc´ “OFDM Performance in Amplifier a ıa. C.

E. “On the Peak Factors of Sampled and Continuous Signals. [342] V.” IEEE Trans. Morello. Commun. Apr. no. 1996.” IEEE Trans. Lett. Mengali. Bhargava. 75–77. vol. “An Improved Frequency Offset Estimator for OFDM Applications. Boston: [349] P. 33. “Nonlinearity in Frequency-Modulation Radio Systems Due to Multipath Propagation. Tellambura. C. 44. 2908–2914. Minn. 1234–1238. Mengali. Commun. no. and Waves and Electrons. Meyers. “Peak Power and Bandwidth Efficient Linear Modulation.” IEEE Commun. 1998. pp. M. “On Timing Offset Estimation for OFDM Systems. pp. no. N. Morelli. pp. Goossens. no. no. vol. D. Commun. O’Dea. 1960. 1975. Addison-Wesley. “A Method to Reduce the Probability of Clipping in DMT-Based Transceivers. K. 1999. 4. [347] H. 5. H. 1144–1151. 256–265. 7. Morelli and U. Dec. Mestdagh and P. 1. July 2000. R. “Performance of Noncoherent FSK and AM-FSK Systems with Postdetection Filtering. [350] P. vol. 9. 134–136. 1994.173 [339] D. Zeng. “Frequency Ambiguity Resolution in OFDM Systems. vol. The L TEXCompanion. . pp. Mar. M. [341] D. no. 4. Commun. L. Moose.. “A Technique for Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing Frequency Offset Correction. 42. 44. and M. Sept. Moose. pp. [351] M.. Milstein and M. “A COFDM-based Radio for HDR LOS Networked Communications. vol.R. 2004. pp. Geile.” IEEE Commun.” Proceedings of the I. Miller and R.” in Proc. A [348] F. 10. 139–144. [345] J. “The Role of AM-to-PM Conversion in Memoryless Nonlinear Systems.” IEEE Trans. 242–244. Roderick. 3. vol. Mittelbach and M. D’Andrea. [340] S. 12. 2.. J. Nov. 1996. [352] M. North. Minn. May 1946. pp. Oct. Oct. Spruyt. June 1999. 1639–1648. pp. vol. and V.. vol. [344] L. An Introduction to Statistical Communication Theory. C. 129–131. G. P. 1985.” IEEE Commun. Apr. [343] S. 2001. Lett.” IEEE Trans. “CD3-OFDM: A Novel Demodulation Scheme for Fixed and Mobile Receivers. IEEE ICC. Feb.” IEEE Commun. pp. J. 187–192.. Mignone and A. 10. 1300–1306. 4. H.. and V. 3. vol. Commun. K. pp. 2nd ed. Minkoff.” IEEE Trans. McGraw-Hill Book Company. T. [346] H. 4.. vol. pp. A. no. Middleton. Commun. no. pp. 2000.. Austin. 46.. no.. Lett. B. Lett. Bhargava. and U.” IEEE Trans.

723–728. 50. Giannakis. vol. [355] S. Mar. “Optimum Nyquist Windowing in OFDM Receivers. pp.. Jr. 2.. no. vol. [357] B. Nov. G. Giannakis. July 1981. Consumer Electron. 2001.174 [353] R. 1996. [356] S. Aug. 2002. no. 1997. 17. Commun. 42. 3. M..” u IEEE Trans. Apr. “256 QAM Modem for Multicarrier 400 Mbit/s Digital Radio. P. Select. Commun. G. Atlantic City. and S. Muschallik. pp. pp. Feb. vol. and P. Nakamura. 1994. 12. and P. “OFDM with reduced peak-to-average power ratio u by optimum combination of partial transmit sequences. 417–420.” IEEE Trans. “Improving an OFDM Reception using an Adaptive Nyquist Windowing. “Influence of RF Oscillators on an OFDM Signal. Wilson. 41.. Aikawa. Muquet.” IEEE Trans. vol. Nojima. “GMSK Modulation for Digital Mobile Radio Telephony. 259–269. . 2001. Aug. Mosier and R. 1. Aug.. H. no. 1987. no. “On the Use of a Cyclic Extension in OFDM. no. Signal Processing. Commun. vol. Dec. 11. pp. no. 30–44. Cimini. 50. Lett. “New phasing scheme of N -multiple carriers for reducing peak-to-average power ratio. de Courville. L. Wang. vol. Jan. no. [363] Y. “Kineplex. de Courville.. [359] K. pp. Areas Commun. Napolitano and C.” IEE Electr. June 1996.. J. and S. Y. 1382–1383. Spooner. 6–7. Oct. [361] ——.” IEEE Trans. 1725–1728. 664–668. 2136–2148. “Cyclic Prefixing or Zero Padding for Wireless Multicarrier Transmissions?” IEEE Trans. pp. 7. Saito. sac-5. [365] S. B. 1958. 3. Duhamel. [360] C.. pp. pp. R. 368–369. [358] B.. Lett. Narahashi and T. Z. vol. [362] ——. IEEE VTC. “Turbo Demodulation of Zero-Padded OFDM Transmissions. 329–335. 49.” IEEE Trans. 3. G.” in Proc. pp. 49. com-29. Commun. “Improving an OFDM Reception Using an Adaptive Nyquist Windowing. 1995. 2001. pp. 3. Jan.” IEEE Trans. “Cyclic Spectral Analysis of Continuous-Phase Modulated Signals. vol. M¨ ller and J.” IEEE J.” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Consumer Electronics. 76. 2002. no. 1044–1050. pp. [364] A. pp. M. 30. Murota and K. [354] R. Consumer Electron. Clabaugh. vol. Magniez. M¨ ller-Weinfurtner. vol. Duhamel. 33.” AIEE Trans. no. Morrison. 5. H.” IEE Electr. 592–603. M. K. Huber. B. vol.. no. Hirade. a Bandwidth-Efficient Binary Transmission System. vol. pp. Muquet.. B.

2. “Carrier tracking technique for OFDM signal transmission.” IEEE Commun. 3. 1194–1200. H. pp. Broadcast. Pacific Grove. 2.” IEEE Trans. 305–314. pp. 226–228. no. [377] ——. vol. [370] H. [375] ——. H. Nikopour and S. no. 2000. May 2005.. pp. 819–822. “Performance of Optimal and Suboptimal Detection for Uncoded OFDM System with Deliberate Clipping and Filtering. 47. [374] H. 2.” in Conference Record of the Asilomar Conference on Signals. 48. vol. Ng. [378] H. Lett. Theory. K. no. Stirling-Gallacher.” IEEE Trans. J. 32.. Sarkar. “Error Probabilities for Equicorrelated M -ary Signals Under Phase-Coherent and Phase-Incoherent Reception. pp.” IEEE Trans. June 2002. 2002. [372] A. 9. Jamali. vol. “On Decoding of Block Codes with Peak-Power Reduction in OFDM Systems. pp. vol. [373] A. 1055–1065. 4. 3. 2004. C. vol. Consumer Electron.” in Proc. Inform. Aug.” IEE Electr.. 1996. Commun. pp. 2047–2048. “Pilot Tone Selection for Channel Estimation in a Mobile OFDM System. vol. Fossorier. Imai. Cioffi. 899–903. Sept. P. [369] Y. Nov. Negi and J. Neugebauer. Dec.. T. Lett.” IEEE Trans. Ochiai. Dubey. Wireless Commun. 22. A. Grant. “A Novel Trellis-Shaping Design With Both Peak and Average Power Reduction for OFDM Systems. 1618–1622. 123–128. Ng and V.. pp. 5. Ford. K. 5. Aug. IEEE Globecom. IEEE VTC.” IEEE Trans. Ochiai. “Power Efficiency Comparison of OFDM and Single-Carrier Signals. vol.” IRE Trans. 1998. “On the Performance of OFDM Systems Over a Cartesian Clipping Channel: A Theoretical Approach. Commun. vol.” in Proc. 8. 52. Nuttall. 2003. 6. Ready. M. Lidsheim. Nov. 2083–2096. pp. 2003. no. Wireless Commun. and R. Sept. G. vol. vol. M. vol.. “A Discrete-Time Method of Demodulating Large Deviation FM Signals. no. July 1962.” IEEE Commun. H. pp. 2004.” IEEE Trans. 1999.175 [366] R. “Characterization of Multipath-Distorted and Frequency-Discriminated CPM Signals. Nikookar and K. . “Performance Analysis of Peak Power and Band-Limited OFDM System With Linear Scaling. Systems and Computers. CA. pp.. pp. [368] W. [371] H. no. 2. Noga and T. pp. 1122–1128. pp. “Analysis of PCC-OFDM Systems for General Time-Varying Channel. and M. 11. no. 44.. “Random Phase Updating Algorithm for OFDM Transmission With Low PAPR. vol. July 2000. 8. 394–396. 1916–1926. S. Oct. Lett. [367] S. vol.. [376] ——. and H. P. 7. 3. no. no.

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

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

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

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

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

” IEEE Trans. Nov. Feb. [451] H. Tellado.-B. pp. A. and J. no. . Saltzberg. Jin.-J. IEEE ICC. vol. vol.” in Proc.. D. M. June 2001. “Performance of an Efficient Parallel Data Transmission System. 13.. Sandberg and M. “Dummy Sequence Insertion (DSI) for PAPR Reduction in the OFDM communication System. Feb. “A New PAPR Reduction Scheme: SPW (Subblock Phase Weighting). no. 2002. Saeedi. [458] G. 1–5. com-15. Santella.-G. Stockholm. pp. 1. pp. Veh. Dec. Karam. B. pp. Tzannes. no. Marvasti. 6. vol.” in Proc. Lee.-G. pp. vol. Jan. Sablatash. vol.” IEEE Trans. Mazzenga. Ryu and K. 805–811. 81–89. Sharif. “An Analysis of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing for Mobile Radio Applications. vol. 1994. 17–22.” IEEE J.” IEEE Trans. Dec. June 1994.-I. 2004. 48. Youn.” IEEE Commun. Commun. and F. A. no.” IEEE Trans. [457] S. 11. 49. Feb. Jeanclaude. pp. 102–121. Sari.. 40. Feb. IEEE VTC. 2. pp... pp. 1571–1585. pp. 2. 9. Nov. 254–275.-G. 50.. [454] A. Broadcast. “Overlapped Discrete Multitone Modulation for High Speed Copper Wire Communications.-E. [456] A. Santella and F. pp. vol. and I. “Transmission of All-Digital Advanced Television: State of the Art and Future Directions. 1715–1720. no. 2002. [459] G. Kim. Ryu. 175–178. “Frequency-Domain Equalization of Mobile Radio and Terrestrial Broadcast Channels. “Clipping Noise Cancellation in OFDM Systems Using Oversampled Signal Reconstruction. June 1994. Technol.. 2000. Ryu. Consumer Electron. 1. 6. no.” IEEE Trans. Technol. J. pp. IEEE Globecom.. vol. [453] H. Consumer Electron. M. “PAPR Reduction Using Soft Clipping and ACI Rejection in OFDM System. [460] H. 29. and J.-S. “A Hybrid Analytical-Simulation Procedure for Performance Evaluation in M-QAM-OFDM Schemes in Presence of Nonlinear Distortions.. San Francisco. Helsinki. 1635–1639. 47. pp.” IEEE Trans.” in Proc. [450] H. Salvekar. Park. and I. vol. G. no. Feb. vol. 142–151. J. Lett. Technol. 1967. Consumer Electron. pp. Commun. no. 48.181 [449] H. Areas Commun.. C. [455] B.” IEEE Trans. 1981. 73–75. Saleh. [452] M. [461] ——. 2002. 89–94.” IEEE Trans. no. 1. 1995. A. Select. “Peak-to-average power ratio reduction for block transmission systems in the presence of transmit filtering. vol. vol. 1. 1. 1. R. Veh. 1998. no. 3. “A Frequency and Symbol Synchronization System for OFDM Signals: Architecture and Simulation Results. “Frequency-Independent and Frequency-Dependent Nonlinear Models of TWT Amplifiers. Aldana. Cioffi.

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

. J. vol. Simon and M. 429–432. Digital Communication over Fading Channels. 90–100. S. Eevelt. 36. pp. Song and S.” in Proc. K. “Capacity of Single Carrier Systems With Frequency-Domain Equalization. 127–136. Jan. [482] S. [478] S. “Rayleigh Fading Channels in Mobile Digital Communication System.” IEEE Trans.” IEEE Commun. 1996. Barton. Orriss. June 2004. 1993.” IEEE Commun. pp.” in Proc. 31. “A Novel OFDM Receiver with Second Order Polynomial Nyquist Window Function. Shi. Theory.. no. Commun. . “Asymptotic Limits in Peak Envelope Power Reduction by Redundant Coding in Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplex Modulation. W. Part II: Mitigation. vol. K. [487] B. J. pp.-K. [484] M. “The COFDM modulation system: the heart of digital audio broadcasting. May 2005. pp. J. no. “Efficient Data Detection Algorithms in o Signal. pp. [481] T. Cho. 623–627. pp. 95–97. Barton.” IEEE Trans. vol. 1. S.. and S. W.-H. Shelswell. and Y. no. Sinn. V.-S. pp. 2000. 5.” IEEE Commun. Haardi. and T.. Lett. Atlantic City. pp. Shi. no. 42. May 2002. G¨tze. 1848–1851. IEEE CAS Symp. no. July 1997.-H. and M. 1. IEEE ICASSP.” IEEE Commun.. “Simple coding scheme to reduce peak factor in QPSK multicarrier modulation.” IEE Electr. Jan. 90–98. 253–258.” in Proc. 3. iii–2737–iii–2740. Sklar. vol. Lett. Part I: Characterization. Oct. 2001. 14. 2. Yates. Inform.” IEEE Trans. “OFDM in Bandpass Nonlinearity. IEEE VTC. V. vol. [485] R. Bar-David. P. Sinha and R. 41. Leung.” IEEE Electron. J. pp. Paik. K. 1998. Consumer Electron. [480] Q. [486] C. Mar. J. Eng. 3. [479] S. J. Y. Lett. 5–10. C. 9. July 1997. Wyatt-Millington.. 46. D. “On the Capacity Penalty Due to Input-Bandwidth Restrictions with an Application to Rate-Limited Binary Signaling. New York: John Wiley & Sons. and S. (Shitz) and I. 391–393.183 [477] P. vol. no. Shepherd.. 3.. Commun. pp. Alouini. Divalar.. June 1995. 3. You. Shanghai. pp. pp. July 1995. Tao. Mag. pp.. Commun. [489] H. Simon and D. vol. “Rayleigh Fading Channels in Mobile Digital Communication System.-H. [483] M. Shepherd. 1131–1132. “Maximum-Likelihood Block Detection of Noncoherent Continuous Phase Modulation. vol. “Performance of Multicarrier MFSK in Fading Channels.” IEEE Trans. [490] R. Mag.-S. Song.. [488] ——. “Frequency-Offset Synchronization and Channel Estimation for OFDM-Based Transmission. 2000. Zhou. 4. vol. Inc.and Multi-Carrier Systems without the Necessity of a Guard Period. 3. May 1990. no. 102–109. Aug. vol.

[492] M. L. 1986. no. Steendam and M. Mag.. 881–883. 2002. Felstead.” IEEE J. 80. Apr. no. 2001. vol. vol. 1976.184 [491] E. no. [493] A. 2451–2464. Communication Systems Engineering Theory. vol. G.” IEEE J. Technol. 23. Sun. Oct. Commun. 2000. Stantchev and G. Meyr. 50. Nov.. “Sensitivity of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexed systems to carrier and clock synchronization errors.” IEEE Commun. Sundberg. pp. no. 4. Commun. 46. pp. C. Select. 1811–1819. Apr. E. Commun. vol.” IEEE Trans. and B. 2623–2627. and H. Stamoulis. “Bandwidth-Efficient Wireless OFDM. “The Effect of Carrier Phase Jitter on the Performance of Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiple-Access Systems. “Guest Editorial: Advances in Military Wireless Communications. M.” Signal Processing. pp. July 2000. Fock. Mar. Al-Dhahir. vol. “Discrete Estimation of Continuous Angle-Modulated Signals Over Multipath Channels for Aeronautical Communication. vol. Gupta. Nov. Sadler. 19. [500] C. Svensson and A. D.” in Proceedings of The 5th International Symposium on Wireless Personal Multimedia Communications. pp. 11. Wiley & Sons. May 2005. Speth. 2003. Sept. [501] E. 3. IEEE VTC. Fettweis. and N. Steendam. Apr. 1996.” IEEE Trans. Commun. Fechtel. Sari. “Performance of Orthogonal Multicarrier CDMA in a Multipath Fading Channel. 4. “Constrained Envelope Continuous Phase Modulation. vol. pp. pp. D. 356–367.. “Intercarrier Interference in MIMO OFDM. vol. 2003. Oct. pp. . New York: John [502] T. 312–314. “Analysis and Optimization of the Performance of OFDM on Frequency-Selective Time-Selective Fading Channels. 2267–2278. 5. Inc. pp. [499] Y. S.. vol. no.. Diggavi. Svensson. vol. S. no. Areas Commun. Commun. [504] G... pp. E. [497] ——. no. M. 4. Moeneclaey. 1668–1677.” IEEE Trans. Nakagawa. Sourour and M. Sunde. 11. 47.” IEEE Commun. Nonaeker.. “Continuous Phase Modulation. 25–37.” IEEE Trans. [498] H. Dec. 9. Lett.” IEEE Trans. vol. Takhar and S. no. no. 24. 1998... and H.-E. Mar. 1969. A. pp. 47. “Time-Variant Distortions in OFDM. [496] H. pp. 4. 1217–1229. vol. 1999. A. “Optimum Receiver Design for Wireless Broad-Band Systems Using OFDM–Part I. 7. 12. vol. Moeneclaey. 456–459. [494] B. Select. “Multi-Pulse Continuous Phase Modulation. 3. no. 1999. 365–374. 3. 24. Stark. [503] ——. 44. B. pp. 981–985. Areas Commun.” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing.” in Proc. 10. no. pp. N. [495] W. S.

2003. Tellado. no. 1608–1609. [506] J. St¨ ber. “Upper bound on peak factor of n-multiple carriers. Tarokh and H. 2. pp. 80–81. R.. 2002. Tarokh and H. Aug. Jafarkhani. K. no. pp. “Crest Factor Minimisation in FDM PSK Systems. Jan. 5. no. 38. no. 1137–1139. “OFDM-CPM Signals.” IEEE Trans. “Phase optimisation criterion for reducing peak-to-average power ratio in OFDM. no. vol. 218–228. Theory. vol. 2. [508] V. no. “Efficient Algorithms for Reducing PAR in Multicarrier Systems. M. [516] ——. vol. 1. 13. M. Inform. vol.” IEE Electr. Feb.” IEE Electr. Lett.” IEE Electr. “Use of m-sequences for OFDM peak-to-average power ratio reduction. [511] ——. Commun. 1. Anaheim. 51.. Tellambura. [519] C.” IEEE Commun. and S. 169–170. “Computation of the Continuous-Time PAR of an OFDM Signal with BPSK Subcarriers.. Jan. no. T.” IEEE Trans. Lett. 191. “Detection of OFDM-CPM Signals over Multipath Channels. pp. 859–861. vol. Commun.” IEE Electr.” in Proc. 48. 1998.. 34.. 1646. “Constant Envelope Multi-Carrier Modulation. “Frequency-Offset Estimation for HIPERLAN. 185–187. 47. Commun. 1998.” IEE Electr. IEEE Intern. vol. vol. 33. “PAPR Reduction of OFDM Signals using Multiamplitude CPM. pp. 1999. Guo. Y.” IEEE Trans. pp. I. 34. [509] I. Lett. Lett. vol.. 51. Tan and G. M. Cioffi. no. pp. no. 1998. K. Lett. May 2001. 3. 26. pp. Johnson. Barton. . 2002. IEEE ICC. Tasadduq and R. Tellambura. p. vol. [514] C. pp. A. 15.” IEEE Trans.” IEE Electr. 33. 2002.” in u Proc. Cioffi. no. Some. “Construction of OFDM M -QAM Sequences with Low Peak-to-Average Power Ratio. 1997.185 [505] B. Lett.” IEE Electr. “Maximum-Likelihood Detection of Nonlinearly Distorted Multicarrier Symbols by Iterative Decoding.. Tan and Y. 607–611. vol. [518] ——. 2000. [513] J. pp. 8. [515] ——. vol.. 25–28. vol. vol. Sympo. Jan. Rao. C. Aug. IEEE Milcom. Sadjadpour. L. Oct. July 1997. 1651–1655. Jan.. “On the Computation and Reduction of the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in Multicarrier Communications. 19. Commun. [512] J. vol. Lett. Cambridge. K. pp. 17. 2003.” in Proc. [510] ——. [517] ——. L. 2. J. Lett. p. Tellado and J. 1990. pp. 16. Sept. “Comment: Multicarrier transmission peak-to-average power reduction using simple block code. and J. no. Aug.. [507] B. R. 1300–1301.. Aug. 915–917. pp. 37–44. pp. 38.. Hoo. 1. May 2002.

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

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

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

380–394. Areas Commun. 4. 2004. Wan and V. 2003. and C. Fazel. T. and G. 2003. Commun.” IEEE Trans. May 2005. Beijing. [572] Z. Wu. 5. vol. Mar. Dec. Broadcast. T. “Robust Channel Estimation and ISI Cancellation for OFDM Systems With Suppressed Features. vol. “Automatic Equalization Using the Discrete Frequency Domain. Viterbo and K. 2004. vol. Wang. Ho.” IEEE J. Wang and S.. 4. 5. “Compensation of Nonlinear Distortions with Memory Effects in OFDM Transmitters. no. R. Theory.. Zeidler. 2305–2309.189 [562] E. [569] X. 23.” IEEE Commun. J. “Performance Analysis of High QAM OFDM System Over Frequency Selective Time-Varying Fading Channel. “How to combat long echos in OFDM transmission schemes: Sub-channel equalization or more power channel coding. pp. 3. no. Sept. T. 45. pp. 1408–1412.” IEEE Trans. and Y. “OFDM or Single-Carrier Block Transmissions?” IEEE Trans. . 303–307.” in Proc. pp. [566] T. Sept. 5. “On the SER and Spectral Analyses of A-Law Companding Multicarrier Modulation. vol. K. “Replay to the Comments on: “Reduction of peak-to-average power ratio of OFDM system using a companding technique”. “Reduction of Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of OFDM Systems using a Companding Technique. 1999. pp. and J. Tjhung. 707–720.. Proakis. 963–972. 3. 2069–2074. D. Wu. pp. Giannakis. 49.” in Proc. 2003. [570] ——. “BER Performance of OFDM System Over Frequency Nonselective Fast Ricean Fading Channels. X. B.” IEEE Trans. vol. 4. vol. vol. [565] N.” IEEE Signal Processing Mag. Theory. no. 793–798. Giannakis. Sept.. Inform. “Power Loading for CP-OFDM over Frequency-Selective Fading Channels. Tjhung. vol. IEEE Globecom. 3. Wang. Wang and J. Wang. vol.” IEEE Trans. Wang. T. [564] L. pp. [568] X. Jan. Inform. [571] X. Select. Broadcast. Wang and G. 420–423. 52. Dec. Technol. “Wireless Multicarrier Communications: Where Fourier Meets Shannon. S. P. Blostein. 19–21. pp. 1973. 1. Nov. [563] T. Dec. Ma. no. [573] ——. 2001. [574] Z. Lett. 29–47. G. pp. and Y.” IEEE Trans. 45. no. Dubey. Wang. May 2000. no.” in Proc. “Complex-Field Coding for OFDM Over Fading Wireless Channels. 1995. 1. vol. 1999. IEEE Globecom. 2003. [567] T. 52. 3. 2398–2403... Mar.” in Proc. no. B. IEEE Globecom. Walzman and M. pp. pp. IT-19. Ng. Veh.. Jan. pp. pp. vol. Schwartz. IEEE PIMRC. 59–68. Ilow. pp. no.

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

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

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

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

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

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful