performance comparison of new waveforms applied …
TRANSCRIPT
Université de Mons
[1] V. Vakilian, T. Wild, F. Schaich, S.T. Brink and J-F. Frigon, "Universal-Filtered Multi-Carrier technique for wireless systems beyond LTE", Globecom workshop, 2013.[2] A-C Honfoga, T. T. Nguyen, M. Dossou and V. Moeyaert, “Application of FBMC to DVB-T2: a comparison vs classical OFDM transmissions,” IEEE GlobalSIP conference, 2019.[3] European Broadcasting Union, “Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); implementation guidelines for a second generation digital terrestrial television broadcasting system (DVB-T2),” ETSI TS 102 831 V1.2.1, 2012.
REFERENCES
PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF NEW WAVEFORMS APPLIED TODVB-T2 TRANSMISSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Anne-Carole Honfoga
Electromagnetism and Telecommunications Department
University of Mons, Mons, Belgium
SYSTEM IMPLEMENTED, METHOD AND PARAMETERS
THEORICAL BACKGROUND
OFDM
System implemented Simulation parameters Fading channel, method
Waveforms PSD Discussions
CONTEXT ACHIEVEMENTS OF THIS WORK
Anne-Carole HONFOGA ([email protected])
FILTERED BASED WAVEFORMS COMPARISONUFMC FBMC
BER after LDPC decoder
Michel DossouLETIA (of Polytech,Sch,of Abomey-Calavi)
University of Abomey-Calavi, Calavi, Benin
Digital Video Broadcasting – Terrestrial_second-generation (DVB-T2) is theEuropean terrestrial digital broadcasting standard which presents a high flexibilityand performance (when compared to the first-generation DVB-T).
DVB-T2 system has been the object of many research during the last decade.
Improvement of DVB-T2 system performance by substituting OrthogonalFrequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) waveform by proposed 5G waveforms,Universal Filtered Multicarrier (UFMC) and Filter Bank Multicarrier (FBMC).
Choice of the 5G waveform more effective for DVB-T2 transmission.
Véronique Moeyaert
Electromagnetism and Telecommunications Department
University of Mons, Mons, Belgium
S/P
conversion
P/S
conversion
Inverse Fast
Fourier
Transform
(IFFT)
CP
adding
P/S
conversionChannel
Fast Fourier
Transform
(FFT)
CP
cancelingP/S
conversion
AWGN
Complex
symbols
Input
signal
Complex
symbols
Output
signalSub-
channel
equalizer
+
IFFT
N
.
.
.
.
.
Filter 2 ∑ Channel
+ AWGN
S/P
S/PZeros
Padding
FFT
2N
Down
Sampling
2
P/SComplex
symbols
Sub-
channel
equalizer
Filter 1
Filter B
IFFT
N
IFFT
N
.
.
S/P
S/P
Input
signal Complex
symbols
Input
signal Complex
symbols
Input
signal Complex
symbols
.
...
S/P
conversion
Inverse Fast
Fourier Transform
(IFFT)
Polyphase
Network
(PPN)
P/S
conversion
Offset – Quadrature
Amplitude
Modulation (O-
QAM)/ Pre-
processing
Synthesis Filter Bank (SFB)
Channel
Input
signal
P/S
conversion
Fast
Fourier
Transform
(FFT)
Polyphase
Network
(PPN)
S/P
conversion
Offset – Quadrature
Amplitude
Modulation (O-
QAM)/ Post-
processing
AWGN+
Output
signal Sub-
channel
equalizer
Analysis Filter Bank (AFB)
Real
symbols
Real
symbols
Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT)/FFT
M subcarriers B sub-bands 2M subcarriers
Use of Cyclic Prefix (CP) Yes No No
Guard Band size Large Short No Guard Band
Prototype filter, Filter length Rectangular, Short Dolph-Chebychev, Very short PHYDYAS, Long
Filtering operation On the whole band Per sub-band Per subcarrier
FBMC and UFMC are compared to OFDM in DVB-T2 system in terms of spectral efficiency, Power Spectral Density (PSD), performance gain and complexity.
A compromise has been established between these criteria and shows that UFMC is the good compromise
The choice of FBMC in DVB-T2 system induces a high spectral efficiency and a better performance gain but with a cost of complexity
UFMC induces a medium spectral efficiency and a noticeable performance gain with a complexity comparable to that for OFDM Il is the best compromise
Random bits
generatorLDPC Encoder
QAM
Mapper
OFDM
(IFFT)
Cyclic Prefix
insertion
Fading
channel
Cyclic Prefix
deletion
OFDM
(FFT)
QAM
Demapper
LDPC
Decoder
BER BER
+ AWGN
FBMC and UFMC waveforms
substitution
Sub-Channel
equalizer
Zero Forcing CFIR 3 tapsUFMC
OFDM
FBMC
Parameters OFDM UFMC FBMC
M 1024|32768 1024|32768 1024|32768
Data sub-carriers 853|27841 936|29952 1024|32768
QAM 256-QAM 256-QAM 256-QAM
Code rate 3/5 3/5 3/5
Cyclic prefix 1/128|1/16 -- --
Overlapping factor -- -- 4
Filter length -- K*CP=64|256 K*2M=8192|262142
Sub-band number -- 4|128 --
Sub-band bandwidth -- 234 --
Side Lobe Level -- 40|60dB --
Typical Urban 6 channelis the channel whichemulates DVB-T2 urbanenvironment andincludes only a Non Lineof Sight (NLOS) path.
The waveforms PSD havebeen first simulated.
The BER after QAMdemapper and Low-Density Parity Check(LDPC) have beencomputed
UFMC presents the worst performance when sub-band number is very low and the filter length isvery long.
When the subcarrier and the sub-band number ishigh and the filter length is short, UFMCperformance becomes better than that for OFDM.
Both FBMC and UFMC are suitable for DVB-T2
FBMC outperforms OFDM for any subcarriernumber whereas UFMC outperforms OFDM forsome configuration parameters.
With FBMC, a multi-taps equalizer Complex FiniteImpulse Response (CFIR 3-taps) is needed to getthese performance whereas with UFMC, only zeroforcing equalizer used in OFDM is needed.
CFIR 3-taps are more complex than zero forcing.
FBMC outperforms UFMC which in turn outperforms OFDM. At a BER of 10−3, FBMC and UFMC outperform OFDM respectively by 1 dB and 1.2 dB SNR. UFMC cansubstitute OFDM with a high spectral efficiency (128% improvement) due to the CP cancellation, its little guard band and the performance gain obtained. FBMC cansubstitute OFDM with a high spectral efficiency (133% improvement) due to the CP cancellation, the absence of the guard band and the performance gain obtained. UFMCcould be the waveform suitable to DVB-T2 transmission due to the complexity of implementation which is comparable to that for OFDM.
Waveforms OFDM FBMC UFMC/ SLL 60 dB UFMC/ SLL 60 dB
BER 10−3 10−3 10−3 10−3
SNR 32 31 31 30.8